What is the current thinking on the correct komi for 9x9? Don
On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 9:02 AM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > Better terminology is, "approach perfect play" which I think is what was > meant when someone claimed "weakly solved." > Of course that is also an ambiguous phrase, but it probably captures the > intent of the statement more accurately. > > Suppose that at 6.5 komi black wins. If a computer wins the majority of > the games as black against humans we have evidence that the program is very > strong but we still don't know how strong the human players are so this does > not imply that the program is nearly perfect. > > However, if you take a candidate program that you believe is close to > perfect and it wins 95% (or some arbitrarily high percentage) of it's games > against itself when playing black (with 6.5 komi) then you have a much > stronger belief that you are approaching perfect play. Since this is no > proof, you cannot make any claims about the game being almost solved. > > Of course if such a strong player is based on massive opening book > engineering, choosing a different komi probably invalidates the book work > you have done so any claims much be based on a specific komi unless all > reckoning and play is based on maximizing points on the board, certainly a > much more difficult task. > > Don > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Álvaro Begué <[email protected]>wrote: > >> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Aja <[email protected]> wrote: >> > For Zen and CrazyStone, they might not be interested on 9x9, because >> 19x19 >> > is their arena. Mogo is maybe the best candidate. In the TAAI >> > conference last year in Taiwan, Olivier stated that Mogo will solve (or >> > weakly solve?) 9x9 by winning 4 out of 7 games against some top >> professional >> > player. >> > >> > Aja >> >> Ein? That's not what solving a game means. >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game >> >> Ąlvaro. >> >> >> > >> > >> > ----- Original Message ----- >> > From: Brian Sheppard >> > To: [email protected] ; 'Aja' >> > Sent: Wednesday, July 13, 2011 12:01 AM >> > Subject: RE: [Computer-go] 19x19 opening books >> > >> >>I think 9x9 go, even though compared to chess in complexity, is still >> more >> >> complex than chess and that the book will have a little less impact, >> >> although still a lot. >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > My projection is the opposite: I think that 9x9 will be "played out" >> within >> > 5 years. Not weakly solved, exactly, but close to it. Zen and CrazyStone >> > have the ability to start on that project already. >> > >> > >> > >> > My impression is that the opening books are routinely worth a few >> hundred >> > rating points in 9x9 CGOS. >> > >> > >> > >> > I would cite Valkyria, which has a version that is playing near the top >> of >> > the CGOS ladder most of the time. A comparable version was playing ~200 >> > rating points within the last year, and I suspect that the opening book >> > knowledge that comes from its long-term memory is the dominant >> contributor. >> > >> > >> > >> > I also cite the Little Golem server, which is dominated by programs that >> > have opening books. >> > >> > >> > >> > Based on the work of Mogo and Valkyria, I suspect that if you take a >> pretty >> > good player and create a feedback system then you get a great opening >> book. >> > With an effective branching factor of maybe 2 to 3, you can get pretty >> far >> > into the game. >> > >> > >> > >> > Brian >> > >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Computer-go mailing list >> > [email protected] >> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> > >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
