Re: [computer-go] On average how many boardupdates/sec cantop Goprograms do these days?
On Jan 15, 2008, at 11:05 PM, Harri Salakoski wrote: This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal for black that are big for white. If you don't let white play there, white can lose a lot of points. Connections through false eyes are one example. Yep agree that, knowing that it is not fair for other but kind of rationalized it that it is same for both players and there is half chance that other player tries it before. I kind of think that it keeps spirit of random result still because it is same for both players I think this is very wrong, like allowing suicide. If you allow (or forbid) moves that cannot really (should) be played in the random games you are not sampling the true status of the board. This is very different from null-move where one tries to get a lower estimate of the board position by allowing an extra move at the BEGINNING, but not during the playout. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] On average how many boardupdates/sec cantop Goprograms do these days?
On 16-jan-08, at 11:54, Christoph Birk wrote: I think this is very wrong, like allowing suicide. If you allow (or forbid) moves that cannot really (should) be played in the random games you are not sampling the true status of the board. I think most people take a much too dogmatic point of view on this issue either way. Maybe by allowing suicide you don't sample the true status, but does it statistically matter? If you hold this stand- point then you should also detect board repetitions. I bet most if not all only check for ko because checking for repetition is too time- consuming. My question would be, would choosing either way matter? If it matters you do something about it. If it doesn't matter you don't care. For me multiple suicide and board repetition fall in the category where they don't matter. The cases where it makes a difference are so few that you can play for a lifetime and encounter it maybe once or twice. Maybe with MC playouts it would make the game shorter when multiple-suicide is not allowed. If that's the case then that's a reason to do something about it. But even with MC I doubt you save more than a few moves on average. Not allowing to play on a point that was at some point illegal for one side does matter a lot. Groups with one (false) eye would be alive. So so I'm sure people won't use that. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] On average how many boardupdates/sec cantop Goprograms do these days?
Mark Boon wrote: On 16-jan-08, at 11:54, Christoph Birk wrote: I think this is very wrong, like allowing suicide. If you allow (or forbid) moves that cannot really (should) be played in the random games you are not sampling the true status of the board. I think most people take a much too dogmatic point of view on this issue either way. Maybe by allowing suicide you don't sample the true status, but does it statistically matter? If you hold this stand-point then you should also detect board repetitions. I bet most if not all only check for ko because checking for repetition is too time-consuming. It matters a lot. The biggest advance in MC has been modifying the play-outs so that they are not completely random - but instead tend to play more realistic moves.For instance my play-outs tries a random defense to an atari move. So it makes no sense to allow a move that is almost certainly horrible in the play-outs. Even if your group is dead, at least use your turn in a more productive way. This gives a more realistic picture of the value of a position statistically. Now it's a different issue whether the extra speed gained by not testing for suicide is worth the degradation of quality. But as you get into heavier play-outs, the time saved by heroic measures like allowing suicide becomes very minor because the majority of your time is spent judging moves and massaging the move list - steps that can be avoided if you are not picky about the moves allowed. So yes, you can get ridiculously fast play-outs if you throw out the baby with the bathwater, but you have to give up a lot of that speed if you want high quality Mogo-style play-outs. Board repetition detection is not in the same league as allowing suicide. 99.9% of the benefit of knowing about position superko is handled in the search tree where you CAN check for repetition. In the play-outs the advantage of testing for repetition is almost non-existent. Suicide on the other hand is a move that is almost certainly horrible. - Don My question would be, would choosing either way matter? If it matters you do something about it. If it doesn't matter you don't care. For me multiple suicide and board repetition fall in the category where they don't matter. The cases where it makes a difference are so few that you can play for a lifetime and encounter it maybe once or twice. Maybe with MC playouts it would make the game shorter when multiple-suicide is not allowed. If that's the case then that's a reason to do something about it. But even with MC I doubt you save more than a few moves on average. Not allowing to play on a point that was at some point illegal for one side does matter a lot. Groups with one (false) eye would be alive. So so I'm sure people won't use that. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] On average how many boardupdates/sec cantop Goprograms do these days?
This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal for black that are big for white. If you don't let white play there, white can lose a lot of points. Connections through false eyes are one example. Yep agree that, knowing that it is not fair for other but kind of rationalized it that it is same for both players and there is half chance that other player tries it before. I kind of think that it keeps spirit of random result still because it is same for both players, but I change it. t. Harri - Original Message - From: David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: 'computer-go' computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 8:56 AM Subject: RE: [computer-go] On average how many boardupdates/sec cantop Goprograms do these days? If a point is illegal for black, are you saying that black can never play at that point, or are you saying white can never play there? Or are you saying neither side can? Yep currently neither side can anymore use that point. This is a mistake. There are often moves that are illegal for black that are big for white. If you don't let white play there, white can lose a lot of points. Connections through false eyes are one example. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
