Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9
- Original Message - From: Sanghyeon Seo [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 10:04 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9 2007/1/3, Chrilly [EMAIL PROTECTED]: As I told before I organized with Nimzo a jackpot bltiz system. When the jackpot reached 500 ATS (50 $) there was a queue of GMs who wanted to play. This was during the tournament and they had their own games running. They did not care about their own games anymore, the only wanted the jackpot. They are gambling-junkies. A lot of German GMs have now practically stopped serious chess and play on internet poker. That reminds me of Jimmy Cha. A professional go player (and strong!), at the same time world-class poker player. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Cha There is another famous example in Backgammon. Paul Magriel x-22, world-champion and author of the classical backgammon introduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Magriel Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hi Don, I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese rules. I am not saying the opposite, and again, I think the ideal rules for computer championships today are Chinese, but without penalizing pass moves. It's been said that if Alien beings ever contacted us, it's likely they would be GO players due to the simplicity of the rules. Let me use your SF argument to explain what I call natural evolution: In The Beginning, Martians, just like Earthlings, use Chinese rules. Those who want to improve, count during the game, not after every move, but many times. They count komi +/- territory +/- the stones. With time, players find counting the stones annoying and pointless since only the difference in captures has to be considered and that does not need to be counted, it can be added to komi. They also naturally recognize which groups are worth defending and which are not. Without noticing, they have become Japanese players. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9
The Cotsen Open has a cash prize for the best computer program, which I felt somewhat guilty accepting after loosing all games due to the bug, but SlugGo was the only program entered this year, and the cash did help to offset the cost of renting the wheelchair van with hydraulic ramp that I needed to transport the cluster. i guess this question has already been asked, but i'm really curious now -- did the organizers want for the hardware to be on-site for the games to be played (i.e. to prevent cheating), or did you just want to bring the hardware on-site? or maybe there was no internet connection in the room where games were played? s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9
This is exactly how Cilkchess used to compete. Your ran a gui locally on your laptop which connected to the program (running in a different part of the world) via stdin and stdout - via an ssh connection. That's what I've always loved about unix - everything is a nice abstraction. You normally don't think too much about which machine something is running on, where it is, how it's connected etc. This abstraction has caused funny things to happen. I get an email saying that I have a job on the printer - I'm in Virginia, the printer is in Massachusetts, I just forgot that my shell is remote - it looks and acts identical to a local shell. Even though Windows has greatly matured over the years, you still feel like your are being controlled more - like you are being confined to a little box.Nowadays you can do some of these things in Windows if you get the right tools - but it's not so transparent. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 08:42 +0100, Chrilly wrote: Why does Slu-Go not play remote? E.g the only thing I transported to London for playing against GM Adams was a notebook. The Hydra-Cluster would have been a little bit difficult to transport. Even in Abu-Dhabi the operating is remote. The Hydra-Sheikh sits in his palace and the Cluster is in another part of the town. Its for the chess-engine completly transparent. The engine writes/reads to stdout/stdin. If the GUI is on the same PC, the communication is directly done. When playing remote SSH (Secure Shell) is started and the rest goes as before. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Sho-Dan-level at 9x9
On 2, Jan 2007, at 11:42 PM, Chrilly wrote: The Cotsen Open has a cash prize for the best computer program, which I felt somewhat guilty accepting after loosing all games due to the bug, but SlugGo was the only program entered this year, and the cash did help to offset the cost of renting the wheelchair van with hydraulic ramp that I needed to transport the cluster. Why does SlugGo not play remote? E.g the only thing I transported to London for playing against GM Adams was a notebook. The Hydra- Cluster would have been a little bit difficult to transport. Even in Abu-Dhabi the operating is remote. The Hydra-Sheikh sits in his palace and the Cluster is in another part of the town. Its for the chess-engine completly transparent. The engine writes/ reads to stdout/stdin. If the GUI is on the same PC, the communication is directly done. When playing remote SSH (Secure Shell) is started and the rest goes as before. and On 3, Jan 2007, at 6:33 AM, steve uurtamo wrote: i guess this question has already been asked, but i'm really curious now -- did the organizers want for the hardware to be on-site for the games to be played (i.e. to prevent cheating), or did you just want to bring the hardware on-site? or maybe there was no internet connection in the room where games were played? SlugGo can be run remotely. As Chrilly says, the technical problems are very small and easy to deal with. While I did not ask the organizers or Tournament Director of the Cotsen Open about their specific requirements, I was told explicitly by the Gifu, Japan, TD's and the Computer Olympiad organizers that remote computing would not be allowed. The CO folks were very blunt, while the Gifu folks were far more Asian in the way they apologized for their inability to accommodate remote computing. The Gifu prize of about $3,000 US is probably enough to inspire some to cheat, but their claim is lack of internet access ... inside of a building that is a high-tech center. I believe that computer Go is just too immature of a field, and the level of play is too low for trust to be the model. It is just too easy to hide the midget in the Turk. As per the cartoon in the New Yorker, On the internet nobody knows that you are a dog (said by one dog sitting at a computer to another dog standing nearby). In chess the number of people who could be effective against a GM while hidden on the other end of a wire is far too small, and their pride would prevent their participation because giving the win to the computer would not be acceptable. It is just too easy to find a 1k human with more interest in the money. So, I built a cluster that can travel. It is 24 G4 mac minis and a dual G5 X-Serve in a rolling rack that is a bit under a meter cube and weighing slightly in excess of 100 kg. It is a horrible tangle of wires, so in the post Sept/11 travel environment I decided not to take it to the Gifu this year (I even think it looks like a bomb more than a traveling cluster). I plan to update the hardware, hopefully sometime this year, so that I can take it to the Gifu next year. It is also a maintenance nightmare, so in the slow KGS tournament played recently, only 22 of the minis were running. Our big non-transportable cluster (72 G5's) was busy with physics at the time of the slow KGS tournament. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hello, At one point in this lengthy ongoing discussion, it was noted that it is not polite to keep playing after the result is already determined. The Japanese rules do penalize these moves by one player as long as the other player is knowledgeable enough to see the situation correctly and simply pass, thereby picking up a point. For me the polite way to end a game is to resign as soon as the game is lost. The sooner one player resigns, the better he understands the position (assuming he does not resign on a won position :)). Games are often over much before the pass move... (at least in computer Go). To bring this back to computer Go and what it implies about the level of understanding of the game we can attribute to the programs, I will point to the last round of the recent KGS slow tournament. Look at the game between SlugGo and MoGo. Yes you're right, but MoGo is polite with human (you can play against it on KGS to see) and pass as soon as possible (if you pass), but that means you lost because else it would have resigned before :). Sometimes it is even too soon, as KGS counts territories only if there are totally closed, even if it does not matter where you close the territory. MoGo states status of territories using simulations, and consider that the game is finished if the number of undecided intersections do not change the final result. It is to be as polite as possible for humans. Again sorry for this incredibly long game, I was expecting that programs resign before the end. The politness by passing is enabled only against human. MoGo against computer is polite only by resigning, but hopefully does not resign on won games :). Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hi David, I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you agree on what they are. And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and will effectively get an advantage for it.At higher levels this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just keep passing and rack up points against a player who does not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker players.) In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw he keeps the title.I guess it is done out of respect for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose on the weaker player. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 13:05 -0800, David Doshay wrote: On 1, Jan 2007, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: And now remember how this discussion started: There was a proposal to penalize pass moves made by Lukasz Lew. If that proposal is implemented, Japanese programs will no longer loose one or two points against a better ruleset adapted bot, but they would loose dozens of points. They will frequently loose won games. Maybe some programs can easily switch from Chinese to Japanese, but some others may not. Anyway, outside computer go, people understands go as Japanese. Beginners find it more complicated, but when they understand, they see its just concentrating on the only interesting part. A natural evolution of the game. When they are 10kyu or better they normally agree what is alive and what is not. If they don't, its probably worth playing out. I still think Chinese rules are better today for computer tournaments! But, of course, without penalizing pass moves. I hope that the day when computers evolve to Japanese rules as humans did, is near, but that cannot be forced. It is required that all programs agree when scoring games. At least: *when* nothing more can be won and what is *alive* and what is not at that moment. and On 1, Jan 2007, at 1:08 PM, Don Dailey wrote: By far, Chinese is more intuitive and natural. Japanese rules are based on some very non-intuitive concepts - that it really does come out the same as Chinese scoring (within a point or two) appears to be magic to the uninitiated. The proposal made by Lukaz is the same as AGA rules. The purpose is to assure that when a player thinking Japanese is playing against one thinking Chinese both come to the exact same conclusion. But I think that while this is an advantage, it also completely ruins a primary emphasis of the Japanese rules: efficiency, and efficiency all the way to the end of the game. At one point in this lengthy ongoing discussion, it was noted that it is not polite to keep playing after the result is already determined. The Japanese rules do penalize these moves by one player as long as the other player is knowledgeable enough to see the situation correctly and simply pass, thereby picking up a point. To address Don's point, I respectfully disagree. I reason, with liberal use of analogy, thus: The Chinese rules acknowledge that it takes two eyes to live, and in a way that to me is similar to the thinking of a military occupation, sees no value in any more space than that. If the rest of the group has extra open spaces or if those possible open spaces are filled with stones (or people) is of no consequence. Perhaps this is a consequence of living in a society where it is considered the norm for people to be packed tightly together. The Japanese rules also come down to it takes two eyes ... but give credit for the extra open spaces. To me, this is analogous to living in a city with more parks, or living in a village with more farmland and a less dense population, and I know that I would take the option with less crowding and more food production. It mirrors a quality of life issue very well. To bring this back to computer Go and what it implies about the level of understanding of the game we can attribute to the programs, I will point to the last round of the recent KGS slow tournament. Look at the game between SlugGo and MoGo. While I am not trying to say anything about who won, because the rules were clearly stated to be Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are clear, the dead stones are clear to a
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:32 PM, Sylvain Gelly wrote: Again sorry for this incredibly long game, I was expecting that programs resign before the end. The politness by passing is enabled only against human. I do not think that any apology is needed. The length of the game was due only to a setting you have that is totally appropriate for a Chinese rules tournament game. And SlugGo is set not to resign, just to pass, which I think is also appropriate in a tournament game, especially a close one. I know that I would never resign a game I thought I had lost by less than the komi. I would pass, expect the opponent to pass, and then count it openly. It is also the case that I would respond to repeated play by my opponent exactly as SlugGo did (except that I probably would have made several simpler captures to make the situation obvious to the opponent). My point is only that the consideration of the rules we use says something about what we expect our computers to do, and what we are willing to watch them do as a consequence of our rule set. There are often competing reasons, and often unexpected results. In this case I think the consequences are completely predictable with these rules, and with Tromp-Taylor rules even more so: very long extended endgames that humans 1) would never play, and 2) make derisive comments about, leading them to walk away with a very low opinion of the state of computer Go. There are times and places where Tromp-Taylor rules are clearly best, such as cgos-type servers where a large number of games must be scored automatically and without human intervention. I just think that we will eventually will need to accept that open play in a public forum deserves a different set of considerations. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I agree with your point that Japanese rules give an additional advantage to the stronger player. I just see the advantage as a natural extension of the advantage in the real world of being more efficient in all things, including ending things. I also see that advantage as dropping more rapidly than you do as the level of play of the weaker player reaches some level ... perhaps at 5k or so it is effectively zero. I think that your comment about being forgiving of ignorance is the most important point at this time, and looking forward: how forgiving do we want to be with our programs? While the desire is biased towards getting more people programming Go engines, then forgiving ignorance and tolerating weak play is good because it lowers the barriers of entry for new programs. But at some point in time it is also a good idea to raise the bar up to standards of acceptable human play. I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. Cheers, David On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you agree on what they are. And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and will effectively get an advantage for it.At higher levels this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just keep passing and rack up points against a player who does not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker players.) In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw he keeps the title.I guess it is done out of respect for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose on the weaker player. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Doshay wrote: Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty clear enough. Yes, W (mogo) wins by 2.5 pts But the game continued to move 526! All in invasions that were not reasonable by human standards, but which are not costly under Chinese rules. By Chinese rules MoGo wins by 2.5, by Japanese rules SlugGo wins at move 526 by almost 120. This difference I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts after move 525. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2 professionals argue about the outcome of a game. They are not clearly defined for obscure cases. In addition, they are not simple. Ing rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there is no room for argument about who wins. Japanese rules in my opinion shouldn't ever be used for tournements. On 1/3/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:30 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. But I don't feel any of this is important. Japanese rules isn't raising the bar - it's merely a different set of rules. All that's really important is making your program play as well as possible. Japanese rules doesn't have anything to do with this. My terminology isn't quite right. Forgiving ignorance is one way to look at it, but it conjures up images of rewarding ignorance in humans and creating problems. In my view Chinese is more objective and logical because it's fair about penalizing ignorance. If you play badly, you will be penalized and that's fair. But in Japanese you get penalized needlessly and extra in my view for not being sure about something that I feel doesn't really matter anyway. Of course I don't have any problem with writing programs that can handle Japanese rules - but I thought this was already common? - Don ___ 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] Re: Interesting problem
On 3, Jan 2007, at 2:53 PM, Christoph Birk wrote: On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Doshay wrote: Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty clear enough. Yes, W (mogo) wins by 2.5 pts But the game continued to move 526! All in invasions that were not reasonable by human standards, but which are not costly under Chinese rules. By Chinese rules MoGo wins by 2.5, by Japanese rules SlugGo wins at move 526 by almost 120. This difference I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts after move 525. Christoph Don't forget to include all those captured stones. The score is only the same under AGA rules, where SlugGo has to pay a stone for each pass. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
David, I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way, defines the difference in the rule-sets. You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group is dead. But you are not 100 percent sure. What do you do? Chinese puts the emphasis on the actual truth of the situation. Japanese makes you gamble, and penalizes you for being wrong. It makes your opinion about the situation become a factor in the final result instead of the board position and your play leading up to it. I'm not saying that is BAD, but it's what makes the two rule-sets different. It's distasteful in my opinion because I would rather focus on how I got to that position and the quality of my play. But now it's like I also have to take a little test AFTER the game is technically over, a test that could give me a win I don't deserve. I think it's better to focus on the quality of the moves during the game, and not also have to deal with the gamesmanship after the game.I would say that Japanese would appeal to the right brain, Chinese to the left brain. And I'm left brained so maybe that explains it. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:30 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I agree with your point that Japanese rules give an additional advantage to the stronger player. I just see the advantage as a natural extension of the advantage in the real world of being more efficient in all things, including ending things. I also see that advantage as dropping more rapidly than you do as the level of play of the weaker player reaches some level ... perhaps at 5k or so it is effectively zero. I think that your comment about being forgiving of ignorance is the most important point at this time, and looking forward: how forgiving do we want to be with our programs? While the desire is biased towards getting more people programming Go engines, then forgiving ignorance and tolerating weak play is good because it lowers the barriers of entry for new programs. But at some point in time it is also a good idea to raise the bar up to standards of acceptable human play. I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. Cheers, David On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you agree on what they are. And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and will effectively get an advantage for it.At higher levels this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just keep passing and rack up points against a player who does not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker players.) In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw he keeps the title.I guess it is done out of respect for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose on the weaker player. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2 professionals argue about the outcome of a game. They are not clearly defined for obscure cases. In addition, they are not simple. Ing rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there is no room for argument about who wins. Japanese rules in my opinion shouldn't ever be used for tournements. to be pedantic (and i think that we're well past that point anyway), if i were to play a professional, he'd know the outcome of the game at, say, move 20. he'd be pretty sure by move 5, but it'd be certain by move 20. the rest would be yose for him, essentially. and what we're really talking about here is whether or not yose that doesn't change the score of the game is either a) fun to watch or b) fun to play against. computers don't care who they play against, and i haven't seen the kind of criticism that would lead me to believe that the general public is all that hostile toward the way computers play, but in any case, it's simply a matter of perspective between the two players involved and the level of play that they're at. playing a stone at a vital point may kill a 20-point group, but if one of those two players doesn't realize this, they will likely painfully play it out until it is clearly dead. the first time their opponent passes while they play inside their own dead territory, they should realize that to their opponent, the game is over. if they think that they can recusitate the dead, there's no harm in trying -- if their reading is that far different from their opponent, it's likely that the game score won't be close enough for rules differences to matter. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:05 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I do not think that any apology is needed. The length of the game was due only to a setting you have that is totally appropriate for a Chinese rules tournament game. I don't agree with this at all. Is it appropriate under Japanese rules to continue playing, when the game is lost for sure and all territory has been made? This point has been made before, and yet needs repeating whenever this discussion comes up: Nothing forces you to pass in Japanese rules. A losing computer could keep on playing in the hopes of forcing the opponent out of time or to hit a bug. If a computer program knows how to play the endgame so that it doesn't lose points under Chinese rules, then it should know when to pass, and should do so. There's no need for a game to go on for 500 moves just because Chinese rules are being used. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 3, Jan 2007, at 2:53 PM, Christoph Birk wrote: I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts after move 525. I was rushed in my previous reply but have more time now. My sgf reader (GoBan on a Mac) says the situation at the end of the game is: Black has 71 points on the board, 60 captured W stones, and 59 surrounded (dead) W stones on the board for a total of 190 points. White has 35 points on the board, 30 captured B stones, 0 surrounded B stones on the board, and 7.5 komi for a total of 72.5 points. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
