Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

On 2/06/2016 0:21, David Ongaro wrote:

>> Note that the cuDNN license allows you to install and use as many
>> copies of the software as you need, for both individual and
>> corporate use.  This intentionally permissive license is designed
>> to allow cuDNN to be useful in conjunction with open-source
>> frameworks.
> 
> So it seems nvidia got out of his way to make cuDNN useable for
> commercial purposes without imposing extra license costs.

You're better off checking the *actual license* that is included with
the current version, rather than a marketing blog, because nowhere does
it include permission to redistribute it. That would be surprising too,
since downloading it requires registering an account with Nvidia and
answering a questionnaire.

The part you're referring to makes it deployable within an organization,
but given the above it cannot be bundled with an engine.

I'd love to be proven wrong here.

-- 
GCP
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[David Ongaro]

On 01 Jun 2016, at 00:45, Gian-Carlo Pascutto  wrote:

> On 31-05-16 22:56, David Ongaro wrote:
>> Isn't e.g. TensorFlow Apache 2.0 license and would allow its
>> inclusion in commercial products?
> 
> TensorFlow relies on CuDNN for good GPU performance. Almost all
> libraries do, because CuDNN is hand optimized by NVIDIA, and hence
> rather hard to beat.

Ok, the CuDNN license might not be as convenient as the Apache 2.0 license, but 
to quote from 
https://devblogs.nvidia.com/parallelforall/accelerate-machine-learning-cudnn-deep-neural-network-library/:

> Note that the cuDNN license allows you to install and use as many copies of 
> the software as you need, for both individual and corporate use.  This 
> intentionally permissive license is designed to allow cuDNN to be useful in 
> conjunction with open-source frameworks.

So it seems nvidia got out of his way to make cuDNN useable for commercial 
purposes without imposing extra license costs.

>> I might overestimating it, but on the other hand I guess a Professor
>> like Rémi has much more obligations other then writing Go Software.
>> So anything which could save time helps.
> 
> I don't really want to answer in Remi's place, but I think he's working
> fulltime on Go now. His page states:
> 
> "In the *past*, I was Associate Professor of Computer Science..."

I see, it must be great to be able to just focus on Computer Go these days… But 
I still would argue that Rémi probably shouldn't waste his time in reinventing 
the wheel.

David O.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi David,

"David Ongaro" 
> ...  I guess you already have to be a quite strong player in 
> order to see these nuggets in a sea of weaker moves...

* likely we are speaking about different things. By "analysis"
I mainly mean analysis of own games, not analysis of other
games (between stronger players).
(Example Gerhard Knop: 4-kyu in over-the-board, but 9-dan
in correspondence go with computer help)

* An analyst does not always have to see everything correctly.
It is enough, wenn the computer help improves over his skills
als a singular analyst.


> Note that I'm not singing in this strange chorus of 
> disappointment over CS performance in the game against Haylee. 

I fully subscribe to this. Such games simply happen.
My concerns are that a strong engine (let it be CS or Zen or ...)
may not get a proper interface for analysis.

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi,

"Gian-Carlo Pascutto" 
> On 31-05-16 22:56, David Ongaro wrote:
> > I might overestimating it, but on the other hand I guess a Professor
> > like Rémi has much more obligations other then writing Go Software...
> 
> I don't really want to answer in Remi's place, but I think he's working
> fulltime on Go now. 

my 2 Cent (as a Professor): Rémi would be an idiot not to work 100 %
on Computer Go in these days.
The iron is hot (and work on computer Go is research).

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

On 31-05-16 22:56, David Ongaro wrote:
> Isn't e.g. TensorFlow Apache 2.0 license and would allow its
> inclusion in commercial products?

TensorFlow relies on CuDNN for good GPU performance. Almost all
libraries do, because CuDNN is hand optimized by NVIDIA, and hence
rather hard to beat.

(Except if you have AMD hardware, obviously :-)

> I might overestimating it, but on the other hand I guess a Professor
> like Rémi has much more obligations other then writing Go Software.
> So anything which could save time helps.

I don't really want to answer in Remi's place, but I think he's working
fulltime on Go now. His page states:

"In the *past*, I was Associate Professor of Computer Science..."

-- 
GCP
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[David Ongaro]

> On 31 May 2016, at 13:11, Gian-Carlo Pascutto  wrote:
> 
> On 31/05/2016 20:45, David Ongaro wrote:
>> I suspect Aja is right and Remi should go the path of integrating the
>> GPU even if it's just to get more "oomph" for CS. That he tried to
>> learn GPU programming from scratch is a noble attempt but I guess
>> it's just to ambitious to accomplish in a reasonable timeframe. Using
>> one of the ready to use frameworks should make it feasible though.
> 
> They're a pretty annoying burden if you want to make the engine
> commercial. I'm not even sure CuDNN can be bundled with the engine?

Isn't e.g. TensorFlow Apache 2.0 license and would allow its inclusion in 
commercial products?

> Additionally, not all customers might have a GPU that is enough faster
> than the CPU (i.e. not the built-in one in modern CPUs, save maybe AMD's
> APU units), so you need a good CPU fallback anyway. Oh, and if you use
> CUDA, you lose about 1/3rd of your customers, again.

Again, I think TensorFlow (but there might be others) is in big parts CPU/GPU 
agnostic, so one could make flexible choices here (even at runtime) without 
rewriting code. I'm aware that abstractions are leaking and not always 
desirable (e.g. if you want to take explicit advantage of the actual 
differences), but it should make things much easier to start with.

> You're overestimating the difficulty of programming a GPU though. Yes,
> if you've never done it before the programming takes some adjustment,
> but the SIMT model is very convenient to write code in, IMHO much easier
> than trying to coerce things to SIMD layouts.

I might overestimating it, but on the other hand I guess a Professor like Rémi 
has much more obligations other then writing Go Software. So anything which 
could save time helps.

David O.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

On 31/05/2016 20:45, David Ongaro wrote:
> I suspect Aja is right and Remi should go the path of integrating the
> GPU even if it's just to get more "oomph" for CS. That he tried to
> learn GPU programming from scratch is a noble attempt but I guess
> it's just to ambitious to accomplish in a reasonable timeframe. Using
> one of the ready to use frameworks should make it feasible though.

They're a pretty annoying burden if you want to make the engine
commercial. I'm not even sure CuDNN can be bundled with the engine?

Additionally, not all customers might have a GPU that is enough faster
than the CPU (i.e. not the built-in one in modern CPUs, save maybe AMD's
APU units), so you need a good CPU fallback anyway. Oh, and if you use
CUDA, you lose about 1/3rd of your customers, again.

Those are things you can ignore if you're AlphaGo, not so much if you're
selling software.

You're overestimating the difficulty of programming a GPU though. Yes,
if you've never done it before the programming takes some adjustment,
but the SIMT model is very convenient to write code in, IMHO much easier
than trying to coerce things to SIMD layouts.

From what I understand the AVX512 instruction set in the next generation
of Intel CPUs will allow them to be programmed better using SIMT. I
can't wait!

What's more annoying is writing a GUI to allow the user to select his
GPU, being able to dynamically switch between CPU/GPU, include some
mini-benchmark so we know if the GPU is actually useful, add error
handling if the user has buggy drivers, etc... (aka the GPU version of
Leela won't be released quite yet)

-- 
GCP
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[David Ongaro]

Hi Ingo,

> On 31 May 2016, at 00:07, Ingo Althöfer <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote:
> 
> Hi Petr,
> 
> "Petr Baudis" 
>>> ... It is enough that the [CHESS] program is tactically strong.
>> 
>>  But strong Go programs are traditionally strategically strong, but
>> tactically *weak*. 
> 
> "tactical" was meant for Chess. In Go, players may use
> "the other strengths" of go programs. For instance, in November
> Benjamin Teuber (6d, one of the top German players) was impresssed
> by CrazyStone's analysis of one of his games (against FJ Dickhut).
> Teuber: "Some of CS' moves were eye-openers for me. I had never
> thought about those interesting moves."

But I guess you already have to be a quite strong player in order to see these 
nuggets in a sea of weaker moves. I wasn't very impressed by the CS analysis 
done by Michael Markefka from the German go forum 
(http://www.dgob.de/yabbse/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6039.0;attach=4930). 
Maybe its acceptable that it didn't found r8 and preferred q7 because r8 is not 
easy to see (should be a no brainer for 7d though) but that it preferred e.g. 
m3 over r2 keeps me wondering. Then at later points in the game it likes to 
peep at q7 at random times for no reason. It actually found that d15 is better 
than c15 which CS played in the actual game but instead of the deciding mistake 
b3 it suggests c9, which, while much better than the game since its not a total 
blunder, is clearly inferior to the Joseki move c7.

Sure a strong player like Benjamin can distinguish between just bad and 
interesting suggestions and might learn from such analyses. But weaker players 
might end up confused and weaker than before.

Note that I'm not singing in this strange chorus of disappointment over CS 
performance in the game against Haylee. I think it's way to early for todays 
computer programs (besides AlphaGo) to attempt even games against Pros. So not 
only the loss but also the way of loss was to be expected. I only want to put 
CS capabilities as a Go tutor in perspective.

I suspect Aja is right and Remi should go the path of integrating the GPU even 
if it's just to get more "oomph" for CS. That he tried to learn GPU programming 
from scratch is a noble attempt but I guess it's just to ambitious to 
accomplish in a reasonable timeframe. Using one of the ready to use frameworks 
should make it feasible though.

David O.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi Petr,


"Petr Baudis" 
> (I also think that it's algorithmically a lot more complicated to build
> these analysis tools for Go, for example adding a good tsumego solver to
> your program.  

It is not necessary to wait for a strong tsumego solver before
spreading a nice analysis tool. Start with what you have and
add new "modules" when they become available. (That is also
the way, ChessBase did it.)

 
> > > > ... And for that it would be very helpful to have a few popular top 
> > > > players
> > > > using it.
> > ... currently there is also no good analysis software in the Asian market.
> 
> But you need to do marketing, write documentation, user interface,
> recruit pro players... 

Right. And finding a strong pro as a PR locomotive should be one of the
first steps.
By the way: I started this thread not with the intention to force for instance 
Rémi
into such a project, but I had in mind mainly suitable people from Japan or 
Korea.
(I hope at leaast some of them are reading this.)

> ... And most importantly, talk to the users, spread the word
> and hear feedback.  

Right. That is exactly what ChessBase started to provide in the late 1980's for
Chess. "We" need a company in particular dedicated to Go software, not one
like Unbalance where computer Go is sort of a fifth wheel.


>  I don't think it pays off to target western market primarily in Go.  

Fully agreed.
Make a nice Japanese or Korean Go analysis program available, and everything
else will come by itself (including me learning Japanese or Korean language :-).


> ... you must come from East Asia, or have a local company as a distributor.

The success of ChessBase was that they were not existing already but were
created only for the Chess software field.


> (If I take a model example of CrazyStone as a program crossing the
> barrier I mentioned, it uses a local producer to do the marketing and
> distribution.  

with the problem: Unbalance is not specialized in computer Go. They even
seem to have problems to understand what analysis in Go is.


> ... This is *not meant as a criticism* of Remi, 
> ...  For a Western programmer, trying to enter East
> Asian markets as the "Matthias Wuellenweber" of Go, you need to find
> your "Frederic Friedel" as a true partner fluent in that geo area,
> which is challenging.

Fully agreed. A Frederic Friedel for Go is needed - and he has to "activate"
suitable top pro players.

As a wrote in the German computer Go forum: on some days I regret that
Go is not a Western game.

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi Petri,
 
"Petri Pitkanen" 
> ... I do doubt if strong go programs give too much for analysis. 
> Even if they are 1p and can show you a better move it is not worth 
> much for a human when there is no reasoning available how to zoom 
> into that move. 

that is just my point. The program needs some interface features
to become really helpful as a tool for analysis. In chess, such
features were introduced (in the early 1990's; mainly by ChessBase)
and became common soon.

> Even in chess no-one really gains form computer analysis. 

Very wrong.

From the mid 1990's most strong correspondence chess players
use computer help intensively; and a few years later the
same started in opening preparation for over-the-table grandmasters.

Example: In 2002 Tonu Oim (Estonia) got his second World Champion
Title with the help of friends from Finland [sic!] and their chess
programs. 

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi Petr,

"Petr Baudis" 
> > ... It is enough that the [CHESS] program is tactically strong.
> 
>   But strong Go programs are traditionally strategically strong, but
> tactically *weak*. 

"tactical" was meant for Chess. In Go, players may use
"the other strengths" of go programs. For instance, in November
Benjamin Teuber (6d, one of the top German players) was impresssed
by CrazyStone's analysis of one of his games (against FJ Dickhut).
Teuber: "Some of CS' moves were eye-openers for me. I had never
thought about those interesting moves."

> We still don't have a good publicly available tsumego
> solver.  I think this makes their capabilities a lot less useful for
> game analysis.

Agreed. Concerning tactics, time is not really ripe, yet.


> > ... And for that it would be very helpful to have a few popular top players
> > using it.
> 
>   So my main hypothesis is that the English-speaking market is very
> small, and the East Asian language barrier(s) prevent a lot of network
> effects to kick in; 

The analysis does not need to be English-based. For me, Japanese or Korean
interface software would also be nice, but currently there is also no 
good analysis software in the Asian market.

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Petri Pitkanen]

Chess was popular everywhere so the barriers were relatively small. As one
chess writer said it. There are moer chess titles written than all other
hobby titles combined. Dunno who reads all of them.

But I do doubt if strong go programs give too much for analysis. Even if
they are 1p and can show you a better move it is not worth much for a human
when there is no reasoning available how to zoom into that move. Even in
chess no-one really gains form computer analysis. After your own analysis
you can check if you missed an tactic, but as for strategy, dont think so

So pro-level-go-teaching-program would be a another decades long problem to
solve

2016-05-30 23:49 GMT+03:00 Petr Baudis :

>   Hi!
>
>   Couple of ideas.
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:19:39AM +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> > One point is: The absolute strength of the program need not to be
> > better than the strength of the player who uses it for analysis purposes.
> > It is enough that the program is tactically strong.
>
>   But strong Go programs are traditionally strategically strong, but
> tactically *weak*. We still don't have a good publicly available tsumego
> solver.  I think this makes their capabilities a lot less useful for
> game analysis.
>
> > Another point: Once you have a database program with nice functionality,
> > it is only a question of short time until it is supported by playing
> > programs.
>
>   (I think we have pretty good web-based Go database engines now.)
>
> > > On the other hand, commercial engines are probably close to breaking
> the
> > > 1p barrier soon. At which point they'll become analysis tools even for
> > > the higher echelon of players, if initial resistance to "a new thing"
> > > can be overcome.
> >
> > And for that it would be very helpful to have a few popular top players
> > using it.
>
>   So my main hypothesis is that the English-speaking market is very
> small, and the East Asian language barrier(s) prevent a lot of network
> effects to kick in; the Western audience is small and the barrier is
> hard to overcome.  (In the Chess world, there probably was
> English-Russian barrier but the player distribution is still a lot
> more even, imho.)
>
> --
> Petr Baudis
> If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
> you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Petr Baudis]

  Hi!

  Couple of ideas.

On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 06:19:39AM +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> One point is: The absolute strength of the program need not to be
> better than the strength of the player who uses it for analysis purposes.
> It is enough that the program is tactically strong.

  But strong Go programs are traditionally strategically strong, but
tactically *weak*. We still don't have a good publicly available tsumego
solver.  I think this makes their capabilities a lot less useful for
game analysis.

> Another point: Once you have a database program with nice functionality,
> it is only a question of short time until it is supported by playing
> programs.

  (I think we have pretty good web-based Go database engines now.)

> > On the other hand, commercial engines are probably close to breaking the
> > 1p barrier soon. At which point they'll become analysis tools even for
> > the higher echelon of players, if initial resistance to "a new thing"
> > can be overcome.
> 
> And for that it would be very helpful to have a few popular top players
> using it.

  So my main hypothesis is that the English-speaking market is very
small, and the East Asian language barrier(s) prevent a lot of network
effects to kick in; the Western audience is small and the barrier is
hard to overcome.  (In the Chess world, there probably was
English-Russian barrier but the player distribution is still a lot
more even, imho.)

-- 
Petr Baudis
If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi Gian-Carlo,

"Gian-Carlo Pascutto" 
> On 29/05/2016 13:48, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote:
> > ... ChessBase was founded in 1985 ...
> > Very early Garry Kasparov (World Champion in those days, 1986) 
> > got involved and presented his use of the software in PR events. 
> 
> ... the obvious question here is: what were they actually using the 
> software for? Chess programs on PC's must've been very, very weak in 1986.

The best in 1986 were stand-alone machines (Mephisto), programmed
by Richard Lang, rating about 2100. They improved quickly.

> ... mostly for the database functionality
> and variation saving during opening analysis right? (A strength of
> Kasparov).

Right, in the very first years. But in 1990, Karpov [sic!] already used a
(stand-alone) chess computer (strength around 2250) for help in analysing 
adjourned games in his title match against Kasparov.

In Winter 1990/91 ChessBase published the PC program Fritz which
directly became an analysis engine for the database program.
(And in November 1992, Fritz2 got rank 5 in the World Championships.)

In Winter 1993/94 programs with k-best mode became available in
the ChessBase software (strength around 2300 on normal PCs).

One point is: The absolute strength of the program need not to be
better than the strength of the player who uses it for analysis purposes.
It is enough that the program is tactically strong.

Another point: Once you have a database program with nice functionality,
it is only a question of short time until it is supported by playing
programs.


> I suspect fuseki/joseki software already exists, not necessarily from
> the same people selling the best engines.

That ist the problem: Missing in the Go scene is a company with
overall expertise and the will to push forward (supported by
strong players).

 
> On the other hand, commercial engines are probably close to breaking the
> 1p barrier soon. At which point they'll become analysis tools even for
> the higher echelon of players, if initial resistance to "a new thing"
> can be overcome.

And for that it would be very helpful to have a few popular top players
using it.

Ingo.
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

[Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

[Ingo Althöfer]

Hi all,

in the last few weeks I had moments where I did not feel
well because of deficiencies of commercial go bots. I am
in particular sensible (you may also say "spoiled") because I 
know how much better things were (and are) in the Chess world. 

In particular, I use game playing software for the purpose of
analysis. It seems that the special (positive) role of the
"ChessBase" company in the Chess world is responsible for my opinion. 
ChessBase was founded in 1985 by two guys: the programmer
Matthias Wuellenweber and the PR man Frederic Friedel.
The only field of the company was the development of software
for Chess (no other games; no other fields of software).
It turned out to be a very important aspect that Mr. Friedel
did (and does) a superb job in creating contacts with top Chess
players:

Very early Garry Kasparov (World Champion in those days, 1986) got involved
and presented his use of the software in PR events. Other top players using 
and praising ChessBase software were 
- Vishy Anand 
- Nigel Short
- the Polgar sisters
- John Nunn
and even former World Champion Boris Spasski (asking Friedel to "fill my
Samowar" when he needed new portions of databases).


In Go, the situation is rather different: so far not a single really strong 
player is known to work with commercial Go software (Fan Hui is an exception,
but he works with AlphaGo only which is not publicly available).

Is there a chance that this will change soon?
High-end users would definitely encourage companies to improve their
go programs - and encourage other Go players to use the software in
nontrivial ways.

Ingo.

PS. Another aspect is that the correspondence Chess scene helped to
improve Chess programs as tools for analysis. Unfortunately, the
correspondence Go scene is negligible. (One of the few exceptions
is 9.5-dan Gerhard Knop on LittleGolem.net, who was 4-kyu only in 
over-the-board play.)

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go