Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
Hi Erik, > The most important skill in this game might be in how accurately > you can throw your frisbee. Why take that out? > > Build real robots! agreed, but one step after the other. My tentative time table looks like follows (joking): 2016 Frisbee Go simulation in the Computer Olympiad (in Leiden) 2017 Frisbee Go simulations in the Computer Olympiad (with subdivisions for different move distributions) 2022 First Robot Competition (7x7 Go) of Frisbee Go in the Computer Olympiad 2025 Renaming the ICGA to IC(G+R)A: we should also host Robot table tennis and other games ;-) Back to reality (no joke): Some of you may remember the nice location in Leiden from 2015. In particular we had a grass area, sort of atrium. I will bring with me 81 frisbees (40 in White, 41 in a surprise color) for Frisbee Go as a human entertainment, and a net for the 9x9 board. Ingo. Erik On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote:Dear John, Dear Nick, Dear all, > > ... > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care > > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability > > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do > > better by aiming midway between them. > > But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points. > Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there. > > There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go, > so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence... John is exactly argumenting in my direction. Keep the rules set as simple as possible. Once a stable Frisbee Go simulation scene is established, people may build subscenes if they want. And of course, once Frisbee robot Go will be played in real, programmers will look at all possible tricks. Regards, Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org[Computer-go@computer-go.org] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go[http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go] ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
The most important skill in this game might be in how accurately you can throw your frisbee. Why take that out? Build real robots! ;-) Erik On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 4:42 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote: > Dear John, Dear Nick, Dear all, > > > > ... > > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't > care > > > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with > probability > > > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able > to do > > > better by aiming midway between them. > > > > But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points. > > Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there. > > > > There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go, > > so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence... > > John is exactly argumenting in my direction. > Keep the rules set as simple as possible. > > Once a stable Frisbee Go simulation scene is established, people > may build subscenes if they want. And of course, once Frisbee robot Go > will be played in real, programmers will look at all possible tricks. > > Regards, Ingo. > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
Dear John, Dear Nick, Dear all, > > ... > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care > > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability > > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do > > better by aiming midway between them. > > But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points. > Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there. > > There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go, > so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence... John is exactly argumenting in my direction. Keep the rules set as simple as possible. Once a stable Frisbee Go simulation scene is established, people may build subscenes if they want. And of course, once Frisbee robot Go will be played in real, programmers will look at all possible tricks. Regards, Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
You could express the intended move as a pair of real numbers. A random offset is then added, following some probability distribution (Gaussian, or uniform in a disk of a certain radius, or ...), and then the result is rounded to the nearest point of integer coordinates. What possibilities does this not cover? I like the idea of using Gaussian noise and handicapping games by assigning a larger variance to the stronger player. :) Álvaro. On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 10:27 AM, John Tromp wrote: > dear Nick, > > > There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my > > experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an > > intersection. > > > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care > > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with > probability > > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able > to do > > better by aiming midway between them. > > But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points. > Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there. > > There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go, > so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence... > > regards, > -John > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
dear Nick, > There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my > experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an > intersection. > > Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care > which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability > (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do > better by aiming midway between them. But then why stop there? You may also want to aim in between 4 points. Or perhaps just epsilon more toward the right of there. There's no accounting for all possibilities of real life frisbee Go, so we settle for the simplest rule that captures the esssence... regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
There's an assumption implicitly made here, which does not accord with my experience of frisbee Go: that the player will always aim at an intersection. Suppose I want to play on either of two adjacent points, and I don't care which. If I aim for one of them, I will land on one of them with probability (3p+1)/4, or whatever the formula says. I feel that I ought to be able to do better by aiming midway between them. Nick On 21 February 2016 at 00:09, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote: > Hello all, > > Has a consensus been reached about the rules/GTP modifications for > frisbee Go? I assume a genmove turns into a genmove_reg+play, but: > > 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of > bounds? > 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and > scoring phase? > 2. How are the play probabilities distributed? > > I don't remember this being settled, but maybe I've missed it. > > Gonçalo > > > PS: Late congratulations to Silver, Huang et al, and John Tromp. > PPS: My money is still on Lee Sedol. > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go -- Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
Hi all, > I don't remember if there was consensus, but can repeat my previous thoughts: > > > 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of > > bounds? > > Converted to involuntary pass. Agree. > Note that a throw must have some positive probability of converting into > a legal move. This way, infinitely long games have 0 probability. Agree. At least one of the 1+4 target squares has to allow placing a stone there. > > 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and > > scoring phase? > > No; only voluntary passes should. Otherwise games would most > likely end prematurely. Agree. > > 2. How are the play probabilities distributed? > > They're governed by a single parameter, the hit probability p. > You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability > (1-p)/4. > > I don't believe there's a single value of p that everyone likes best. > > One extreme p=1 is classical Go. The other extreme p=0 is guaranteed > to miss the target. Other natural choices are p=1/2 or p=1/5. > (Values in 1/2 < p < 1 seem a little dull to me). I would prefer p=0.5. And agreed again: p should not be too large. I will be in Leiden and am willing to operate one of the programs in Frisbee Go simulation. One of my students will likely also be there - and I will "motivate" him to operate another program in the competition. Regards, Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
Other disc games are golf and Ultimate, which is similar to soccer. Checkers seems like it would work, picking up one disc from the board and tossing it to the new location. As someone who has played disc golf for years, although Ultimate only twice, I’d rather see probabilities for nearest and next-nearest (diagonal) neighbors, but I understand keeping it simple for the first public tournament. Cheers David G Doshay ddos...@mac.com > On 20, Feb 2016, at 5:51 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote: > > I don't like it very much, simply selecting only from the valid > neighbors would simplify the rules and shorten the game, but I guess > maybe it does seem similar to what would happen in real life. Are there > other games played with frisbees? ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
I don't like it very much, simply selecting only from the valid neighbors would simplify the rules and shorten the game, but I guess maybe it does seem similar to what would happen in real life. Are there other games played with frisbees? Anyways I propose a frisbee-probability GTP command, it is the bare minimum to play this: frisbee-probability (optional) arguments float - Value between 0 and 1 effects Change the active probability of playing intended intersection. outputnone fails syntax error - fails if out of range probability value (< 0 or > 1); unable to change - fails if invoked in the middle of the game comments Programs that only support probability 1.0 should not include this command in their list_commands output. Sounds about right? It should be the only change necessary for GTP to start supporting the frisbee. Gonçalo On 21/02/2016 01:18, John Tromp wrote: > I don't remember if there was consensus, but can repeat my previous thoughts: > >> 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of >> bounds? > > Converted to involuntary pass. > Note that a throw must have some positive probability of converting into > a legal move. This way, infinitely long games have 0 probability. > >> 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and >> scoring phase? > > No; only voluntary passes should. Otherwise games would most > likely end prematurely. > >> 2. How are the play probabilities distributed? > > They're governed by a single parameter, the hit probability p. > You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability > (1-p)/4. > > I don't believe there's a single value of p that everyone likes best. > > One extreme p=1 is classical Go. The other extreme p=0 is guaranteed > to miss the target. Other natural choices are p=1/2 or p=1/5. > (Values in 1/2 < p < 1 seem a little dull to me). > > regards, > -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go
I don't remember if there was consensus, but can repeat my previous thoughts: > 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of > bounds? Converted to involuntary pass. Note that a throw must have some positive probability of converting into a legal move. This way, infinitely long games have 0 probability. > 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and > scoring phase? No; only voluntary passes should. Otherwise games would most likely end prematurely. > 2. How are the play probabilities distributed? They're governed by a single parameter, the hit probability p. You hit the target with prob. p, and its 4 neighbours with probability (1-p)/4. I don't believe there's a single value of p that everyone likes best. One extreme p=1 is classical Go. The other extreme p=0 is guaranteed to miss the target. Other natural choices are p=1/2 or p=1/5. (Values in 1/2 < p < 1 seem a little dull to me). regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
[Computer-go] Frisbee Go
Hello all, Has a consensus been reached about the rules/GTP modifications for frisbee Go? I assume a genmove turns into a genmove_reg+play, but: 1. What happens with plays unintentionally on top of stones or out of bounds? 1.1 If converted to passes, do they count towards end of play and scoring phase? 2. How are the play probabilities distributed? I don't remember this being settled, but maybe I've missed it. Gonçalo PS: Late congratulations to Silver, Huang et al, and John Tromp. PPS: My money is still on Lee Sedol. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hi Ingo, Thanks, yes I see it is good to keep it simple to begin with, not least, to encourage entrants that it is not a big hurdle. Due to the lack of definite answer to "what epsilon?" the core idea was simply that if you keep epsilon small, then the restriction you made about only displacing by one, and no diagonal displacement, would not be inconsistent with the real world. On the other hand, a large epsilon would be an immediate deviation from real frisbee go (given the displacement restriction). Also, I suspect that if epsilon is large the skill in the game will be much lower than if it is zero, but somewhere inbetween, maybe there will be an epsilon that requires more skill than either extreme. It am a fairly weak player, but it seems to me that the tactical side of the game is vital and would easily be lost. I can see that if the tournament is 9x9,0.017 does seem too small; having only a 75% chance of a miss once per game may be a bit pointless! Anyway, it was just a thought. It's great to see that David has a version of Many Faces that will play - all the best with the tournament. Regards Raffles On 19-Nov-15 13:25, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Hello Raffles, ... Since this is based on a real world variant of Go, why not base epsilon on that? ... In "true Frisbee Go" many more aspects may be taken into account: * During the first moves one may learn how good the throwing skills of the opponent are... * weather (and wind) may play a role in outdoor play * a player may deliberately throw weakly in the beginning to lead the opponent to wrong conclusions * players may be allowed to use "moving robots" who can change the place from where they throw ... The Frisbee Go Simulation is meant to leave all these sophistications outside (at least in 2016). Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go - No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7227 / Virus Database: 4460/11042 - Release Date: 11/21/15 ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hello Raffles, > ... Since this is based on a real world variant of Go, why not base epsilon > on that? ... In "true Frisbee Go" many more aspects may be taken into account: * During the first moves one may learn how good the throwing skills of the opponent are... * weather (and wind) may play a role in outdoor play * a player may deliberately throw weakly in the beginning to lead the opponent to wrong conclusions * players may be allowed to use "moving robots" who can change the place from where they throw ... The Frisbee Go Simulation is meant to leave all these sophistications outside (at least in 2016). Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hi Josef, > ... I think that we do not need to ensure that the stone cannot land > diagonally > by small epsilon, since ingo defined it s.t. it cannot. Exactly. "Frisbee Go Simulation" is not meant a realistic simuilation of true Frisbee Go, but as an abstract testbed for a Go variant with random elements. > Having small epsilon as you suggest makes any attempts at writing a > specialized > frisbee-go code not really fruitful, since the displacement is quite rare; so > realistically, with small epsilon, no-one would probably bother to do > anything > different than to run current programs unchanged. Right. In particular, the idea is to play on 9x9 board in the Olympiad 2016. > ... Moreover, larger epsilons change the game's dynamic s.t. it is easier to > live > and harder to kill (hypothesis). Another thing is that the MCTS might work > much > better with this setting (since random playouts are much more true). I want to challenge this. From other games with random elements (for instance "EinStein wurfelt nicht") it is known that specialized algorithms are much better than simple adaptions of MCTS. > ingo: One note for rules (you should add) is that when players throw stone > to a location where the probability of landing on a valid location is exactly > zero (all 5 positions are stones or invalid) this counts as a pass > (otw, the loosing party might play the "non-voluntary pass" moves and make > the game infinite. (sorry if I overlooked someone mentioning this already) ... SUch problems were the reason for my original formulation: not differentiating between intended and unintended passes. Stop of phase 1 after two consecutive passes. Completion of the game in normal Go mode in phase 2. * By the way. Michael Hartisch (from the Ulf Lorenz group at Siegen U) proposed to have in the Olympiad one "Frisbee Go Simulation" participant which is a normal Go bot. This bot will likely not win a medal, but its performance may show how different (and difficult) Frisbee Go Simulation is from normal Go. Regards, Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hi David, hi all, thanks for all the constructive feedback. I will reply later in detail. We are in Berlin. When returning to the hotel shortly past midnight, the hungarian flag was at halfmast. Then we saw the terrible news from Paris. Berlin is suffering vicariously with the people in Paris. Ingo. Gesendet: Samstag, 14. November 2015 um 04:55 Uhr Von: fotl...@smart-games.com An: computer-go@computer-go.org Betreff: Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation Attached is a frisbee go game 9x9 between me and a Chines 5-dan amateur. 50% chance of playing in the intended spot. When a connection is required, it is just up to chance who wins the fight. It's a little silly, but was a lot of fun to play. David On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:51 +0100, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote: Hmm. > >> Would the game end after two unintentional passes? > > > Good point. In principle I would say so. > > That makes little sense to me. > IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes > end the game. We should have some test games to see how long a game would be "typically" stretched by unintended passes. Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Attached is a frisbee go game 9x9 between me and a Chines 5-dan amateur. 50% chance of playing in the intended spot. When a connection is required, it is just up to chance who wins the fight. It's a little silly, but was a lot of fun to play. David On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 23:13:51 +0100, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Hmm. >> Would the game end after two unintentional passes? > Good point. In principle I would say so. That makes little sense to me. IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes end the game. We should have some test games to see how long a game would be "typically" stretched by unintended passes. Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go frisbee.sgf Description: application/go-sgf ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
> > (effectively) zero. Therefore epsilon should be pretty tiny. It must be > large enough that there is a chance of the frisbee being at least 50% over > the line (i.e. epsilon > 0), but small enough that the chance of it going > 70.7% over the line is vanishingly small (otherwise we would be allowing it > to be displaced onto the diagonally adjacent positions). > I do not understand, I think that we do not need to ensure that the stone cannot land diagonally by small epsilon, since ingo defined it s.t. it cannot. Having small epsilon as you suggest makes any attempts at writing a specialized frisbee-go code not really fruitful, since the displacement is quite rare; so realistically, with small epsilon, no-one would probably bother to do anything different than to run current programs unchanged. I think that frisbee-go is much interesting for larger epsilons - e.g. 1/8, 1/6 - because it has nontrivial strategical/tactical implications. For instance, seki are no longer sekis in this setting, since the loosing party can always improve its expected outcome by trying to be lucky, and therefore the winning side can do the same (of course sometimes this is quite like starting the "1 year ko"). Also when the game ends each dame is essentially assigned "randomly", so under chinese rules score can "change randomly". Moreover, larger epsilons change the game's dynamic s.t. it is easier to live and harder to kill (hypothesis). Another thing is that the MCTS might work much better with this setting (since random playouts are much more true). ingo: One note for rules (you should add) is that when players throw stone to a location where the probability of landing on a valid location is exactly zero (all 5 positions are stones or invalid) this counts as a pass (otw, the loosing party might play the "non-voluntary pass" moves and make the game infinite. (sorry if I overlooked someone mentioning this already) Regards, Josef ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
If this catches on, perhaps the rules will be referred to as the Ingo rules ;-) Since this is based on a real world variant of Go, why not base epsilon on that? The fact that the limit of displacement from the intended position is limited to the immediately adjacent points, suggests that the thrower is pretty accurate. The distribution is narrow enough that the chance of going further afield is (effectively) zero. Therefore epsilon should be pretty tiny. It must be large enough that there is a chance of the frisbee being at least 50% over the line (i.e. epsilon > 0), but small enough that the chance of it going 70.7% over the line is vanishingly small (otherwise we would be allowing it to be displaced onto the diagonally adjacent positions). Assuming a Gaussian distribution (probably not true for frisbees but it will do) and assuming 3 standard deviations away is close enough to "vanishingly small", we have 3.sigma = 0.7071... (sqrt(0.5)), sigma = 0.2357 (sqrt(0.5)/3), tipping point for throw being >50% over the line t.sigma = 0.5, t = 0.5 / sigma = 3.sqrt(0.5) = 2.12 => epsilon = 0.017, approximately 1 in 60. Looking at this from a purely combinatorial point of view,t we need 1/epsilon > number-of-moves-in-a-game but 1/epsilon^2 << number-of-moves-in-a-game, which 0.017 seems to satisfy for all common board sizes. Hopefully such a small epsilon also avoids destroying the possibility of local tactical play but also introduces a new element to the game (75% chance of at least once displaced move in 81 move game, over 99% chance of at least one displaced move in a 361 move game). In fact to model the real world, epsilon ought to vary depending on the move. It should increase depending on distance from throwing position, and should not be equal for N,S,E and W displacement. Assuming standing south of the board, we expect epsilon N > S > E = W (range is normally harder to judge than direction and overthrows tend to be worse than under-throws). It seems to me this may bring in interesting elements to move choice - it may be better to play a weaker move which is closer and therefore more likely to be played successfully than a stronger move which is less likely to be played successfully. But perhaps this over complicates things - how does it work out with fixed epsilon around 0.017. Raffles On 11-Nov-15 15:29, Álvaro Begué wrote: 1/5 also seems natural (equal chance of hitting each the 5 possible points). Álvaro. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM, John Trompwrote: > By the way: It would also be necessary to decide about > the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be > eps=0.1 or eps=0.125. I would say the 2 most interesting choices are 1/8 or 1/4. The latter guarantees you miss your aim by distance 1, while the former gives you an even chance to hit it. -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7163 / Virus Database: 4457/10958 - Release Date: 11/06/15 ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hi David, thanks for the experiment and the "report". Can you give some more info, for instance a game (sgf?!) with comments? What was the eps in your experiment(s)? Cheers, Ingo. PS. I have found two volunteers who are willing to operate Frusbee Go simulation bots in the 2016 Olympiad in Leiden. One of the two volunteers is reserved for David. Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2015 um 02:15 Uhr Von: fotl...@smart-games.com An: computer-go@computer-go.org Betreff: Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation Yesterday I modified Many Faces to play Frisbee go an played a few games with some other people at the Beijing Computer go tournament. It's a very strange game. If there is interest I can make an installer and make it available for free. Josef Moudrik is also writing a program. David On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:29:50 -0500, John Tromp wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Nick Wedd wrote: > I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to > problems. > > 1. Black takes a ko, White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally > retakes the ko. What should happen? This was already covered by having any illegal frisbee landing revert to a pass. Btw, it's impossible to make a ko threat neighbouring a ko retake, as all those points are occupied:( > 2. Black takes a ko. White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make a > valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid > move. May White now (try to) retake the ko? Being a superko fan myself, the answer is clear: not if it repeats the position. regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Yesterday I modified Many Faces to play Frisbee go an played a few games with some other people at the Beijing Computer go tournament. It's a very strange game. If there is interest I can make an installer and make it available for free. Josef Moudrik is also writing a program. David On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 09:29:50 -0500, John Tromp wrote: On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Nick Wedd wrote: I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to problems. 1. Black takes a ko, White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally retakes the ko. What should happen? This was already covered by having any illegal frisbee landing revert to a pass. Btw, it's impossible to make a ko threat neighbouring a ko retake, as all those points are occupied:( 2. Black takes a ko. White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make a valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid move. May White now (try to) retake the ko? Being a superko fan myself, the answer is clear: not if it repeats the position. regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:07 AM, Nick Wedd wrote: > I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to > problems. > > 1. Black takes a ko, White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally > retakes the ko. What should happen? This was already covered by having any illegal frisbee landing revert to a pass. Btw, it's impossible to make a ko threat neighbouring a ko retake, as all those points are occupied:( > 2. Black takes a ko. White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make a > valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid > move. May White now (try to) retake the ko? Being a superko fan myself, the answer is clear: not if it repeats the position. regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
I was thinking about the ko rule for frisbee ko, and realised it leads to problems. 1. Black takes a ko, White tries to make a ko threat, but accidentally retakes the ko. What should happen? 2. Black takes a ko. White tries to make a ko threat, but fails to make a valid move. Black tries to make connect the ko, but fails to make a valid move. May White now (try to) retake the ko? The solution is to get rid of all ko rules. You don't need them. Nick On 12 November 2015 at 11:19, Álvaro Begué wrote: > Normalizing the probabilities and re-throwing the frisbee until it lands > in a valid move are equivalent, of course. > > > > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM, David Peters wrote: > >> To keep changes to the protocol and number of parameters low, wouldn't it >> be a possibility to consider multiple 'throws' of a frisbee? >> >> So if the engine decides to play a move you have the described >> arrangement of hitting adjactent fields with probability eps. If this >> results in a move outside the board or an illegal move, you just repeat >> until you get a legal move. This could even mean, that you could even use >> an existing engine without change. You just add the additional step >> generating the random noise on the moves. >> >> Or is this orthogonal to the envisioned game? >> >> Best regards, >> David Peters >> >> *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 10:24 Uhr >> *Von:* "Darren Cook" >> *An:* computer-go@computer-go.org >> *Betreff:* Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation >> > If one or two of these cells are outside the board the >> > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another >> > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted >> > as pass moves. >> >> Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal >> moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps >> of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability). >> >> This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I >> agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause >> early game termination.) >> >> Darren >> >> ___ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >> ___ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> > > > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > -- Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Normalizing the probabilities and re-throwing the frisbee until it lands in a valid move are equivalent, of course. On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 5:01 AM, David Peters wrote: > To keep changes to the protocol and number of parameters low, wouldn't it > be a possibility to consider multiple 'throws' of a frisbee? > > So if the engine decides to play a move you have the described arrangement > of hitting adjactent fields with probability eps. If this results in a move > outside the board or an illegal move, you just repeat until you get a legal > move. This could even mean, that you could even use an existing engine > without change. You just add the additional step generating the random > noise on the moves. > > Or is this orthogonal to the envisioned game? > > Best regards, > David Peters > > *Gesendet:* Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 10:24 Uhr > *Von:* "Darren Cook" > *An:* computer-go@computer-go.org > *Betreff:* Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation > > If one or two of these cells are outside the board the > > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another > > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted > > as pass moves. > > Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal > moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps > of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability). > > This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I > agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause > early game termination.) > > Darren > > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
To keep changes to the protocol and number of parameters low, wouldn't it be a possibility to consider multiple 'throws' of a frisbee? So if the engine decides to play a move you have the described arrangement of hitting adjactent fields with probability eps. If this results in a move outside the board or an illegal move, you just repeat until you get a legal move. This could even mean, that you could even use an existing engine without change. You just add the additional step generating the random noise on the moves. Or is this orthogonal to the envisioned game? Best regards, David Peters Gesendet: Donnerstag, 12. November 2015 um 10:24 Uhr Von: "Darren Cook" An: computer-go@computer-go.org Betreff: Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation > If one or two of these cells are outside the board the > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted > as pass moves. Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability). This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause early game termination.) Darren ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
> If one or two of these cells are outside the board the > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted > as pass moves. Alternatively, the probability could be adjusted for the number of legal moves. (E.g. taking the easy example of (1,1) on an empty board,and eps of 0.2, you'd adjust (1,1), (2,1) and (1,2) to each be 1/3 probability). This does away with the involuntary pass concept. (But if you keep it, I agree with John Tromp that it is just a wasted move, not able to cause early game termination.) Darren ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
I was thinking reg_genmove. Make the bot support one way to do it to make the referee simpler. David On Thu, 12 Nov 2015 03:22:23 +, Josef Moudrik wrote: Frisbee go sounds fun.How do you plan to use the GTP protocol to support this? I think that the randomization should be handled by the server, so the bot needs to get feedback about the move actually carried out. So maybe genmove + undo & play or reg_genmove + play depending on what do the bots support? It should be fairly easy to modify gogui-twogtp to allow for this, and imo if you want to promote the frisbee go, this should be done early, s.t. there is platform for testing. Regards, Josef M. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:15 PM "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players different epsilons. :) Right. You have "the same" in human-played Frisbee Go by having arbitrary distances from which the players have to throw their frisbees. (You may even change the distance during the game ) Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go - ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Frisbee go sounds fun. How do you plan to use the GTP protocol to support this? I think that the randomization should be handled by the server, so the bot needs to get feedback about the move actually carried out. So maybe genmove + undo & play or reg_genmove + play depending on what do the bots support? It should be fairly easy to modify gogui-twogtp to allow for this, and imo if you want to promote the frisbee go, this should be done early, s.t. there is platform for testing. Regards, Josef M. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 11:15 PM "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players > different epsilons. :) > > > Right. You have "the same" in human-played Frisbee Go by having arbitrary > distances from which the players have to throw their frisbees. (You may > even change the distance during the game ) > > Ingo. > > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
> Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players > different epsilons. :) Right. You have "the same" in human-played Frisbee Go by having arbitrary distances from which the players have to throw their frisbees. (You may even change the distance during the game ) Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hmm. > >> Would the game end after two unintentional passes? > > > Good point. In principle I would say so. > > That makes little sense to me. > IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes > end the game. We should have some test games to see how long a game would be "typically" stretched by unintended passes. Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Oh! You can have a continuous handicap control by giving the players different epsilons. :) On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 2:25 PM, John Tromp wrote: > >> Would the game end after two unintentional passes? > > > Good point. In principle I would say so. > > That makes little sense to me. > IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes > end the game. > > To make sure that infinitely long games have 0 probability, > we must then require that > the frisbee aim itself be a legal move (if eps < 1/4) > or, in case eps=1/4, that > at least one of its neighbours be a legal move > > -John > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
>> Would the game end after two unintentional passes? > Good point. In principle I would say so. That makes little sense to me. IMO, the principled rule is that two consecutive intentional passes end the game. To make sure that infinitely long games have 0 probability, we must then require that the frisbee aim itself be a legal move (if eps < 1/4) or, in case eps=1/4, that at least one of its neighbours be a legal move -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
> Would the game end after two unintentional passes? Good point. In principle I would say so. To avoid problems with final counting, after 2 passes the game should be completed in traditional mode (without Frisbee simulation elements). One might say that such a final should be executed only after 4 (unintentional) passes but I see the problem when playing on a "normal" server. Ingo. > > On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Ingo Althöfer <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > the next Computer Olympiad has been dated. > > It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016. > > > > I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: > > "Frisbee Go simulation" > > Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on > > "cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps). > > With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1) > > or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the > > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another > > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted > > as pass moves. > > > > eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game. > > Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. > > 0 gives the standard go game. > > > > The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants > > to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the > > disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. > > > > > > Background of the proposal: > > In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go". > > As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good > > game-theoretic programs for this discipline. > > > > > > Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad > > only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please > > let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome. > > > > Cheers, Ingo. > > > > PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser. > > http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg > > ___ > > Computer-go mailing list > > Computer-go@computer-go.org > > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Would the game end after two unintentional passes? > On Nov 11, 2015, at 11:39 AM, Ingo Althöfer <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote: > > Hello, > > the next Computer Olympiad has been dated. > It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016. > > I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: > "Frisbee Go simulation" > Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on > "cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps). > With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1) > or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the > move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another > stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted > as pass moves. > > eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game. > Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. > 0 gives the standard go game. > > The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants > to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the > disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. > > > Background of the proposal: > In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go". > As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good > game-theoretic programs for this discipline. > > > Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad > only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please > let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome. > > Cheers, Ingo. > > PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser. > http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
1/5 also seems natural (equal chance of hitting each the 5 possible points). Álvaro. On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 10:08 AM, John Tromp wrote: > > By the way: It would also be necessary to decide about > > the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be > > eps=0.1 or eps=0.125. > > I would say the 2 most interesting choices are 1/8 or 1/4. > The latter guarantees you miss your aim by distance 1, > while the former gives you an even chance to hit it. > > -John > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
> By the way: It would also be necessary to decide about > the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be > eps=0.1 or eps=0.125. I would say the 2 most interesting choices are 1/8 or 1/4. The latter guarantees you miss your aim by distance 1, while the former gives you an even chance to hit it. -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hi David, > I won't be able to be at the congress, participants need one person representing the bot at the event. This need not to be the main programmer. > but I think it would be pretty easy to modify MCTS to play this game. The crucial point will be playing strength. > Do you plan to modify a gtp server to handle these rules? Uff. I am not a programmer. So some volunteer would have to do this. Automatic or semi-automatic play would make sense, because of the random elements in Frisbee Go Simulation there should be more than single games between the participants. By the way: It would also be necessary to decide about the eps for the event. Natural candidates would be eps=0.1 or eps=0.125. > ... I could be persuaded to submit an entry. Fine. Accept me in the team, and I may operate in Leiden. Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
I won't be able to be at the congress, but I think it would be pretty easy to modify MCTS to play this game. Do you plan to modify a gtp server to handle these rules? If you get enough interest and are will ing to take submissions from people not present, I could be persuaded to submit an entry. David On Wed, 11 Nov 2015 12:39:49 +0100, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Hello, the next Computer Olympiad has been dated. It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016. I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: "Frisbee Go simulation" Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on "cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps). With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1) or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted as pass moves. eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game. Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. 0 gives the standard go game. The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. Background of the proposal: In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go". As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good game-theoretic programs for this discipline. Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome. Cheers, Ingo. PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser. http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
[Computer-go] Frisbee Go Simulation
Hello, the next Computer Olympiad has been dated. It will take place in Leiden (NL), from June 27, 2016 to July 03, 2016. I want to propose a new Go variant for 9x9 board: "Frisbee Go simulation" Normal go rules apply. However, when a player wants to place a stone on "cell" (i,j), the stone will land there only with probability (1- 4*eps). With probability eps each it will land on (i-1,j) or (i+1,j) or (i-1,j-1) or (i-1,j+1). If one or two of these cells are outside the board the move will count as a pass. If the landing cell is occupied by another stone the move is also counted as a pass. Illegal moves are also counted as pass moves. eps is the "uncertainty" level of the game. Only values eps between 0 and 0.25 make sense. 0 gives the standard go game. The relation tio "normal" Frisbee Go should be clear: The player wants to throw the disk on cell (i,j) but with certain probability the disk lands on one of the neighboring cells. Background of the proposal: In the long run I want to see robots playing "robot frisbee go". As a first step, the simulation shall help to develop good game-theoretic programs for this discipline. Of course, Frisbee Go Simulation will be played in the 2016 Olympiad only if at least two programs are registered. So, may the programmers please let me know if they are interested? Also all sorts of questions are welcome. Cheers, Ingo. PS. You may have a look at a picture, painted by Tanja Esser. http://www.althofer.de/robot-play/frisbee-robot-go.jpg ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go