Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Nick Wedd wrote: According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. All games were played with Chinese rules, with a komi of 6.5. Those who played through KGS had to use Japanese rules, because otherwise KGS would set the komi to 7.5. There is no way to set the komi with kgsgtp. But although KGS games were Japanese, the official counting was Chinese. This led to the confusing situation where one program would win its game, but KGS indicated that it lost. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing the number of moves in a game. 10 seconds/moves is not really blitz. If the program plays stupid invasions (I don't know if its is the case of your program) that can be annoying if it goes up to 50 unnecessary moves or more. As a user, I like to count. I don't like computer resignation. It emulates human honor codes. For a human it is very humiliating to be forced to play a losing game for a long time, but computers have no honor, they should play _fast_ and without burning out ko threats just because there is nothing to lose. My favorite computer behavior as a user: gnugo with no resign at a fast level (max 2 sec/mov). Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/13/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree with you on this as far as etiquette is concerned. In on-line
computer vs computer games resignation is honorable but against humans
a computer should simply play fast - up the level of it's ability.A
strong computer player can pass and reckon for dead stones if that's the
protocol, or it can just play rapidly.I think many players like to
see a complete game and feel as if there were just a little bit
cheated by an early resignation.
Of course a really weak computer shouldn't be expected to do more than
an equally weak human. If a computer program doesn't have a feel for
dead stones, who is winning and who is losing then the best it can do
is play the game out and preferable it should play relatively fast if
possible. In this case it's the human's turn to be honorable and not
berate the stupidity of the programmer making condescending remarks,
etc.Note that this isn't about respecting a program - it's just a
machine. But behind every program is a human being who may have put
some sweat into the programming.
Thankfully, nobody has ever been mean about my dumb bots. After monitoring
the usage of the bots I went and added a time control similar to what you
say.
I'd actually be curious to hear how other people have done it. The handling
of absolute time, byo-yomi time, and canadian time is non-trivial since
there are some strange ways that the commands work. This may be a KGS
quirk, but I think any quirks specific to KGS are because of shortcomings in
GTPv2. For example, when main time expires, kgs sends time_left color 0.
Below is the key portion of my time management code. I have not tested it
in all situations and I'm sure there's room for improvement.
+ void timeLeft(color c, double seconds, int stonesToPlay){
+ // note that seconds could be zero as main time for byo yomi
times expire
+ double minTime = 1.0;
+ if (stonesToPlay 0){
+ // Candadian time is in effect
+ double lagBuffer = 2.0;
+ nextMoveThinkTime = max(
(seconds/stonesToPlay)-lagBuffer,
min(1.0,(seconds/stonesToPlay)) );
+ }
+ else{
+ // Main time or byo yomi
+ int safetyBuffer = 60;
+ int minMovesLeft = 10;
+ nextMoveThinkTime = max(
3*(seconds-safetyBuffer)/max(assumedMovesLeft/2,minMovesLeft), 1.0 );
+ }
+ nextMoveThinkTime = min(maxThinkTimePerMove, nextMoveThinkTime);
+ debug(timing) hberr.writefln(Conclusion: next move think time
should be %s (assumed moves left = %s, time left = %s, stonesToPlay =
%s), nextMoveThinkTime, assumedMovesLeft, seconds, stonesToPlay);
+ }
+ void kgsTimeSettings(char[] mode, int seconds){
+ assert(mode==absolute);
+ timeLeft(singletonColorBlack, seconds, 0);
+ }
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
I agree with you on this as far as etiquette is concerned. In on-line computer vs computer games resignation is honorable but against humans a computer should simply play fast - up the level of it's ability.A strong computer player can pass and reckon for dead stones if that's the protocol, or it can just play rapidly.I think many players like to see a complete game and feel as if there were just a little bit cheated by an early resignation. Of course a really weak computer shouldn't be expected to do more than an equally weak human. If a computer program doesn't have a feel for dead stones, who is winning and who is losing then the best it can do is play the game out and preferable it should play relatively fast if possible. In this case it's the human's turn to be honorable and not berate the stupidity of the programmer making condescending remarks, etc.Note that this isn't about respecting a program - it's just a machine. But behind every program is a human being who may have put some sweat into the programming. - Don On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 13:15 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Jason House wrote: I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing the number of moves in a game. 10 seconds/moves is not really blitz. If the program plays stupid invasions (I don't know if its is the case of your program) that can be annoying if it goes up to 50 unnecessary moves or more. As a user, I like to count. I don't like computer resignation. It emulates human honor codes. For a human it is very humiliating to be forced to play a losing game for a long time, but computers have no honor, they should play _fast_ and without burning out ko threats just because there is nothing to lose. My favorite computer behavior as a user: gnugo with no resign at a fast level (max 2 sec/mov). Jacques. ___ 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] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Darren Cook wrote: I actually think that under Chinese rules White wins too because Black owes 1 point for playing the last (and first) move. I'd not heard that 1pt adjustment before; is it only when black plays the last move? Do you have a reference, as this page does not mention it: http://senseis.xmp.net/?ChineseCounting I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html) Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
I actually think that under Chinese rules White wins too because Black owes 1 point for playing the last (and first) move. ... I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html) I only saw this in section 4, on handicap games: If the players have agreed to use area counting to score the game (Rule 12), White receives an additional point of compensation for each Black handicap stone after the first. (Black would otherwise gain an additional point of area for each handicap stone.) Notice it says, for each stone after the first. So no compensation for the first stone. Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Darren Cook wrote: I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html) I only saw this in section 4, on handicap games: If the players have agreed to use area counting to score the game (Rule 12), White receives an additional point of compensation for each Black handicap stone after the first. (Black would otherwise gain an additional point of area for each handicap stone.) 11) The Last Move: White must make the last move--if necessary, an additional pass, with a stone passed to the opponent as usual. The total number of stones played or passed by the two players during the entire game must be equal. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On Fri, 13 Jul 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: On Sat, 14 Jul 2007, Darren Cook wrote: I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html) At one time, the Chinese rules compensated White with an extra point when Black got the last move. If Black's last move was to fill a ko he or she had won, however, it was deemed unfair to penalize him or her, so eventually the Chinese removed this proviso. in: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html It looks like that rule is obsolete. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html) At one time, the Chinese rules compensated White with an extra point when Black got the last move. If Black's last move was to fill a ko he or she had won, however, it was deemed unfair to penalize him or her, so eventually the Chinese removed this proviso. in: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html It looks like that rule is obsolete. Thanks for finding that, as I was getting confused :-). It would've affect the scoring of monte-carlo playouts. Darren P.S. Is the pass stone also passed over when territory scoring in AGA rules? That sounds like the score will deviate from Japanese scoring quite frequently. E.g. games often end with a small ko, and when one player runs out of ko threats he will pass (assuming no dame available), the other player will fill the ko, then each player will pass. If pass costs a point it hurts. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
This extra bonus for black is commonly known by Japanese Go players who know Chinese rules. That is, the result of a game is the same if either rules is used (Japanese or Chinese) in simple games (i.e. no Seki etc.) except this extra bonus for black when the number of moves of the game is odd. MC Go programs may need to adjust this one point. - gg Darren Cook: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I got this from the AGA rules which I (falsly?) assumed to use chinese counting (http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.html) At one time, the Chinese rules compensated White with an extra point when Black got the last move. If Black's last move was to fill a ko he or she had won, however, it was deemed unfair to penalize him or her, so eventually the Chinese removed this proviso. in: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html It looks like that rule is obsolete. Thanks for finding that, as I was getting confused :-). It would've affect the scoring of monte-carlo playouts. Darren P.S. Is the pass stone also passed over when territory scoring in AGA rules? That sounds like the score will deviate from Japanese scoring quite frequently. E.g. games often end with a small ko, and when one player runs out of ko threats he will pass (assuming no dame available), the other player will fill the ko, then each player will pass. If pass costs a point it hurts. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
