[computer-go] Program don't start playing on CGOS
If my program has to wait to long before it gets a game, the console don't send commands to my program. I tried all I could think about: I used the tclkit from Equi4 and tried ActiveTcl. I tried to create a .bat file and run it in the normal console and PowerShell. Can someone help with this problem please? With kind regards, Ben I followed the instructions from http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg04946.html and correctly set the server and port in the tcl-script to cgos.boardspace.net and 6819 C:\CGOS> tclsh85 cgos3.tcl GtpTest3 MyGtpProgram.exe 08:00:20C->E list_commands 08:00:22E->C boardsize 08:00:22E->C clear_board ... 08:00:22E->C undo 08:00:22E->C version 08:00:22recieved full response to list_commands 08:00:22Engine uses time control commands 08:00:23Successful connection to CGOS server 08:00:23S->C protocol 08:00:23C->S e1 CGOS tcl engine client 1.2 Windows-x86 by Don Dailey 08:00:23S->C username 08:00:23C->S GtpTest3 08:00:23S->C password 08:00:23C->S By now a game is started and my program don't get commands from the console, but it seems that the console also don't get commands from the server... If I try to restart the start-script I get additional lines: 08:21:50S->C Error: You are already logged on! Closing connection. 08:21:50Connection to server has closed. Will try to reconnect shortly And most of the time, my program loses on time because of this. But sometimes it suddenly connects and plays its game. ... 08:36:38C->E genmove w 08:36:38E->C = A10 08:36:38C->S A10 08:36:38S->C play b PASS 1199968 08:36:38C->E play b PASS 08:36:38E->C = 08:36:39S->C genmove w 300024 08:36:39C->E time_left w 300 0 08:36:39E->C = 08:36:39C->E genmove w 08:36:39E->C = J4 08:36:39C->S J4 08:36:39S->C play b PASS 1199968 08:36:39C->E play b PASS 08:36:39E->C = 08:36:39S->C genmove w 300024 08:36:39C->E time_left w 300 0 08:36:39E->C = 08:36:39C->E genmove w 08:36:39E->C = pass 08:36:39C->S pass 08:36:40S->C gameover 2008-08-09 W+40.5 08:36:40C->S ready And then I have just the same problem, if it has to wait to long before the other games are finished, it doesn't start in his next game. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
> At worst we will just have to wait until robots take over the world in 20 > years. I would hope there wouldn't be a war... I'll join the robots. No need for a body. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
> > I flipped memory and time there. If pspace-complete is not in p, then it > will be a big problem trying to solve it without infinite time. That doesn't > seem like an ideal situation for solving it. > You only need an infinite amount of time for undecidable problems. np-complete, pspace, exptime, etc. are just intractable. I think we are more interested in how long before we can achieve superhuman play though, since perfect play seems impossible based on what we know about computation, the limitations of the physical world etc. I want to say 7-10 years, but it's really hard to predict when the necessary algorithmic advances will come. At worst we will just have to wait until robots take over the world in 20 years. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
>>> * Besides... solving a > *>>* pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't > that correct? > * >> nope. > > I flipped memory and time there. If pspace-complete is not in p, then it > will be a big problem trying to solve it without infinite time. That doesn't > seem like an ideal situation for solving it. I believe go, on any size board, is already solved (using the minimax algorithm) in both finite time and memory. (At least for a ruleset using super-ko; I'm not so sure about Japanese rules.) Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
>>* Besides... solving a *>>* pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't that correct? * > nope. I flipped memory and time there. If pspace-complete is not in p, then it will be a big problem trying to solve it without infinite time. That doesn't seem like an ideal situation for solving it. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
> Besides... solving a > pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't that correct? nope. s. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Yes, I know about Chinook and Jonathan Schaeffer is a friend of mine. The PC programs also come with endgame databases, I think 6 piece is real common and you can get up to 8 piece databases for your PC or perhaps even more. There is still a little life left in the top PC programs. Once in a great while one program will win a game against another. - Don On Sat, 2008-08-09 at 08:31 +0900, Seo Sanghyeon wrote: > 2008/8/9 Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > This HAS (or is) happening in checkers. The best programs have only > > tiny room for improvement. Play 100 games to get a score of 2 wins, 1 > > loss 97 draws (or something like that.) A major improvement is being > > able to win 1 more game in 100. It's so bad that the strategy is more > > about how tricky the moves are than their game theoretic value. > > Imagine that happening in Go! Always playing the best move in GO would > > produce an unimaginably strong program, but imagine that computer GO > > got to the state that all programs played perfect moves 99.99% of the > > time and the only strategy left was to find a position complicated > > enough that your opponent has a slight chance to make a mistake. > > Well, the last year Chinook team really solved checkers, in a weak > sense. It has been proved that it cannot lose a game starting from the > initial position. > http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/science/19cnd-checkers.html > > This has been achieved with monster endgame database complete up to > 10-pieces. This 10-pieces database was independently verified by > another programmer in 2005. It is a fascinating story; you can read it > here: > http://pages.prodigy.net/eyg/Checkers/10-pieceBuild.htm > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
2008/8/9 Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > This HAS (or is) happening in checkers. The best programs have only > tiny room for improvement. Play 100 games to get a score of 2 wins, 1 > loss 97 draws (or something like that.) A major improvement is being > able to win 1 more game in 100. It's so bad that the strategy is more > about how tricky the moves are than their game theoretic value. > Imagine that happening in Go! Always playing the best move in GO would > produce an unimaginably strong program, but imagine that computer GO > got to the state that all programs played perfect moves 99.99% of the > time and the only strategy left was to find a position complicated > enough that your opponent has a slight chance to make a mistake. Well, the last year Chinook team really solved checkers, in a weak sense. It has been proved that it cannot lose a game starting from the initial position. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/19/science/19cnd-checkers.html This has been achieved with monster endgame database complete up to 10-pieces. This 10-pieces database was independently verified by another programmer in 2005. It is a fascinating story; you can read it here: http://pages.prodigy.net/eyg/Checkers/10-pieceBuild.htm -- Seo Sanghyeon ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 17:19 -0400, Robert Waite wrote: > If you mean that beating all human opponents would be solving go... > then I think it is certain that we will. I would think the distance between perfect play and top human play is quite far off.Beating the best human players is a good goal, but in the grand scheme of things it's only a signpost along the way to a much more distant goal. There may come a day when the best humans have no chance against the best computers - and still computers will have a long way to go. This is exactly what is happening in computer chess now. The previously best program, Rybka, has just been upgraded to version 3.0 and is showing a whopping 100 ELO improvement. This is quite remarkable when you consider that it was already the best, and that it has already surpassed the best human players. It was not long ago that the idea of even getting up to expert strength (2000 ELO) was ridiculed as being an unattainable barrier. Much the same as in GO, where 10 -15 years ago the idea of Dan level play was so far off it was considered completely unattainable by pessimists, and even optimists viewed it as a century away. It doesn't matter whether GO is pspace-complete or not unless the goal is to completely solve the game (proving what the best move and score is.) We can still continue to attack the problem and make progress as we have recently seen.We will do it on 2 fronts, software and hardware. We saw how Mogo threw a lot of hardware at the problem, but they also threw a lot of software advances at the problem too. In the future sometime it will happen that we cannot make much more improvement. What will prevent the improvement is not any particular technological barrier it will be simply that we will already be close to perfect play. We may not have solved the game by then, but for all practical purposes the program will make perfect moves the vast majority of the time. This HAS (or is) happening in checkers. The best programs have only tiny room for improvement. Play 100 games to get a score of 2 wins, 1 loss 97 draws (or something like that.) A major improvement is being able to win 1 more game in 100. It's so bad that the strategy is more about how tricky the moves are than their game theoretic value. Imagine that happening in Go! Always playing the best move in GO would produce an unimaginably strong program, but imagine that computer GO got to the state that all programs played perfect moves 99.99% of the time and the only strategy left was to find a position complicated enough that your opponent has a slight chance to make a mistake. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
> go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete. Well.. it would really depend on what you mean by solve go. If you mean to solve it like they have with 5x5 for all possible moves... I don't know if it is clear that 19x19 has the same properties. Ole Wikipedia, which very well may be wrong... states that go with Japanese rules is exptime-complete... which is further implies that go is not in P. If that is true... 19x19 might not be solvable easily. I don't think we really understand complexity enough to know if it is possible. Besides... solving a pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't that correct? It is not too helpful if go is stuck in pspace-complete and is not in p. If you mean that beating all human opponents would be solving go... then I think it is certain that we will. The brain is not infinite... we just don't understand how it works too well. People are not cracking the potentially unsolvable problems in go... they are just using heuristics and some calculation to arrive at a good move. This can be copied... the real question is whether brute force is a good shortcut. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i don't think that it's known to be exptime-complete. http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html E. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
i don't think that it's known to be exptime-complete. certainly there was a joke here that i'm missing. :) s. On 8/8/08, Imran Hendley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete. > > > > > > s. > > > > I thought it was even worse than that ;) > > > ___ > 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: mogo beats pro!
> go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete. > > s. > I thought it was even worse than that ;) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete. s. On 8/8/08, Robert Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed > > boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose > > algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to work > > > for "all boardsizes" in some measurable, scalable way. > > I don't necessarily think that go is np-complete... but the board > does not have to be infinite to be intractable. I mean.. let's > > say that 19x19 go or some other game has 3^361 possible positions. > That seems to be bigger than the number of available matter we > have to construct memory. > > It seems like there would be a set of algorithms that will be > > able to beat the strongest human players of go. But it is not > certain that there aren't certain limits to what we can calculate > with computers. This is why the whole p != np is interesting. > There are many common algorithmic problems that might not have > > a polynomial run time solution. > > Go has many angles of attack... but how about eye shapes... how many > possible 4 stone connected eye shapes are there? Its like tetris.. there > are 5 unique shapes. But so far... no one has found an efficient algorithm > > that will tell you how many unique shapes for N connected stones. > I think they have only calculated to N=28. This isn't really an NP > type problem as it is not a decision problem... but it could > well be intractable. > > > It is possible that as time goes on... computer go (or any computer) will > run > into certain problems that cannot be solved on a traditional computer. > > > ___ > 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/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
> well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed > boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose > algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to work > for "all boardsizes" in some measurable, scalable way. I don't necessarily think that go is np-complete... but the board does not have to be infinite to be intractable. I mean.. let's say that 19x19 go or some other game has 3^361 possible positions. That seems to be bigger than the number of available matter we have to construct memory. It seems like there would be a set of algorithms that will be able to beat the strongest human players of go. But it is not certain that there aren't certain limits to what we can calculate with computers. This is why the whole p != np is interesting. There are many common algorithmic problems that might not have a polynomial run time solution. Go has many angles of attack... but how about eye shapes... how many possible 4 stone connected eye shapes are there? Its like tetris.. there are 5 unique shapes. But so far... no one has found an efficient algorithm that will tell you how many unique shapes for N connected stones. I think they have only calculated to N=28. This isn't really an NP type problem as it is not a decision problem... but it could well be intractable. It is possible that as time goes on... computer go (or any computer) will run into certain problems that cannot be solved on a traditional computer. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to work for "all boardsizes" in some measurable, scalable way. s. On 8/8/08, Robert Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I might come off as being strongly opinionated on the topic.. but I have > been of the opinion for a while that maybe playing go is a problem that > can't be solved by computers. I kinda want p != np and for us to be confined > by mathematics (sorry).The general taunt from my side is that "A computer > can only beat a weak amateur" or "A computer is easily beaten by an amateur > child". > > This record clearly will make those taunts change. It certainly affected my > opinion of the strength of statistical analysis. > > ___ > 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/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
I might come off as being strongly opinionated on the topic.. but I have been of the opinion for a while that maybe playing go is a problem that can't be solved by computers. I kinda want p != np and for us to be confined by mathematics (sorry).The general taunt from my side is that "A computer can only beat a weak amateur" or "A computer is easily beaten by an amateur child". This record clearly will make those taunts change. It certainly affected my opinion of the strength of statistical analysis. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Well.. I disagree that too much significance is being made of it. It is quite clearly a record. Handicap stones are a fundamental part of go. It is uninteresting for human players to play an even game where one player is incredibly stronger. There might be some recreational value.. but generally... it feels good to have a challenge and it feels good not to be crushed. Handicap stones and kyu or dan rating systems are built on the idea. When Mr. Kim says that he feels that Mogo was playing like a 2 or 3 dan... it is a powerful reference point in that Mr. Kim appraised Mogo as a professional who has played many different opponents. It seemed to me that Mr. Kim judged the handicaps and wanted to play giving Mogo 9 stones. I believe him when he says it had approximately low dan strength. As far as the particular game... and talk of a rematch.. I think it is too quick to think about pairing off new matches. What I find significant about the game is that it set a record and made quite a huge jump compared to outcomes in the past years. I think many, at least outside of the Mogo team, were very surprised with how the match turned out. The Ing challenge is no longer around and there are computer scientists out there who thought that maybe... just maybe... go is a problem that computers can't solve (many definitions for solve here). Seeing this kind of jump leads to excitement in the go community... and I would bet that in the next few years.. we will see more pro challenges. Particularly if this generates interest among large go communities like those in Asia. Perhaps a new Ing challenge or something sponsored. Go is a huge game in Asia and it could be a bigger event than Deep Blue vs. Kasparov.. in terms of difficulty and wide audience. I am not saying that the match was the greatest thing in the history of computers. But I do think that this has the ability to change a few minds on the feasability of a computer playing go. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] cgos 19x19 has no anchor
Hi Markus, Run gnugo 3.7.10 using these exact options: ./gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules --min-level 10 --max-level 10 --positional-superko Please name it "Gnugo-3.7.10-a4" (a4 = anchor 4) and use whatever password you want.I will configure the server to see it as an anchor. If we get another anchor running soon, you can still leave it up for a while if you want to. It never hurts to have an extra anchor or two. - Thanks. On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 12:56 -0600, Markus Enzenberger wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: > > If someone else could please run an anchor until we get this ironed out, > > it would be appreciated. > > > > Contact me by private email if you can run a reliable anchor player for > > a while. > > > > I could run a GNU Go anchor on 19x19 on one of our machines for two > weeks. Maybe even a few weeks more, but it won't be a long-term solution > > - Markus > > ___ > 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] cgos 19x19 has no anchor
Don Dailey wrote: If someone else could please run an anchor until we get this ironed out, it would be appreciated. Contact me by private email if you can run a reliable anchor player for a while. I could run a GNU Go anchor on 19x19 on one of our machines for two weeks. Maybe even a few weeks more, but it won't be a long-term solution - Markus ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Yes, I agree with you. I would love to see it's true skill against humans clearly established, with lots of games. Even if we only had confidence within 1 dan in either direction it would be useful. It could probably be arranged using a modern quad processor or perhaps an 8 processor machine (can you easily get those yet?) Of course you have the lack of standardization thing too. Which scale or ranking system do you use, etc. What a mess. - Don On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 11:27 -0700, steve uurtamo wrote: > don, > > thanks for your thoughtful comments. > > 9 handicap is still a real game, in the sense that > the handicapping isn't arbitrary -- it definitely > measures some skill difference. i think that even > a match of 3 games would give quite a bit more > information, although i thought that Mr. Kim had > said that 9 stones would be too much regardless > (or suggested as much). > > when janice kim won against a (13 stone?) computer > handicap, that was showmanship, but a good highwater > mark at the time. > > it'd be great if mogo, with hardware like this, or even > a drastically reduced hardware set, could compete > often enough to get an official ranking according to, > say, the european go federation. but people are > unlikely to want to risk rating points against computers, > i'd think. > > i think that the suggestion that the mogo team with this > hardware could beat a 1dan amateur regularly without > handicap isn't really in question, but it'd still be worth > seeing in practice. (and i wonder, as i'm sure a lot of > the other scaling geeks here are, about just how much > cluster you'd need in order to perform at that (1d-ish) > level). > > although there's nothing magical about 1d versus 2d or > 1k, the "dan barrier" still has an allure for many people, > because it's just so difficult to attain for many amateurs. > > s. > > On 8/8/08, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I think events like this are great. They generate interest and > > excitement and are great fun. > > > > But they have very little scientific value. They are wide open for > > speculation, non-objective analysis, etc. Often strong players fail to > > take matches like this seriously because they are exhibitions with > > nothing particular at stake. I don't know if this was the case or not > > but I know it is happens. > > > > Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to heavily > > handicap them. What's with that? I know of course why, nobody > > cares about an exhibition match with an ordinary player an thus it has > > value. But it really underscores the nature of this kind of > > exhibition, not really a significant scientific experiment. No serious > > conclusions are possible.It's also rather silly to rank moves and > > not performance in general over many games. Such and such a move was a > > 5 dan move, this other move was a kyu level move, etc. This is a > > sound bite to make people happy but isn't very quantifiable. > > > > Nevertheless, I have high praise that such an event took place, it's > > always super-cool to be able to utilize such a powerful machine and this > > was a good excuse to do so. > > > > I am left relatively confused about the outcome however. Someone gave a > > computer a bunch of stones and it was able to beat a strong player. Is > > that supposed to be exciting? I think I would simply be embarrassed > > that it was believed that so many stones were necessary to even the > > match. (Of course compared to a few years ago, this is an impressive > > victory for a computer go program, although only a single data point.) > > > > I hope I don't come across as being critical, I think this was a great > > idea and such matches should be arranged whenever possible. I just get > > a little embarrassed when too much significance is made of it. > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Waite wrote: > > > I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a > > > couple after. I was very surprised by the result as many were. > > > > > > There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For > > > example, when Kim said that the computer plays at maybe 2 or 3 dan... > > > > > does he mean professional or amateur pro? The supercomputer itself is > > > unclear... some had said it would be 3000+ cores... for the game they > > > said 800 processors. Some said it was indeed 3000+ cores.. because > > > each processor was 4 core. But I never found a clear answer on this. > > > The records of discussion are in MogoTitan's sgf records.. but the > > > discussions in the computer go room and perhaps private rooms are not > > > recorded (at least that I know of). If someone did give this > > > information, it was very easy to lose track of when 500 people were > > > observing the match. Tonight I am probably going to go through the > > > reco
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
don, thanks for your thoughtful comments. 9 handicap is still a real game, in the sense that the handicapping isn't arbitrary -- it definitely measures some skill difference. i think that even a match of 3 games would give quite a bit more information, although i thought that Mr. Kim had said that 9 stones would be too much regardless (or suggested as much). when janice kim won against a (13 stone?) computer handicap, that was showmanship, but a good highwater mark at the time. it'd be great if mogo, with hardware like this, or even a drastically reduced hardware set, could compete often enough to get an official ranking according to, say, the european go federation. but people are unlikely to want to risk rating points against computers, i'd think. i think that the suggestion that the mogo team with this hardware could beat a 1dan amateur regularly without handicap isn't really in question, but it'd still be worth seeing in practice. (and i wonder, as i'm sure a lot of the other scaling geeks here are, about just how much cluster you'd need in order to perform at that (1d-ish) level). although there's nothing magical about 1d versus 2d or 1k, the "dan barrier" still has an allure for many people, because it's just so difficult to attain for many amateurs. s. On 8/8/08, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think events like this are great. They generate interest and > excitement and are great fun. > > But they have very little scientific value. They are wide open for > speculation, non-objective analysis, etc. Often strong players fail to > take matches like this seriously because they are exhibitions with > nothing particular at stake. I don't know if this was the case or not > but I know it is happens. > > Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to heavily > handicap them. What's with that? I know of course why, nobody > cares about an exhibition match with an ordinary player an thus it has > value. But it really underscores the nature of this kind of > exhibition, not really a significant scientific experiment. No serious > conclusions are possible.It's also rather silly to rank moves and > not performance in general over many games. Such and such a move was a > 5 dan move, this other move was a kyu level move, etc. This is a > sound bite to make people happy but isn't very quantifiable. > > Nevertheless, I have high praise that such an event took place, it's > always super-cool to be able to utilize such a powerful machine and this > was a good excuse to do so. > > I am left relatively confused about the outcome however. Someone gave a > computer a bunch of stones and it was able to beat a strong player. Is > that supposed to be exciting? I think I would simply be embarrassed > that it was believed that so many stones were necessary to even the > match. (Of course compared to a few years ago, this is an impressive > victory for a computer go program, although only a single data point.) > > I hope I don't come across as being critical, I think this was a great > idea and such matches should be arranged whenever possible. I just get > a little embarrassed when too much significance is made of it. > > - Don > > > > > > > On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Waite wrote: > > I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a > > couple after. I was very surprised by the result as many were. > > > > There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For > > example, when Kim said that the computer plays at maybe 2 or 3 dan... > > > does he mean professional or amateur pro? The supercomputer itself is > > unclear... some had said it would be 3000+ cores... for the game they > > said 800 processors. Some said it was indeed 3000+ cores.. because > > each processor was 4 core. But I never found a clear answer on this. > > The records of discussion are in MogoTitan's sgf records.. but the > > discussions in the computer go room and perhaps private rooms are not > > recorded (at least that I know of). If someone did give this > > information, it was very easy to lose track of when 500 people were > > observing the match. Tonight I am probably going to go through the > > records to see if any more information can be gleaned. > > > > > One person who seemed to be in the room with Kim said that he was > > > laughing and clapping at some of the computer's moves. One person in > > > this list, but not the AGA eJournal, mentioned that Kim used about 11 > > minutes time.. where the computer used around 50. This was surprising > > to me... Kim is reported to say that he felt having extra time would > > > not have helped. To me... this seems a little odd. He may have used it > > > as a tactic to give the computer less thinking time (if Mogo was > > > indeed thinking during Kim's turn). He also might have done this to > > show that the computer is quite a bit weaker than him. I
[computer-go] Report on 2008 US Go Congress Computer Go Tournament
(This is about the computer-computer tournament, not the Kim-MoGo match.) Results of the Computer Go tournament at the 2008 US Go Congress in Portland, OR, USA can temporarily be found at: http://svcs.cs.pdx.edu/cgo2008 I would like to thank: Hierarchical Systems Research Foundation for providing the bulk of the $1250 prize and travel expense money (the rest was donated anonymously); Bart Massey, Kathi Lee, and everyone at PSU for providing a physical venue and helping with technical setup; Bill Shubert and everyone at KGS for providing a virtual venue; and all of the programmers and operators involved. The tournament was a double round-robin tournament, so each program played as W and B against each opponent. All games were 19x19, 45 minutes per side sudden death, Chinese rules, 7.5 komi. Here are the results in traditional round-robin format: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Total --- 1. GNU GoXX 11 01 11 11 11 11 | 11 2. Many Faces00 XX 11 11 11 11 11 | 10 3. Leela 10 00 XX 11 11 11 11 | 9 4. House Bot 00 00 00 XX 11 01 11 | 5 5. First Go 00 00 00 00 XX 11 11 | 4 6. Orego 00 00 00 10 00 XX 11 | 3 7. Butter Bot00 00 00 00 00 00 XX | 0 NOTABLE EVENTS: The tournament was surprisingly smooth. Every game but one ended in resignation. SlugGo was not able to attend due to numerous problems encountered while assembling a new hardware cluster. We decided to enter GNU Go (3.7.10, level 12) instead, as GNU Go had only refrained from entering due to the expected presence of SlugGo. The version of ManyFaces used includes Monte Carlo search. In fact, we believe GNU Go was the only non-MC program in the tournament. In ManyFaces-Leela (that is, the game with ManyFaces as white and Leela as black), David Fotland discovered that his T61 laptop was unplugged, so ManyFaces was running at half speed to conserve power. The laptop was properly plugged in mid-game and ManyFaces went on to win the game anyway. In Leela-GNU, KGS reported a win for GNU under Japanese rules, because we had failed to set one of our KgsGtp configuration files to specify Chinese rules. Since both programs believed that they were playing under Chinese rules, we re-scored under Chinese rules and found the game was a win for Leela (as Leela had reported). In FirstGo-GNU, FirstGo played out a ladder. In Leela-FirstGo, FirstGo played out a short ladder. It began to run when caught in a second, much longer broken ladder; 13 moves were played before Leela abandoned the chase. In FirstGo-Orego, Orego resigned after 76 moves -- probably a bit premature. After the event, Fotland had hew new multithreaded version of ManyFaces up and running. It played three games against GNU Go and won all of them. LESSONS FOR NEXT YEAR'S TOURNAMENT: We definitely want to do this again at next year's Go Congress in Washington, DC. Is there anyone in that area willing to direct the tournament? Double round-robin ran extremely smoothly. We were able complete our games in less time than in a tournament with fixed rounds, because a new game could start whenever one ended. In fact, we were able to run some programs on multiple machines, thus completing some games in parallel. If there are a lot of entrants, perhaps they could be filtered by a Swiss tournament or the results of previous tournaments before playing round-robin among the strong programs. The TD's program (Orego) was ineligible to win to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest. In the future, we would do what has been done in the past: appoint a deputy director or committee to make any decisions regarding the TD's program. If the prize money is very large, it may be important to require that source code be made available for inspection by the TD to avoid any question of plagiarism. We should do a better job of making rules explicit, e.g., all results stand, even if it is discovered afterward that a program was running with incorrect parameters. (We discovered that FirstGo was running with the incorrect time setting; the result stood.) It would be good to have some talks by the programmers involved. The expense of travel is a serious impediment to attendance. Some of our prize money was used to defray such costs. It would be better to clarify the distribution of prize money in advance. Perhaps there could be one pool of prize money for everyone (with more money for programs that place higher, of course), and a second pool for those programmers who travel, with appropriate consideration to prevent a trivial program being entered just to collect travel money while the "programmer" just attends the Congress. Our intent is to encourage interesting interactions between programmers. There were useful conversations in t
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 14:35 -0300, Mark Boon wrote: > > On 8-aug-08, at 14:16, Don Dailey wrote: > > > Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to > > heavily > > > > handicap them. What's with that? > > > > Actually, that's not so silly. I think a case can be made that super > strong players tend to have a more consistent level than weaker > players. 8-dan pro is also pretty close to the highest level of > humans, so you have a fixed measuring point instead of a moving one > when the program's level goes up. Yes, except the next match will be some other player at a different level with another arbitrarily decided handicap. > Having said that, I actually thought the pro played some questionable > moves, so there goes the argument about consistency out the window. > I'm also wondering to what extent the pro was maybe deceived by the > poor play in the faster games, maybe he thought he could get away with > some tricks that then back-fired. This of course is the problem with a single data point like this. The pro could be capable of winning 9 out of 10 such matches once learning Mogo's weaknesses, but this single result must serve to tell the whole story. One other thing. Even though I am a firm believer in scalability, I don't believe Mogo truly had better chances in long games. Unless there is some hardware issue that prevents this (which is very possible) then Mogo should have had better winning chances with the short games. It was clear the strong player utilized much more of his time in the fast games and didn't take advantage of his time in the long game (the one he made mistakes in.) - Don > > Lastly I agree that you get a different result from pros once some > money is involved. Offer him $,1000 if he wins and watch what happens. > Most pros can't help themselves once money is at stake :-) > > > Mark > > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On 8-aug-08, at 14:16, Don Dailey wrote: Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to heavily handicap them. What's with that? Actually, that's not so silly. I think a case can be made that super strong players tend to have a more consistent level than weaker players. 8-dan pro is also pretty close to the highest level of humans, so you have a fixed measuring point instead of a moving one when the program's level goes up. Having said that, I actually thought the pro played some questionable moves, so there goes the argument about consistency out the window. I'm also wondering to what extent the pro was maybe deceived by the poor play in the faster games, maybe he thought he could get away with some tricks that then back-fired. Lastly I agree that you get a different result from pros once some money is involved. Offer him $,1000 if he wins and watch what happens. Most pros can't help themselves once money is at stake :-) Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 09:44 -0700, David Doshay wrote: > One point not discussed much in this thread is the consistency issue. > I think that if Kim were able to play a dozen games against mogo with > this same handicap he would win the last 6 ... people manage to adapt > and the computers do not. > > But that much cluster time and Mr Kim time are probably not available. > Perhaps with all of the interest this match is generating we will be > able to get more of each (or some other pro) in the future. I would love to see that, but I would prefer to see Mogo play without handicap. I don't care what people say about handicap systems, if you are the stronger player you must start from a dead lost position. Even though I'm not a strong GO player, common sense tells me that you will have to play "unsound" moves on purpose to have a chance. With low handicap games it may not matter in any seriously significant way, but when you get into high numbers of stones it just seems like you are not really playing GO. It would be truly impressive if we could instead be saying, "Mogo beat a 2 dan player outright."Isn't that more impressive that interpolating that it "might" be playing 2 or 3 dan strength? Of course I realize the realities. It's probably not nearly as exciting playing some 2 dan player but it seems to me to be more meaningful. But we could simply add a few more stones and let it play Gnugo. - Don > > Cheers, > David > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] cgos 19x19 has no anchor
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 08:20 -0700, David Fotland wrote: > All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday. the anchors for 19x19 and 13x13 are on a computer that is having connection issues and they are losing a lot of games for this reason, so I am looking into this. If someone else could please run an anchor until we get this ironed out, it would be appreciated. Contact me by private email if you can run a reliable anchor player for a while. - Don > David > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
I think events like this are great. They generate interest and excitement and are great fun. But they have very little scientific value. They are wide open for speculation, non-objective analysis, etc. Often strong players fail to take matches like this seriously because they are exhibitions with nothing particular at stake. I don't know if this was the case or not but I know it is happens. Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to heavily handicap them. What's with that? I know of course why, nobody cares about an exhibition match with an ordinary player an thus it has value. But it really underscores the nature of this kind of exhibition, not really a significant scientific experiment. No serious conclusions are possible.It's also rather silly to rank moves and not performance in general over many games. Such and such a move was a 5 dan move, this other move was a kyu level move, etc. This is a sound bite to make people happy but isn't very quantifiable. Nevertheless, I have high praise that such an event took place, it's always super-cool to be able to utilize such a powerful machine and this was a good excuse to do so. I am left relatively confused about the outcome however. Someone gave a computer a bunch of stones and it was able to beat a strong player. Is that supposed to be exciting? I think I would simply be embarrassed that it was believed that so many stones were necessary to even the match. (Of course compared to a few years ago, this is an impressive victory for a computer go program, although only a single data point.) I hope I don't come across as being critical, I think this was a great idea and such matches should be arranged whenever possible. I just get a little embarrassed when too much significance is made of it. - Don On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 10:13 -0400, Robert Waite wrote: > I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a > couple after. I was very surprised by the result as many were. > > There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For > example, when Kim said that the computer plays at maybe 2 or 3 dan... > does he mean professional or amateur pro? The supercomputer itself is > unclear... some had said it would be 3000+ cores... for the game they > said 800 processors. Some said it was indeed 3000+ cores.. because > each processor was 4 core. But I never found a clear answer on this. > The records of discussion are in MogoTitan's sgf records.. but the > discussions in the computer go room and perhaps private rooms are not > recorded (at least that I know of). If someone did give this > information, it was very easy to lose track of when 500 people were > observing the match. Tonight I am probably going to go through the > records to see if any more information can be gleaned. > > One person who seemed to be in the room with Kim said that he was > laughing and clapping at some of the computer's moves. One person in > this list, but not the AGA eJournal, mentioned that Kim used about 11 > minutes time.. where the computer used around 50. This was surprising > to me... Kim is reported to say that he felt having extra time would > not have helped. To me... this seems a little odd. He may have used it > as a tactic to give the computer less thinking time (if Mogo was > indeed thinking during Kim's turn). He also might have done this to > show that the computer is quite a bit weaker than him. It is really > hard to tell what really happened without a good report on the event. > AGA eJournal has been pretty vague about information so far.. the > clapping and laughing indicates that Kim enjoyed playing the computer > and my feeling from what I have seen so far is that he was not playing > the computer as if he was playing a professional tournament. > > Anyway.. it was a huge event. It's almost like the first computer to > reach shodan amateur (not exactly.. but in a way). My information > about Mogo is pretty light... but it seems that there is a chance that > one day.. the source will be opened up. This is completely a guess and > I don't wish to spread false info... but Mogo appears to have been a > grad student's work.. and when they finished their degree.. they > passed the source onto other researchers at their university. I am not > able to find the text that I am thinking about... but there was a > sentence to the tune of "the source code is not available yet" and one > of the big guys that was behind this event seems to have feelings the > GNU is great and that source should be available (in general). I do > however feel that they have worked hard and have had a big success... > so they do deserve to have an edge at the moment.. as long as the > source is given out eventually. I am particularly interested in what > they did to make it scale well to many nodes. > > So congrats to the Mogo team and here is to a nice outlook for the > future of computer go :) > > > > _
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Yes... I do hope that more interest is sparked by this match. I had heard that one of the big guys from Deep Blue now works for MS Research in Asia. He had written a paper that I am sure most here have already read.. a title similar to "Cracking Go". I am sure he would be delighted by these results. I would think that this game... particularly the jump in skill compared to time would show that these methods are potentially profitable. I also put an entry on senseis.xmp.net under Mogo as well as an entry on wikipedia in "computer go" under monte carlo methods. I also contacted the nihon kiin and the korean baduk association as I am sure they would be interested in this if they had not heard already. The more publicity.. the better chance there will be available funding in the future (or access to hardware). Certainly this match was a big victory for those trying to convince institutions with computer clusters to yield some time. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
One point not discussed much in this thread is the consistency issue. I think that if Kim were able to play a dozen games against mogo with this same handicap he would win the last 6 ... people manage to adapt and the computers do not. But that much cluster time and Mr Kim time are probably not available. Perhaps with all of the interest this match is generating we will be able to get more of each (or some other pro) in the future. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Yes... I agree you should not press Mr. Kim as it was very gracious of him to take the time for this. And getting on Slashdot is good... it already has general people feverishly discussing it : ) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Kim applauded once when Mogo made a good move in a blitz game. I believe that the comment about not using more time, which was in response to my question, applied only to high handicap games. Cheers, David On 8, Aug 2008, at 9:15 AM, Peter Drake wrote: One person who seemed to be in the room with Kim said that he was laughing and clapping at some of the computer's moves. This was only at one moment during the second blitz game when MoGo cut off one of Kim's groups. He was definitely concentrating on his games. One person in this list, but not the AGA eJournal, mentioned that Kim used about 11 minutes time.. where the computer used around 50. This was surprising to me... Kim is reported to say that he felt having extra time would not have helped. Correct. To me... this seems a little odd. He may have used it as a tactic to give the computer less thinking time (if Mogo was indeed thinking during Kim's turn). I don't know about this; he may not have been aware that MoGo pondered. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] cgos 19x19 has no anchor
I will put up GNU Go when I get home. Cheers, David On 8, Aug 2008, at 8:20 AM, David Fotland wrote: All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Aug 8, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Waite wrote: Yeah.. the misclick question is another fuzzy point. There was a lot of debate in the actual game about what was happening... but there is the difficulty of having weak players and strong players commenting. The only person who really knew what was happening and the direction of play is Mr. Kim. Mr. Kim said there was no misclick. What I would really hope for is someone who has a channel to Mr. Kim. This event received some coverage in AGA eJournal and certainly some here.. but to me this was a huge victory where the implications of the game did not come out until the victory. I feel that if this had occured in Japan or Korea... there would be general newspaper articles about the whole match... and there would have been dedicated reporters at the event. There was a reporter from the Oregonian (the largest newspaper in Oregon); I imagine they'll run a story soon. Also, we made Slashdot: http://games.slashdot.org/games/08/08/08/1243244.shtml It would be really nice to have an interview with Mr. Kim to give stakeholders as much information as possible. I am sure that the Mogo devs are getting feedback from him... it would be nice for people in general to have Mr. Kim's take. I'm reluctant to ask for more of Mr. Kim's time, as he was very generous to play this exhibition match in the first place. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
The game review is available from the KGS archives at http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=myungwan On Friday 08 August 2008, Robert Waite wrote: > Oh yeah... I downloaded the final game from KGS and the sgf file seems to > be missing the small review that Mr. Kim gave at the end. He did not write > comments... he seemed to be doing it for those that were in the room. It > might be of interest to those that are interested in what he was > thinking... particularly in the lower right and maybe a little of the right > side. > > Last night long after the game, I saved a local copy. I do not know if it > includes the review or spectator comments after the scoring... but if I am > able to send attachments.. I will send my copy. Otherwise.. let me know if > anyone wants it forwarded to them.. but of course.. I won't know if the > game review is stored in my sgf until I get home tonight. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
On 8, Aug 2008, at 7:29 AM, Eric Boesch wrote: On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team. Ditto! Absolutely an amazing achievement! Where I do differ in opinion from most is the remarks from the pro. He played too fast and made a few terrible mistakes at crucial points. He said that MoGo winning the lower-right corner was 5-dan level play but I strongly disagree. It was good play, probably dan-level, but the kicker was that the mistake by the pro was also almost sub dan level. If it was an outright blunder then it was definitely sub-dan level. I just don't know if that's the case. In discussion one person said "So it was an overplay on your part?" His answer was "With 9 stones I must make overplays." From the nature of what was said after that it is clear that Mr Kim knew how to live in the corner, but chose a variation that he did not think the computer would answer so well that would prevent him from getting sealed into the corner. Maybe (as an alternative to the "misclick" theory, which would be my other top candidate) Myung Wan I mentioned the misclick theory in the chat and he was emphatic that there was no misclick. deliberately tested Mogo for a blunder He showed us the kind of responses he expected, which he said were 1-Dan level. after Mogo played a very nice squeeze. Myung Wan was disrespecting his opponent to even try to see if r1 would work (but maybe he wanted to see just in case Mogo was that dumb, and he wanted to find out early in the game so he would know how many points he needed to make elsewhere), but s1 is not great either because if Myung saves his bottom chain, then as in the variation starting with move 52 in the attached SGF, Myung is stuck in the corner after black plays s7. It is hard to imagine that the lower right side is worth losing the corner, but maybe the difference is small. To me, r2 looks very good. What do you stronger players think? (I'm only 1 kyu.) MoGoTiTan-4.sgf>___ 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: mogo beats pro!
On Aug 8, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Robert Waite wrote: I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a couple after. I was very surprised by the result as many were. There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For example, when Kim said that the computer plays at maybe 2 or 3 dan... does he mean professional or amateur pro? I believe he meant amateur. One person who seemed to be in the room with Kim said that he was laughing and clapping at some of the computer's moves. This was only at one moment during the second blitz game when MoGo cut off one of Kim's groups. He was definitely concentrating on his games. One person in this list, but not the AGA eJournal, mentioned that Kim used about 11 minutes time.. where the computer used around 50. This was surprising to me... Kim is reported to say that he felt having extra time would not have helped. Correct. To me... this seems a little odd. He may have used it as a tactic to give the computer less thinking time (if Mogo was indeed thinking during Kim's turn). I don't know about this; he may not have been aware that MoGo pondered. Many of the audience were surprised that MoGo was capable of resigning. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
On Aug 8, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Waite wrote: The speed with which he played as well as the idea that he was laughing and clapping would indicate that he perhaps was testing the game and did not consider this a "Showdown". Perhaps he was very surprised with its strength compared to other software he has played and was testing various aspects with his play... not something he would necessarily do in a professional tournament. He only did this during the first few speed games, where MoGo quickly lost its handicap advantage and started playing desperate moves. I'm sure Kim was just playing to the audience, which had already started laughing at MoGo's strange moves. Ian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Oh yeah... I downloaded the final game from KGS and the sgf file seems to be missing the small review that Mr. Kim gave at the end. He did not write comments... he seemed to be doing it for those that were in the room. It might be of interest to those that are interested in what he was thinking... particularly in the lower right and maybe a little of the right side. Last night long after the game, I saved a local copy. I do not know if it includes the review or spectator comments after the scoring... but if I am able to send attachments.. I will send my copy. Otherwise.. let me know if anyone wants it forwarded to them.. but of course.. I won't know if the game review is stored in my sgf until I get home tonight. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] cgos 19x19 has no anchor
All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Fantastic, as a long time list lurker I shall delurk for a minute to add my congratulations to the Mogo team. Ashley Rolleston. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
okay, thanks, david. s. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM, David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The supercomputer nodes did not have shared memory. Mogo uses shared memory > within a node, but between nodes it uses MPI message passing. The > supercomputer has low latency connections between nodes, and the Mogo team > has said that the strength scales better on systems with this kind of > interconnect than on clusters just using Ethernet. > > There is an issue with latency because the statistics in the important nodes > of the UCT tree are shared frequently. > > Sharing idle time on computers on the internet would be interesting for > postal games, but won't scale up in performance like Mogo on this > supercomputer. > > David > >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of steve uurtamo >> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:45 AM >> To: computer-go >> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro! >> >> hm. this makes me think back to something. >> >> did this supercomputer have all of its ram shared >> by all processors? or could it be emulated by >> a large enough number of machines given individual >> jobs, given that combining the results of those jobs >> isn't too complicated? >> >> if so, i think that this would be ripe for BOINC -- at >> these time controls, there's no issue with latency, >> and there are clever ways to deal with people >> dropping off of the grid or giving intentionally bad >> information. >> >> and who wouldn't want to donate idle computer >> time to a project that was, say, sitting on KGS >> and kicking the crap out of decent players? >> >> lots of people sit on KGS and just simply watch. why >> not have those idle lurking watchers participate >> in the game as well, with their copious unused cycles? >> >> s. >> >> On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim >> >> did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour >> >> game. He said after the match that using more time would not have >> helped >> >> him. >> > >> > I imagine that is typical as white in a handicap game; you play >> solid, >> > good shape moves and wait for black to do something wrong. (I.e. >> strong >> > players can play a dozen simultaneous high-handicap games as easily >> as >> > they can play one high-handicap game.) >> > >> > Darren >> > >> > ___ >> > 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/ > > ___ > 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: mogo beats pro!
> not something he would necessarily do in a professional tournament. perhaps true. money is a great motivating force, even small amounts of money (as don has pointed out in the past). s. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Robert Waite <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yeah.. the misclick question is another fuzzy point. There was a lot of > debate in the actual game about what was happening... but there is the > difficulty of having weak players and strong players commenting. The only > person who really knew what was happening and the direction of play is Mr. > Kim. > > I hope that information becomes available as there are many stakeholders > hoping that the results of this game provide hope for a computer crushing > human opponents : ) > > I have a feeling that the devs are going to put out more information.. if > anyone here finds solid information in the coming weeks.. please post it > here so it is easier to find. > > What I would really hope for is someone who has a channel to Mr. Kim. This > event received some coverage in AGA eJournal and certainly some here.. but > to me this was a huge victory where the implications of the game did not > come out until the victory. I feel that if this had occured in Japan or > Korea... there would be general newspaper articles about the whole match... > and there would have been dedicated reporters at the event. It would be > really nice to have an interview with Mr. Kim to give stakeholders as much > information as possible. I am sure that the Mogo devs are getting feedback > from him... it would be nice for people in general to have Mr. Kim's take. > > The speed with which he played as well as the idea that he was laughing and > clapping would indicate that he perhaps was testing the game and did not > consider this a "Showdown". Perhaps he was very surprised with its strength > compared to other software he has played and was testing various aspects > with his play... not something he would necessarily do in a professional > tournament. This is all conjecture since we do not have a solid record yet > of what Mr. Kim thought. My feelings are that even if Kim gave it his all... > the overall result would have been the same: a computer got extremely strong > very quickly.. and this indicates that researchers are on the right track. > > I am sure he is busy.. and he may even give Korean interviews about what > happened... but if anyone finds information about Mr. Kims perspective of > the game... I think it would be of great interest to the computer go > community. > > ___ > 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] mogo beats pro!
Thanks for posting the game Eric. When I look back at it it's obvious to me S1 was much better. After the likely sequence of R1, T3, T2, T4, S7, Q1, R7 Black still has a serious weakness at N4. I also still question W's play in the upper-right. I doubt W S15 was a good move and think S19 would have given a much better result. Also O15 I find questionable, better not play here at all and let Black play S17. That way you get the same result as in the game, with the difference that Black added a stone at S17. But I must say that B R16 was a really strong move to make things complicated for W. Hats off to MoGo. Mark On 8-aug-08, at 11:29, Eric Boesch wrote: ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
The supercomputer nodes did not have shared memory. Mogo uses shared memory within a node, but between nodes it uses MPI message passing. The supercomputer has low latency connections between nodes, and the Mogo team has said that the strength scales better on systems with this kind of interconnect than on clusters just using Ethernet. There is an issue with latency because the statistics in the important nodes of the UCT tree are shared frequently. Sharing idle time on computers on the internet would be interesting for postal games, but won't scale up in performance like Mogo on this supercomputer. David > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of steve uurtamo > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:45 AM > To: computer-go > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro! > > hm. this makes me think back to something. > > did this supercomputer have all of its ram shared > by all processors? or could it be emulated by > a large enough number of machines given individual > jobs, given that combining the results of those jobs > isn't too complicated? > > if so, i think that this would be ripe for BOINC -- at > these time controls, there's no issue with latency, > and there are clever ways to deal with people > dropping off of the grid or giving intentionally bad > information. > > and who wouldn't want to donate idle computer > time to a project that was, say, sitting on KGS > and kicking the crap out of decent players? > > lots of people sit on KGS and just simply watch. why > not have those idle lurking watchers participate > in the game as well, with their copious unused cycles? > > s. > > On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim > >> did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour > >> game. He said after the match that using more time would not have > helped > >> him. > > > > I imagine that is typical as white in a handicap game; you play > solid, > > good shape moves and wait for black to do something wrong. (I.e. > strong > > players can play a dozen simultaneous high-handicap games as easily > as > > they can play one high-handicap game.) > > > > Darren > > > > ___ > > 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Yeah.. the misclick question is another fuzzy point. There was a lot of debate in the actual game about what was happening... but there is the difficulty of having weak players and strong players commenting. The only person who really knew what was happening and the direction of play is Mr. Kim. I hope that information becomes available as there are many stakeholders hoping that the results of this game provide hope for a computer crushing human opponents : ) I have a feeling that the devs are going to put out more information.. if anyone here finds solid information in the coming weeks.. please post it here so it is easier to find. What I would really hope for is someone who has a channel to Mr. Kim. This event received some coverage in AGA eJournal and certainly some here.. but to me this was a huge victory where the implications of the game did not come out until the victory. I feel that if this had occured in Japan or Korea... there would be general newspaper articles about the whole match... and there would have been dedicated reporters at the event. It would be really nice to have an interview with Mr. Kim to give stakeholders as much information as possible. I am sure that the Mogo devs are getting feedback from him... it would be nice for people in general to have Mr. Kim's take. The speed with which he played as well as the idea that he was laughing and clapping would indicate that he perhaps was testing the game and did not consider this a "Showdown". Perhaps he was very surprised with its strength compared to other software he has played and was testing various aspects with his play... not something he would necessarily do in a professional tournament. This is all conjecture since we do not have a solid record yet of what Mr. Kim thought. My feelings are that even if Kim gave it his all... the overall result would have been the same: a computer got extremely strong very quickly.. and this indicates that researchers are on the right track. I am sure he is busy.. and he may even give Korean interviews about what happened... but if anyone finds information about Mr. Kims perspective of the game... I think it would be of great interest to the computer go community. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
Wow! I've been radio silent for a long time now working on other things some years now, but watching the successes of the new approaches. What incredible validation them... Fantastic! Jeffrey Greenberg www.jeffrey-greenberg.com -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of terry mcintyre Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 8:48 PM To: computer go Subject: [computer-go] mogo beats pro! This is from the AGA newsletter: COMPUTER BEATS PRO AT U.S. GO CONGRESS: In a historic achievement, the MoGo computer program defeated Myungwan Kim 8P (l) Thursday afternoon by 1.5 points in a 9-stone game billed as "Humanity's Last Stand?" "It played really well," said Kim, who estimated MoGo's current strength at "two or maybe three dan," though he noted that the program - which used 800 processors, at 4.7 Ghz, 15 Teraflops on a borrowed European supercomputer - "made some 5-dan moves," like those in the lower right-hand corner, where Moyogo took advantage of a mistake by Kim to get an early lead. "I can't tell you how amazing this is," David Doshay -- the SlugGo programmer who suggested the match -- told the E-Journal after the game. "I'm shocked at the result. I really didn't expect the computer to win in a one-hour game." Kim easily won two blitz games with 9 stones and 11 stones and minutes and lost one with 12 stones and 15 minutes by 3.5 points. The games were played live at the U.S. Go Congress, with over 500 watching online on KGS. "I think there's no chance on nine stones," Kim told the EJ after the game. "It would even be difficult with eight stones. MoGo played really well; after getting a lead, every time I played aggressively, it just played safely, even when it meant sacrificing some stones. It didn't try to maximize the win and just played the most sure way to win. It's like a machine." The game generated a lot of interest and discussion about the game's tactics and philosophical implications. "Congratulations on making history today," game organizer Peter Drake told both Kim and Olivier Teytaud, one of MoGo's programmers, who participated ina brief online chat after the game. At a rare loss for words in a brief interview with the EJ after the game, Doshay wondered "How much time do we have left? We've improved nine stones in just a year and I suspect the next nine will fall quickly now." - reported by Chris Garlock, photo by Brian Allen Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery." Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874] ___ 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/
[computer-go] Mogo beats pro: the hardware
Dear all, The machine that was used by MoGo yesterday is the Dutch supercomputer "Huygens", situated in Amsterdam. Huygens was provided by SARA (www.sara.nl) and NCF(http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/ACPP_4X6R5C_Eng). Huygens was upgraded on August 1 to 60 Teraflops (Peak), so porting MoGo with this short notice for the match was a lot of hard work and stress. But the result showed it was worth it! Huygens is constituted of 104 nodes of 16 dual-cores POWER6 processors at 4.7 GHz each (with 128G of RAM). MoGo was using 25 nodes, i.e., 800 cores and nearly 15 Teraflops. By comparison, Deep Blue was using "only" 11 Gigaflops. The structure of Huygens with powerful processors and numerous cores per node is ideal for MoGo. It would be less efficient to use a supercomputer with few cores per node, e.g., Blue Gene. The parallelization was performed using Pthreads and OpenMPI. On each node, two search-trees were built, each one using 32 threads. Thanks to the SMT technology, it is actually more efficient to use two threads per core. Indeed, while one thread is looking in memory, an other thread can use the core. Every 350 milliseconds, the nodes were communicating their tree to one an other using OpenMPI. Finally, we would like to help all the people who helped us to port the code, both from the french INRIA/CNRS and the dutch NCF/SARA. Cheers, and see you in Beijing! The Mogo Team: http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/mogo.html PS: A nice picture of Huygens, and further information, can be found here: www.sara.nl <>___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a couple after. I was very surprised by the result as many were. There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For example, when Kim said that the computer plays at maybe 2 or 3 dan... does he mean professional or amateur pro? The supercomputer itself is unclear... some had said it would be 3000+ cores... for the game they said 800 processors. Some said it was indeed 3000+ cores.. because each processor was 4 core. But I never found a clear answer on this. The records of discussion are in MogoTitan's sgf records.. but the discussions in the computer go room and perhaps private rooms are not recorded (at least that I know of). If someone did give this information, it was very easy to lose track of when 500 people were observing the match. Tonight I am probably going to go through the records to see if any more information can be gleaned. One person who seemed to be in the room with Kim said that he was laughing and clapping at some of the computer's moves. One person in this list, but not the AGA eJournal, mentioned that Kim used about 11 minutes time.. where the computer used around 50. This was surprising to me... Kim is reported to say that he felt having extra time would not have helped. To me... this seems a little odd. He may have used it as a tactic to give the computer less thinking time (if Mogo was indeed thinking during Kim's turn). He also might have done this to show that the computer is quite a bit weaker than him. It is really hard to tell what really happened without a good report on the event. AGA eJournal has been pretty vague about information so far.. the clapping and laughing indicates that Kim enjoyed playing the computer and my feeling from what I have seen so far is that he was not playing the computer as if he was playing a professional tournament. Anyway.. it was a huge event. It's almost like the first computer to reach shodan amateur (not exactly.. but in a way). My information about Mogo is pretty light... but it seems that there is a chance that one day.. the source will be opened up. This is completely a guess and I don't wish to spread false info... but Mogo appears to have been a grad student's work.. and when they finished their degree.. they passed the source onto other researchers at their university. I am not able to find the text that I am thinking about... but there was a sentence to the tune of "the source code is not available yet" and one of the big guys that was behind this event seems to have feelings the GNU is great and that source should be available (in general). I do however feel that they have worked hard and have had a big success... so they do deserve to have an edge at the moment.. as long as the source is given out eventually. I am particularly interested in what they did to make it scale well to many nodes. So congrats to the Mogo team and here is to a nice outlook for the future of computer go :) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Congrat's to the Mogo team. Very exciting development. On Thu, 2008-08-07 at 22:26 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote: > I watched all the games, and I must say, mogo performed really badly > at the blitz games, and quite a bit better at the 1-hour game. I'd still > take any claims of dan level play with lots of salt. Years ago we found the same issue with our parallel chess program. It was difficult for us to utilize the full power of 2000 processors on short controls for various reasons. It's possible that this is an issue. > > My take-away from watching the match is that blitz performance wasn't > at all representative. A human playing blitz games might do 90% as > well as at a full length game, whereas mogo's performance looked like > it scaled more linearly. > > I also wonder how much playing with a 9 or more stone handicap affected > it's apparent strength. It's an awful lot easier to appear competent > when you start with 9 stones. It looked to me like mogo got totally > demolished any place the pro concentrated his attack, except in the > lower-right where the pro was caught being careless. But this is where Mogo was praised, for not being distracted by such attacks. > > ___ > 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] mogo beats pro!
First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team. As some have remarked already, the difference in level between the fast games and the slow games was considerable. I didn't think the level of the fast games was anything to boast about. And my opinion is more informed than many other observers who don't understand why MoGo plays so 'stupidly' when behind. The remarks from the kibitzers weren't very flattering. Where I do differ in opinion from most is the remarks from the pro. He played too fast and made a few terrible mistakes at crucial points. He said that MoGo winning the lower-right corner was 5-dan level play but I strongly disagree. It was good play, probably dan- level, but the kicker was that the mistake by the pro was also almost sub dan level. It's a very standard situation that should be very easy for a pro to get right. So I disagree when he says he wouldn't have played stronger with more time, this was a very big mistake that was easy to take advantage of. Then the upper-right corner. I think MoGo played very well there. I don't have the game-record to verify, but I had the feeling the pro could have done a lot better there too with a little more thinking. But I must admit that MoGo took advantage of it very well and I thought the play there was probably 5-dan level or more. To me that was where MoGo won the game. Although there was a point where I thought it might still lose. This was just one game of course but it's an encouraging result. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
2008/8/8 Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > yes, there are some games there. but not all are viewable. which one is > *the* game? http://files.gokgs.com/games/2008/8/7/MyungWan-MoGoTiTan-4.sgf -- Seo Sanghyeon ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
At 10:07 PM 8/7/2008, you wrote: ... Check out the KGS records. If my memory is correct, the userid was MogoTitan. ... yes, there are some games there. but not all are viewable. which one is *the* game? thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
hm. this makes me think back to something. did this supercomputer have all of its ram shared by all processors? or could it be emulated by a large enough number of machines given individual jobs, given that combining the results of those jobs isn't too complicated? if so, i think that this would be ripe for BOINC -- at these time controls, there's no issue with latency, and there are clever ways to deal with people dropping off of the grid or giving intentionally bad information. and who wouldn't want to donate idle computer time to a project that was, say, sitting on KGS and kicking the crap out of decent players? lots of people sit on KGS and just simply watch. why not have those idle lurking watchers participate in the game as well, with their copious unused cycles? s. On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 2:12 AM, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim >> did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour >> game. He said after the match that using more time would not have helped >> him. > > I imagine that is typical as white in a handicap game; you play solid, > good shape moves and wait for black to do something wrong. (I.e. strong > players can play a dozen simultaneous high-handicap games as easily as > they can play one high-handicap game.) > > Darren > > ___ > 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] mogo beats pro!
> I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the > high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it > may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to > test this hypothesis. I know that we duffers can always ruin a perfectly good > joseki just as soon as we leave the memorized sequence. why would this be the case? and where would the book come from? my thinking is that unless mogo created the book itself, playing games like these, against opponents like these, at time controls like this one, then it couldn't possibly be helpful. and even then it might not be helpful. s. > > > - Original Message > From: Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I do have to ask -- if 1.7 million playouts per second and an hour of >> playing time are required to reach this level, ... > > Can Olivier give us more details. A few questions that come to mind: how > many playouts per *move* was it using in each of the opening, middle > game and endgame? Was it using a fuseki book, and how many moves did the > game stay in that book? And once it was out of the book was it all UCT > (*) search, or were there any joseki libraries, etc.? > > I'd also be interested to hear how inefficient the cluster was (e.g. > 1000 CPUs won't be doing 1000 times the number of playouts, there must > be some overhead). > > Darren > > *: Sorry, I've forgotten the new term we are supposed to use. > > > > ___ > 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: mogo beats pro!
> Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim > did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour > game. He said after the match that using more time would not have helped > him. I imagine that is typical as white in a handicap game; you play solid, good shape moves and wait for black to do something wrong. (I.e. strong players can play a dozen simultaneous high-handicap games as easily as they can play one high-handicap game.) Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour game. He said after the match that using more time would not have helped him. This is an interesting property of Monte Carlo Go. At the risk of overgeneralizing, it may be that digital computers have an advantage over brains in terms of fast and accurate short-term memory (dare we call it "concentration"?). A human pro has better lightning instincts (fuzzy long-term memory?), but some time for MC sampling allows the program to develop that instinct (or something analogous) over the course of the game. If we could only decide what to store (and how to store it) between games, we could get good blitz performance and superhuman long game performance. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ On Aug 7, 2008, at 10:26 PM, Dave Dyer wrote: My take-away from watching the match is that blitz performance wasn't at all representative. A human playing blitz games might do 90% as well as at a full length game, whereas mogo's performance looked like it scaled more linearly. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
Chris may be right with his implication that I talk too much these days, but just to keep things honest, the quote below is not exactly what I said. I said that others were wondering how much time it will be before the programs are beating the pros. My thought was that programs have advanced 7 to 9 stones in the last few years, and after this match, for the first time I think that programs will likely be competing evenly with pros within a decade. I am shocked to be thinking this ... I certainly did not think this yesterday. Cheers, David On 7, Aug 2008, at 8:47 PM, terry mcintyre wrote: This is from the AGA newsletter: COMPUTER BEATS PRO AT U.S. GO CONGRESS: In a historic achievement, the MoGo computer program defeated Myungwan Kim 8P (l) Thursday afternoon by 1.5 points in a 9-stone game billed as “Humanity’s Last Stand?” “It played really well,” said Kim, who estimated MoGo’s current strength at “two or maybe three dan,” though he noted that the program – which used 800 processors, at 4.7 Ghz, 15 Teraflops on a borrowed European supercomputer – “made some 5-dan moves,” like those in the lower right-hand corner, where Moyogo took advantage of a mistake by Kim to get an early lead. “I can’t tell you how amazing this is,” David Doshay -- the SlugGo programmer who suggested the match -- told the E-Journal after the game. “I’m shocked at the result. I really didn’t expect the computer to win in a one-hour game.” Kim easily won two blitz games with 9 stones and 11 stones and minutes and lost one with 12 stones and 15 minutes by 3.5 points. The games were played live at the U.S. Go Congress, with over 500 watching online on KGS. “I think there’s no chance on nine stones,” Kim told the EJ after the game. “It would even be difficult with eight stones. MoGo played really well; after getting a lead, every time I played aggressively, it just played safely, even when it meant sacrificing some stones. It didn’t try to maximize the win and just played the most sure way to win. It’s like a machine.” The game generated a lot of interest and discussion about the game’s tactics and philosophical implications. “Congratulations on making history today,” game organizer Peter Drake told both Kim and Olivier Teytaud, one of MoGo’s programmers, who participated ina brief online chat after the game. At a rare loss for words in a brief interview with the EJ after the game, Doshay wondered “How much time do we have left? We’ve improved nine stones in just a year and I suspect the next nine will fall quickly now.” - reported by Chris Garlock, photo by Brian Allen Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.” Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874] ___ 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/
