RE: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
I also agree that 9x9 doesn't compare to 19x19. I disagree that it's not interesting. It would be uninteresting if, for instance, someone like you were just as good at the top pro's at 9x9. It stops being interested when it can be mastered.If the top players can always play a perfect game, it's not interesting to them, but probably still interesting to me, and to a lesser extent someone like you who would probably be playing close to perfect if the pro's were playing perfect. There would probably be very little difference in someone like you and a top pro and if you played a game well enough you might get some wins if you were on the right side of komi. But this all assumes the game is almost played out. I don't think 9x9 is. I don't mean that 9x9 is trivial. It's just not very interesting to play for someone who plays go. For example, if I started talking about playing chess on a 6x6 board without rooks and with only 6 pawns, it would still be a nontrivial game, but it's not a game that serious chess players would want to play much. If I put up a server to play this 6x6 chess variant and got a lot of programmers interested in writing programs for it, it's still nontrival, but still not very interesting for chess players. It's a different game. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games as you want, I agree with Chrilly. Let's accept it. We are amateurs, all except those who are paid by some University to research on go. And even some of them are, because a serious go project takes many years and some have one semester. We have other jobs and (at least myself) try to work less for the money and dedicate 20 hours per week to go programming. We would be very happy to work 60 hours a week on go programming if someone else paid the bills, but that's not the case. I my opinion, the most important software project of the decade, i.e. writing a non-Microsoft _compatible_ operating system, is called wine http://www.winehq.org/ and also looks amateurish. (I don't really know who works there.) 3D studio and other successful projects started as amateur job, so there is nothing wrong in being amateurs. There is no program today which is so much better than free programs that is worth paying for it, so we can't blame the users. We should blame ourselves for not being able to write a program that is worth its price. Also, I don't even doubt that the day computer go can challenge the strongest pro player, the media will understand the importance of the event. (In fact, computer go is already in the media: The Economist, The Times, Scientific American, Abcnews, Reuters, have all written articles in 2007.) And companies will understand that if they want their names related to a historical event like that with no possible repetition in the future, something like the first man on the moon, they will have to pay for it. The money payed for deep blue will be like comparing 1950s with 2007s football contracts. Go is played only by a small freak community. That's not true. Like chess players were admired in the previous century as superintelligent human beings and today no one is interested in chess except the chess community. Go still keeps the supreme form of intelligence myth. And after go, there is void. Of course, you can always invent new games, but you cannot invent millenary games with millions of players. Someone is going to make millions with this. Don't know when, don't know how. I wish I knew ;-) Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Very well said Jacques. I agree with everything you said. A couple of comment below. On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 12:02 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Except for the relation between not finding 9x9 games which is *not* real go, you can find as many 19x19 games as you want, I agree with Chrilly. I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong players, they are probably just not readily accessible. Let's accept it. We are amateurs, all except those who are paid by some University to research on go. And even some of them are, because a serious go project takes many years and some have one semester. We have other jobs and (at least myself) try to work less for the money and dedicate 20 hours per week to go programming. We would be very happy to work 60 hours a week on go programming if someone else paid the bills, but that's not the case. I my opinion, the most important software project of the decade, i.e. writing a non-Microsoft _compatible_ operating system, is called wine http://www.winehq.org/ and also looks amateurish. (I don't really know who works there.) 3D studio and other successful projects started as amateur job, so there is nothing wrong in being amateurs. I use wine but I personally don't place a great deal of importance on it. I put linux as the single most important amateur project (at least as it started that way) because it is an open source high quality operating system that competes favorably with it's only serious competitor, non-free Unix. Wine is important - no question about it - because the marketing genius behind Windows has created a huge software base. Some of this software is high quality stuff that linux users are even willing to use. There is no program today which is so much better than free programs that is worth paying for it, so we can't blame the users. We should blame ourselves for not being able to write a program that is worth its price. I think computer Go could take off if it were promoted correctly. I don't think it was a complete coincidence that 9x9 computer GO really took off when Nick Wedd starting having monthly computer tournaments and later when CGOS went up.CGOS was created by the computer Go community - a response to a strong desire in the community to have something like it.It provides competition, instant feedback and to a certain extent a sense of status or reward for accomplishing something good. The progress has been enormous in a short time. When CGOS went up I think the strongest program was about 1700 by the CGOS scale. But now 1700 is a pretty mediocre rating on CGOS!I was completely astounded because I did not believe 2000 would be attained any time in the near future - but even 2000 is a modest rating on CGOS now. The progress would still of course be there without CGOS, because the Monte Carlo paradigm was alive before CGOS.But 9x9 would have remained basically unmeasured except in invisible private testing. One might have heard claims of advancements and papers would be written but with such things you almost always have to trust the paper author and his statistics. There is little or no independent verification of results possible. If we want to see rapid 19x19 progress, we need these 3 elements: 1. competition 2. feedback 3. status. This is what something like CGOS provides. The rating and rank provides status and of course the competition is intense and the feedback is instant. Also, it's hard to beg-off when you have something fairly visible like CGOS. If you have a strong commercial program, and you are in the business of making money, it's very tempting to rest on your laurels. You can advertise victories and championships but once you have obtained them, playing in further competitions risks spoiling your reputation (and thus your income.) But with something like CGOS a program like Mogo has bragging rights. It's possible one of the commercial programs is better than Mogo, or perhaps another amateur program is better. But in most peoples minds, Mogo is the best at 9x9 because it was willing to take the risk on CGOS (in all likelihood, it really IS the best and few doubt this.)There are many reasons you might NOT play on CGOS or in tournaments, but most people will probably believe (whether true or not) that you have nothing substantial to show. Of course you simply may not care and that's ok. But you can't make viable claims unless you show up at tournaments, or play on CGOS or in some way take the necessary risks to prove what you have.Tournaments are quite useful and provide visibility and status, but they are infrequent, a very high investment in time and expense for programmers and to be quite frank, they don't really make clear who the best player really is. Any good program has a chance to win a tournament. Here is what we need in order to achieve a Dan level 19x19 player within a couple of years in my
RE: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong players, they are probably just not readily accessible. Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur), and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at the go congress (along with 3-d go, hex go, etc). Most beginners only need a couple of games on 9x9 before they start paying 19x19. 9x9 go is not very interesting to strong players, since it's not really go. I might as well be playing checkers or 9 men's morris :) But with something like CGOS a program like Mogo has bragging rights. It's possible one of the commercial programs is better than Mogo, or perhaps another amateur program is better. But in most peoples minds, Mogo is the best at 9x9 because it was willing to take the risk on CGOS (in all likelihood, it really IS the best and few doubt this.) I can confirm that Mogo is quite a bit stronger than the commercial programs at 9x9 go. I'm not very interested in 9x9 go. Most of the commercial programs have algorithms that don't scale well down to 9x9, since they are all designed for 19x19 go. The 19x19 knowledge that makes them strong does not apply at 9x9. Since people don't play 9x9 go, there is no incentive commercial program authors to make their programs strong at 9x9. Here is what we need in order to achieve a Dan level 19x19 player within a couple of years in my opinion: COMPETITION Not once a year, but constant. A very high profile occasional competition however is still a great and useful thing to have. FEEDBACK You need to always know where you stand so you can constantly be goal oriented. Where you stand in relation to others that is. STATUS There must be some kind of recognition, highly visible acknowledgment of the pecking order to stimulate and motivate the competitors. I agree. Progress was very swift in the Ing competition, with programs improving from about 25 kyu to about 5-8 kyu. Since 2000 the competition and status has been missing, so progress has stopped, or at least is not visible. The algorithms that worked well on a 33 MHz 386 with 0.5 MB memory are very different from what is possible on today's machines. Once money and status come into the picture big time, then cheating will start to play a major role. Cheating did play big role. Even though Ing and FOST had on-site tournaments, there was still the issue of reverse engineering the top programs. I also have to say that Nick Wedd's monthly tournaments are critically important and unquestionably a big part of the sudden progress in computer GO. I think those tournaments and CGOS complement each other in a beautiful way. Probably more credit goes to Nick Wedd's tournaments than CGOS. Those tournament inspired CGOS and they also motivated (in my opinion) a lot of progress in computer chess before CGOS was even up and running.But they do complement each other - CGOS provides instrumentation that KGS is lacking. Nick's tournaments and CGOS have made a huge difference in revitalizing computer go. I'd like to see both expanded to 19x19 with 30 minute per player time limits and some overtime. - Don -David Fotland ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
On 7/9/07, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur), and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at the go congress (along with 3-d go, hex go, etc). Most beginners only need a couple of games on 9x9 before they start paying 19x19. 9x9 go is not very interesting to strong players, since it's not really go. I might as well be playing checkers or 9 men's morris :) I agree that 9x9 is not that interesting for very long, even for beginners, but I'd like to put in a good word here for 13x13. I'm at about 25 kyu on dragongo; nearly all my games are 13x13, and I think I would be having much less fun at 19x19. There seems to be quite a bit of room for strategy at this smaller board size (for example, room enough for joseki patterns, though their significance is probably different) but games are over much quicker, which is an important consideration if you want to have fast games on a non-real-time server. Games take long enough as it is, and quicker feedback is useful for learning. It seems like 13x13 would be a good intermediate step for computer go. - Brian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:12 -0700, David Fotland wrote: I'll bet there have been millions of 9x9 games by very strong players, they are probably just not readily accessible. Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur), and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at the go congress (along with 3-d go, hex go, etc). Most beginners only need a couple of games on 9x9 before they start paying 19x19. 9x9 go is not very interesting to strong players, since it's not really go. I might as well be playing checkers or 9 men's morris :) You are in a better position to understand this than I am. I just know I've seen very strong players play 9x9 games on KGS - and over a period of years I would expect there to be a large number although it obviously wouldn't begin to compare to the real game. I don't remember what I actually saw, perhaps it was a match with a weaker player or odds game or something. I also agree that 9x9 doesn't compare to 19x19. I disagree that it's not interesting. It would be uninteresting if, for instance, someone like you were just as good at the top pro's at 9x9. It stops being interested when it can be mastered.If the top players can always play a perfect game, it's not interesting to them, but probably still interesting to me, and to a lesser extent someone like you who would probably be playing close to perfect if the pro's were playing perfect. There would probably be very little difference in someone like you and a top pro and if you played a game well enough you might get some wins if you were on the right side of komi. But this all assumes the game is almost played out. I don't think 9x9 is. I have no argument that any particular individual may not find it interesting as a matter of personal choice. For instance there are many things I don't find interesting even though I haven't mastered them.Or your point of view may be that the bigger board is much MORE interesting, so why bother with smaller ones? But that doesn't take away from the fact that 9x9 is still interesting and still a deep profound game. If you belittle 9x9, indirectly you detract from 19x19 because you imply that the whole game isn't very interesting unless you can put on a massive board. But with something like CGOS a program like Mogo has bragging rights. It's possible one of the commercial programs is better than Mogo, or perhaps another amateur program is better. But in most peoples minds, Mogo is the best at 9x9 because it was willing to take the risk on CGOS (in all likelihood, it really IS the best and few doubt this.) I can confirm that Mogo is quite a bit stronger than the commercial programs at 9x9 go. I'm not very interested in 9x9 go. Most of the commercial programs have algorithms that don't scale well down to 9x9, since they are all designed for 19x19 go. The 19x19 knowledge that makes them strong does not apply at 9x9. Since people don't play 9x9 go, there is no incentive commercial program authors to make their programs strong at 9x9. Most of my comments are directed to 19x19 go. I lay out one possible plan to produce a very strong 19x19 player. I'm interested in 9x9 only as a stepping stone. It's far more manageable and if you can't whip 9x9, you have no chance going bigger. It's way easier to test and get quick results in a methodical way. Here is what we need in order to achieve a Dan level 19x19 player within a couple of years in my opinion: COMPETITION Not once a year, but constant. A very high profile occasional competition however is still a great and useful thing to have. FEEDBACK You need to always know where you stand so you can constantly be goal oriented. Where you stand in relation to others that is. STATUS There must be some kind of recognition, highly visible acknowledgment of the pecking order to stimulate and motivate the competitors. I agree. Progress was very swift in the Ing competition, with programs improving from about 25 kyu to about 5-8 kyu. Since 2000 the competition and status has been missing, so progress has stopped, or at least is not visible. The algorithms that worked well on a 33 MHz 386 with 0.5 MB memory are very different from what is possible on today's machines. Once money and status come into the picture big time, then cheating will start to play a major role. Cheating did play big role. Even though Ing and FOST had on-site tournaments, there was still the issue of reverse engineering the top programs. YES! I remember that and I thought it was a real travesty. I also have to say that Nick Wedd's monthly tournaments are critically important and unquestionably a big part of the sudden progress in computer GO. I think
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Brian, The idea of moving towards 13x13 appeals to me too. I would even consider removing the 9x9 server and going to 13x13 instead if I didn't think it would cause an out-rage. At some point sticking with 9x9 is going to inhibit progress in my opinion. And a really strong 13x13 program is more likely to be strong at 19x19. - Don On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 09:32 -0700, Brian Slesinsky wrote: On 7/9/07, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Very unlikely. I'm a strong player (but not very strong - 3 dan amateur), and I've played perhaps a dozen 9x9 games with people who were just learning the rules. I played in a couple of 9x9 tournaments on the crazy go day at the go congress (along with 3-d go, hex go, etc). Most beginners only need a couple of games on 9x9 before they start paying 19x19. 9x9 go is not very interesting to strong players, since it's not really go. I might as well be playing checkers or 9 men's morris :) I agree that 9x9 is not that interesting for very long, even for beginners, but I'd like to put in a good word here for 13x13. I'm at about 25 kyu on dragongo; nearly all my games are 13x13, and I think I would be having much less fun at 19x19. There seems to be quite a bit of room for strategy at this smaller board size (for example, room enough for joseki patterns, though their significance is probably different) but games are over much quicker, which is an important consideration if you want to have fast games on a non-real-time server. Games take long enough as it is, and quicker feedback is useful for learning. It seems like 13x13 would be a good intermediate step for computer go. - Brian ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements. As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a few games, one's handicap would decrease. Is it possible to tie together the handicap information and the win-loss percentages into a unified ELO-type score? Would an experiment be needed to measure the effect of handicap stones on the probability of winning? Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster Park yourself in front of a world of choices in alternative vehicles. Visit the Yahoo! Auto Green Center. http://autos.yahoo.com/green_center/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
I think it would be great to try this out. Perhaps at 13x13. On 7/9/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote: I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements. As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a few games, one's handicap would decrease. Is it possible to tie together the handicap information and the win-loss percentages into a unified ELO-type score? Would an experiment be needed to measure the effect of handicap stones on the probability of winning? I think the common formula is 100 ELO per stone? I think we could start with this guess (or a better one) and after a few weeks of play we could do a statistical analysis to see if things are as they should be. Then we could make any adjustments if needed. CGOS would still use the same scheduling algorithm - trying to prevent serious mismatches. So we would avoid matches that required many stones handicap although they would appear from time to time. The ELO formula is the same. Whatever program is getting the extra stones is assumed (for rating purposes) to be 100H ELO stronger where H is the number of stones handicap. The constant 100 might have to be adjusted of course. It may even be that we have to use a different constant depending where you are at on the ELO scale. With enough games it might be possible to determine if this is needed or not.I've discussed this with Steve in private emails in the past. It might not be difficult to make this auto-adjust. If the server notices that some value isn't predicting the winner very accurately, a tiny adjustment is made. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
On 7/9/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think the common formula is 100 ELO per stone? I think we could start with this guess (or a better one) and after a few weeks of play we could do a statistical analysis to see if things are as they should be. Then we could make any adjustments if needed. Once upon a time, people also discussed treating handicapped versions of bots as distinct players with their own ranking. It may be good to experiment with handicap stones that way and then extend it to automatic handicap and folding the results into the rankings. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Don Dailey wrote: On Mon, 2007-07-09 at 10:10 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote: I concur with Christian Nilsson; handicap stones permit the win-loss ratio to approximate 50%, where it is more sensitive to improvements. As one tweaks the program, the progress would be measurable within a few games, one's handicap would decrease. Is it possible to tie together the handicap information and the win-loss percentages into a unified ELO-type score? Would an experiment be needed to measure the effect of handicap stones on the probability of winning? I think the common formula is 100 ELO per stone? I think we could start with this guess (or a better one) and after a few weeks of play we could do a statistical analysis to see if things are as they should be. Then we could make any adjustments if needed. According to some early experiments I have made on a database of games played by humans on KGS, I'd say it is more likely to be 70 or 80 Elo points. Also, it is likely to depend on strength. I'll be able to give more precise data in a few weeks. The problem with programs is that GNU Go really does not know how to play handicap games. Crazy Stone and, I expect, MC programs in general, should handle handicap much better. Crazy Stone played a few handicap games against weaker humans on KGS two days ago, and it really plays agressive moves when it is behind. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Yes. This number is strongly dependent on strength and board size I think. Very roughly speaking, you can argue as follows 1) in a 9x9 game, the weaker player has only 1/4 as many moves in which to throw away the handicap advantage (compared to 19x19). 2) weak players lose so many points compared to perfect play that the final score (the difference between the number of points the two players lose) has a large variance compared to the value of a handicap stone. According to some early experiments I have made on a database of games played by humans on KGS, I'd say it is more likely to be 70 or 80 Elo points. Also, it is likely to depend on strength. I'll be able to give more precise data in a few weeks. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Sil wrote: How about http://home.wwgo.jp/jp/minigo/ It seems that only 24 games are available. Is the whole collection available somewhere? Rémi I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big challenge. But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even the most basic things are missing. As a chess programmer I did not even think about, that it is a problem to get a good game collection. There are no proper interfaces, no serious tournaments, a wired data standard... AND there is no money involved: For professional programming I get 60Euro/h (1Euro=1.35$). 2.000h x 60 = 120.000 Euro. This equation is of course completly wrong. One can not make in 2000h a very strong Go programm and one can not earn 120.000 Euro with it. A more realistic equation is; 20.000 Euro/5000h = 4Euro/h. The minimum wage (by law) is in Austria 6Euro/h. Obviously Go programming is even more unqualified than washing dishes in a restaurant. If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. In chess nowadays there is also no money. But once it was a good business and there was some considerable money for Deep Blue and on a smaller scale also for Hydra, there was Don's project at MIT, one got a big Cray for Cray-Blitz, Ken Thompson build a chess engine Its like some hobbyst engineers and hobby-pilots would try to fly to the moon. Its probably only good for to write some academic papers. In this case its even an advantage that everything is so amateuristic. The general level is low and one can be the one-eyed king under blind ones. Its clear to me that things are as they are in the West. Go is played only by a small freak community. But if it is so important in China/Korea/Japan why is'nt there something like Fritz and ChessBase? Or does it exist and we are living in a completly other Go-world? Chrilly P.S.: I do not want to offend anyone in this list. Everybody here does his best. I am just feed up with the things as they are. ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Hi Chrilly, 1) there are database of thousands of professional games for few dollards. There are not 9x9, but (i) making database is not making progress in the field, it is just having some temporary advantage in tournaments. (ii) Opening is much less important in Go than in Chess, it is why we are not so crazy about opening. At least at the current level of programs. (iii) 19x19 Go is the real game, and you can get as many games as you want, just clicking on three links. 2) interfaces are good enough for what we need, and tournaments as CGOS or KGS are good tools to take the current temperature of field. 3) seriousness can't be measured as the short term money you can make directly selling your work. I understand that you think that researchers are paid just to play writing useless papers for themself. But there are not more stupid than others, and maybe they think they are doing something useful, even if it can't be measured by the direct sell of what they produce. 4) I guess people that sell commercial programs are making money. All that said, I agree that computer go is certainly much less mature than computer chess. Sylvain I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big challenge. But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even the most basic things are missing. As a chess programmer I did not even think about, that it is a problem to get a good game collection. There are no proper interfaces, no serious tournaments, a wired data standard... AND there is no money involved: For professional programming I get 60Euro/h (1Euro=1.35$). 2.000h x 60 = 120.000 Euro. This equation is of course completly wrong. One can not make in 2000h a very strong Go programm and one can not earn 120.000 Euro with it. A more realistic equation is; 20.000 Euro/5000h = 4Euro/h. The minimum wage (by law) is in Austria 6Euro/h. Obviously Go programming is even more unqualified than washing dishes in a restaurant. If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. In chess nowadays there is also no money. But once it was a good business and there was some considerable money for Deep Blue and on a smaller scale also for Hydra, there was Don's project at MIT, one got a big Cray for Cray-Blitz, Ken Thompson build a chess engine Its like some hobbyst engineers and hobby-pilots would try to fly to the moon. Its probably only good for to write some academic papers. In this case its even an advantage that everything is so amateuristic. The general level is low and one can be the one-eyed king under blind ones. Its clear to me that things are as they are in the West. Go is played only by a small freak community. But if it is so important in China/Korea/Japan why is'nt there something like Fritz and ChessBase? Or does it exist and we are living in a completly other Go-world? Chrilly P.S.: I do not want to offend anyone in this list. Everybody here does his best. I am just feed up with the things as they are. ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Le dimanche 8 juillet 2007 11:51, chrilly a écrit : If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. There was a computer challenge with 1 million dollar prize during many years, for a program abble to beat one professional choosen by the sponsor. I don't know if it is still valid offer. In chess nowadays there is also no money. But once it was a good business and there was some considerable money for Deep Blue and on a smaller scale also for Hydra, there was Don's project at MIT, one got a big Cray for Cray-Blitz, Ken Thompson build a chess engine Its like some hobbyst engineers and hobby-pilots would try to fly to the moon. Titanic was build by professionals, and Noah's arch by an amateur ;-) (Kon Tiki is a more recent and scientific exemple of incredible amateurish success) Its probably only good for to write some academic papers. In this case its even an advantage that everything is so amateuristic. The general level is low and one can be the one-eyed king under blind ones. If i remeber, last year you said something like As a professional programmer, i don't want to ruin my reputation with a poor go program :-) And the state of the art is: go programs are just dumb on 19x19, lots of research are needed, but more engeneering power would probably do nothing. Its clear to me that things are as they are in the West. Go is played only by a small freak community. But if it is so important in China/Korea/Japan why is'nt there something like Fritz and ChessBase? Or does it exist and we are living in a completly other Go-world? Some dozens of 9x9 pro games are at http://gobase.org/9x9/ There are databases of nearly 5 pro games on 19X19, this should be good enough for some years in computer go. 9x9 is a teaching tool, or a fun tactical exercice, but it is not Go because of lack of strategy. Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Le dimanche 8 juillet 2007 11:51, chrilly a écrit : If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. There was a computer challenge with 1 million dollar prize during many years, for a program abble to beat one professional choosen by the sponsor. I don't know if it is still valid offer. The prize was not exactly US $1,000,000, but Taiwanese $40,000,000. It would currently be worth US $1,219,000. When it was on offer, it could be won be a program beating an insei (a trainee professional, about as strong as a European amateur 6-dan) in four of seven games. Judging from past events, this would not be a seven-game match between the program and an insei, but seven simultaneous games between the program and seven different inseis - this is rather easier for the program, as the inseis would have less scope to learn from its mistakes. There were smaller prizes, for the first program to beat an insei on various handicaps, as follows: Handicap match prize, NT$ no komi3/520,000,000 (about US $610,000) 2 stones 2/310,000,000 3 stones 2/3 5,000,000 4 stones 2/3 2,000,000 5 stones 2/3 1,000,000 6 stones 2/3 850,000 7 stones 2/3 700,000 8 stones 2/3 550,000 9 stones 2/3 400,000 10 stones 2/3 250,000 won by Handtalk in 1997 etc. These prizes are not currently on offer. They were last on offer in 2000. A report from the 2000 Ing Cup stated There was a rumor that the Ing competition will be extended for 10 more years, but it was unconfirmed. This rumour must have been false. No Ing cup has been held since then. I have heard a rumour that the managers of the Ing Foundation may one day decide to reinstate the prize money; but as the years pass this is looking increasingly unlikely. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
3) seriousness can't be measured as the short term money you can make directly selling your work. I understand that you think that researchers are paid just to play writing useless papers for themself. But there are not more stupid than others, and maybe they think they are doing something useful, even if it can't be measured by the direct sell of what they produce. I think UCT is an major new idea. Like Alpha-Beta. I am not at all against scientific work or papers. I have myself written some of them and even succeeded to place one in the Journal of the American Statistical Association. And I also understand, that everybody has to present his work as very important. Otherwise other people who are better in this respect get the funds. And one can do only a good work, if one really believes in this. A classical quote from the German scientist Max Weber is: To be a good scientist one has to write every sentence as if the existence of the world depends on this sentence. (Although one of course knows that this is usually not the case). But science, the science world, is also a very closed world and there is a tendency for l'art pour l'art. I am just critizing this aspect. Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Chrilly, The purpose of investment is to generate a return exceeding the original investment, i.e. a profit. Given the state of Go, I am finding it difficult to imagine why an investor would choose to put any good money into Go. There is absolutely no reliable expectation that Go will achieve even close to strong amateur status (1D) in the next couple of years. It's possible some wealthy person might decide to generously donate money into the computer Go domain so as to forward his own passion, just as many of the people here generously donate their own very valuable personal time. Go is not a reasonable place to put investments. At present and from everything I can see, computer Go development depends upon personal passion and generosity. And sans a huge breakthrough, I am currently unable to see this changing anytime soon. That said, I think once Go AI becomes sufficiently and robustly skilled to reliably start giving strong amateurs (1D) genuinely competitive games, you will start to see investment rise. And given a sufficiently high enough rate of change (objectively measured as increases in playing skill), you will start to see the investments accelerate as competition will spur on more innovation resulting in more successes resulting in more investment resulting in further innovation...and a positive feedback loop will be boot strapped. As the probability of producing profits rise, the risk around insufficient returns on an investment fall. Eventually a threshold is crossed and the system becomes self-generative. Succinctly put - there is no money in computer Go (at least compared to computer Chess) because there is currently no hope (mathematically speaking) of the existing crop of computer Go programs to scale up to anything less than moderate amateur levels. Once this changes from no hope to a remote possibility, the investment around Go will likely follow. No to be too Zen here, but...the sooner you accept things as they are and stop resisting what is, the sooner you become free to move forward. Go investment is working exactly as it ought, in relation to the whole. Finally, thank you for your contribution to computer Go. I get that it is an act of generosity (realistically, what else could it possibly be). And I personally appreciate it. Jim chrilly wrote: Sil wrote: How about http://home.wwgo.jp/jp/minigo/ It seems that only 24 games are available. Is the whole collection available somewhere? Rémi I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big challenge. But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even the most basic things are missing. As a chess programmer I did not even think about, that it is a problem to get a good game collection. There are no proper interfaces, no serious tournaments, a wired data standard... AND there is no money involved: For professional programming I get 60Euro/h (1Euro=1.35$). 2.000h x 60 = 120.000 Euro. This equation is of course completly wrong. One can not make in 2000h a very strong Go programm and one can not earn 120.000 Euro with it. A more realistic equation is; 20.000 Euro/5000h = 4Euro/h. The minimum wage (by law) is in Austria 6Euro/h. Obviously Go programming is even more unqualified than washing dishes in a restaurant. If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. In chess nowadays there is also no money. But once it was a good business and there was some considerable money for Deep Blue and on a smaller scale also for Hydra, there was Don's project at MIT, one got a big Cray for Cray-Blitz, Ken Thompson build a chess engine Its like some hobbyst engineers and hobby-pilots would try to fly to the moon. Its probably only good for to write some academic papers. In this case its even an advantage that everything is so amateuristic. The general level is low and one can be the one-eyed king under blind ones. Its clear to me that things are as they are in the West. Go is played only by a small freak community. But if it is so important in China/Korea/Japan why is'nt there something like Fritz and ChessBase? Or does it exist and we are living in a completly other Go-world? Chrilly P.S.: I do not want to offend anyone in this list. Everybody here does his best. I am just feed up with the things as they are. ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
On 8, Jul 2007, at 2:51 AM, chrilly wrote: If it would be really a big challenge, there would be some money. According to Herodotus The Histories right after king Xerxes of Persia lost 20,000 men at Thermopylae fighting 300 Spartans and a collection of less than 100 others, a few Arcadian deserters informed Xerxes that the Greeks were celebrating the Olympic festival. When asked what the prize was for which the men contended, they mentioned the wreaths of olive leaves. Tritantaechmes, upon hearing that the prize was not a large sum of money, cried out Good heavens, what kind of men have you brought us to fight against - men who compete with one another for no material reward, but only for honour! About 20 years ago I asked another physics student who was known as a good programmer to join me in an attempt to win the Ing prize. His answer was If we are good enough to win the Ing then we can make far more than a million in less time just working in Silicon Valley. He was right. If it were easy it would have been done by now. It is NOT easy, and thus it IS a really big challenge. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
It seems to me that a domain where everything is so amateuristic has its advantages, if you can only see them. Here is a field that is small enough that most people know each other and anyone can contribute with a certain amount of effort. These are the early days; computer go's best years are surely yet to come. And yet it is not so early that progress is slow and there is little hope. Isn't that better than working in an area where everything has been done? I don't follow computer chess, but my naive outsider's perception is that it is largely solved. Perhaps those who know more about it can say more. - Brian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
Chrilly, It is hard to disagree with what Jim writes, but I will in a small way. When I recently flew to Asia, the screen on the seatback in front of me offered Go as one of its games. At its highest level it played far worse than the average program on CGOS or in a KGS computer tournament, and yet somebody was paid by that airline for the use of that program. And Go++ makes a living for its programmer. There is money to be made in computer Go, but as Jim states, right now the risk/reward ratio does not encourage most normal investors, so it is for either 1) those with a high risk threshold, 2) those who think more about research than production, 3) those motivated by how hard it is and not put off by how much effort it is going to take, or 4) programmers of other games who underestimate how hard it really is. Please do not take offense by number 4. I have huge respect for your programming ability and am glad that you have joined us. Cheers, David On 8, Jul 2007, at 8:36 AM, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote: Chrilly, The purpose of investment is to generate a return exceeding the original investment, i.e. a profit. Given the state of Go, I am finding it difficult to imagine why an investor would choose to put any good money into Go. There is absolutely no reliable expectation that Go will achieve even close to strong amateur status (1D) in the next couple of years. It's possible some wealthy person might decide to generously donate money into the computer Go domain so as to forward his own passion, just as many of the people here generously donate their own very valuable personal time. Go is not a reasonable place to put investments. At present and from everything I can see, computer Go development depends upon personal passion and generosity. And sans a huge breakthrough, I am currently unable to see this changing anytime soon. That said, I think once Go AI becomes sufficiently and robustly skilled to reliably start giving strong amateurs (1D) genuinely competitive games, you will start to see investment rise. And given a sufficiently high enough rate of change (objectively measured as increases in playing skill), you will start to see the investments accelerate as competition will spur on more innovation resulting in more successes resulting in more investment resulting in further innovation...and a positive feedback loop will be boot strapped. As the probability of producing profits rise, the risk around insufficient returns on an investment fall. Eventually a threshold is crossed and the system becomes self-generative. Succinctly put - there is no money in computer Go (at least compared to computer Chess) because there is currently no hope (mathematically speaking) of the existing crop of computer Go programs to scale up to anything less than moderate amateur levels. Once this changes from no hope to a remote possibility, the investment around Go will likely follow. No to be too Zen here, but...the sooner you accept things as they are and stop resisting what is, the sooner you become free to move forward. Go investment is working exactly as it ought, in relation to the whole. Finally, thank you for your contribution to computer Go. I get that it is an act of generosity (realistically, what else could it possibly be). And I personally appreciate it. Jim ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
David, Very well said. Thank you. Jim David Doshay wrote: Chrilly, It is hard to disagree with what Jim writes, but I will in a small way. When I recently flew to Asia, the screen on the seatback in front of me offered Go as one of its games. At its highest level it played far worse than the average program on CGOS or in a KGS computer tournament, and yet somebody was paid by that airline for the use of that program. And Go++ makes a living for its programmer. There is money to be made in computer Go, but as Jim states, right now the risk/reward ratio does not encourage most normal investors, so it is for either 1) those with a high risk threshold, 2) those who think more about research than production, 3) those motivated by how hard it is and not put off by how much effort it is going to take, or 4) programmers of other games who underestimate how hard it really is. Please do not take offense by number 4. I have huge respect for your programming ability and am glad that you have joined us. Cheers, David On 8, Jul 2007, at 8:36 AM, Jim O'Flaherty, Jr. wrote: Chrilly, The purpose of investment is to generate a return exceeding the original investment, i.e. a profit. Given the state of Go, I am finding it difficult to imagine why an investor would choose to put any good money into Go. There is absolutely no reliable expectation that Go will achieve even close to strong amateur status (1D) in the next couple of years. It's possible some wealthy person might decide to generously donate money into the computer Go domain so as to forward his own passion, just as many of the people here generously donate their own very valuable personal time. Go is not a reasonable place to put investments. At present and from everything I can see, computer Go development depends upon personal passion and generosity. And sans a huge breakthrough, I am currently unable to see this changing anytime soon. That said, I think once Go AI becomes sufficiently and robustly skilled to reliably start giving strong amateurs (1D) genuinely competitive games, you will start to see investment rise. And given a sufficiently high enough rate of change (objectively measured as increases in playing skill), you will start to see the investments accelerate as competition will spur on more innovation resulting in more successes resulting in more investment resulting in further innovation...and a positive feedback loop will be boot strapped. As the probability of producing profits rise, the risk around insufficient returns on an investment fall. Eventually a threshold is crossed and the system becomes self-generative. Succinctly put - there is no money in computer Go (at least compared to computer Chess) because there is currently no hope (mathematically speaking) of the existing crop of computer Go programs to scale up to anything less than moderate amateur levels. Once this changes from no hope to a remote possibility, the investment around Go will likely follow. No to be too Zen here, but...the sooner you accept things as they are and stop resisting what is, the sooner you become free to move forward. Go investment is working exactly as it ought, in relation to the whole. Finally, thank you for your contribution to computer Go. I get that it is an act of generosity (realistically, what else could it possibly be). And I personally appreciate it. Jim ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
It seems to me that a domain where everything is so amateuristic has its advantages, if you can only see them. Here is a field that is small enough that most people know each other and anyone can contribute with a certain amount of effort. These are the early days; computer go's best years are surely yet to come. And yet it is not so early that progress is slow and there is little hope. Isn't that better than working in an area where everything has been done? Yes. The original meaning of amateur is lover. E.g. I enjoyed the athmosphere when I was operating GoAhead in the olympiad 2003. Its also known that humans generally evaluate/feel the difference and not the absolute level. So its nicer to be in the non-saturated point. But as professional its a job and one can not completly ignore mundane tasks like the Euro/h. The formula: There is money for everything what is important, and if there is no money, it is not important, is certainly also wrong. A counter-example is the research for Leprosy-medicaments. They ones who have Leprosy have no money and there is no incentive for the pharma-companies to invest. But also academic institutions do almost no research. There are no funds from industry. I don't follow computer chess, but my naive outsider's perception is that it is largely solved. Perhaps those who know more about it can say more. Its not solved in the theoretical sense. God could certainly give them 2 pawns as handicap. But it is solved from the practical sense, because God could give the top-humans a knight ahead. The only way to measure the difference between Rybka and Fritz is to let them play against each other. Just looking on the play of each of them or playing against them, most humans would not be able to say: Rybka is 100 Elo stronger. Even Topalov does not play nowadays for fun in the evening some blitz-games against a programm. Although he likes challenges, he neither runs with his head against the wall in his living room to check who is stronger. Most of the top-GMs hate the programms, because the size of opening theory has become a nightmare. Some opening lines are practically fully analysed and hence not playable anymore. I know some top players who would like to ban computers for preperation. But its impossible to check such a ban. Chrilly . , so also these GMs use very heavily PCs. - Brian ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
On Sun, 2007-07-08 at 11:23 -0700, Brian Slesinsky wrote: It seems to me that a domain where everything is so amateuristic has its advantages, if you can only see them. Here is a field that is small enough that most people know each other and anyone can contribute with a certain amount of effort. These are the early days; computer go's best years are surely yet to come. And yet it is not so early that progress is slow and there is little hope. Isn't that better than working in an area where everything has been done? I don't follow computer chess, but my naive outsider's perception is that it is largely solved. Perhaps those who know more about it can say more. Chess is far from being solved. There is still a LOT of room at the top when one program can still dominate another. The current best chess program is significantly stronger than the second best and I think it likely that a perfect chess player would dominate this best program. It would rarely even have to suffer a draw against Rybka. Lots of room for improvement still. What is true is that the very best chess program are now better than people. This used to be considered the gold standard, the ultimate but of course we now know that was foolish. I went over to GO for several reasons. I felt that computer chess had becomes heavily dominated by engineers. There is still some room for imagination, but not as much. It's mostly knowledge engineering, programming tricks and fine tuning. You still must come to every tournament with the fastest possible computer, preferably with multi-processors. Whereas GO is something altogether different. A UCT type breakthrough is probably not possible in Chess. Maybe some interesting good ideas are still left, but nothing dramatic.I left chess and leave it for the engineers to do their thing. The Go community is also far better behaved. A fight can still break out, but it's nothing like what happens in Chess, where there are decades long grudges and bitter wars of words. You cannot have an un-moderated chess group. Chrilly is certainly right about how Chess programmers perceive things. Although there is conservatism in every thing including computer chess, the Go community as a whole is rather old fashion and tends to shoot themselves in the foot when it comes to any kind of progress. Almost like old men who think the way their grand-daddy did it is good enough for them.Most of us probably remember the heavy resistance to GTP, which in itself is inferior to UCI, the universal chess interface, which is the GO equivalent of GTP. However GTP was way better than what preceded it and yet even the top programmers believed GMP was sent by god and anything else was blasphemy. One surprise is that SGF was accepted by the go community. In some ways SGF is technically superior to PGN.However PGN is actually far more practical. The computer Chess community seems to value anything that is practical, the computer Go community seems to embrace anything that isn't. I think that's what Chrilly has noticed. Even things like time-control systems are very logical in Chess, but not in Go. The traditional ranking system of Go isn't very rational although it's understandable how it evolved. But the Chess community is usually very quick to discard the old if something more practical comes along. The Go community is far slower at embracing chess that is good. It may be that because GO is more of a right brained activity, it appeals more to the emotional, visual type of person. These kind of people are probably a bit more into the culture and history of a game than in the pure mathematical game itself. (There are also chess players who love the culture of chess more than the game itself.) Also, Chess has evolved more recently, there have been fundamental rule changes within the last 2 or 3 hundred years I believe. Somehow this has translated to a more conservative view of even computer chess and how it should be done. - Don - Brian ___ 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] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
steve uurtamo said: I have read dozens of times that computer-Go is the next big challenge. But in fact it is a completly amateuristic field where even the most basic things are missing. one thing that it seems to have plenty of is chess programmers who are shocked and surprised that their lack of knowledge about the game of go somehow seems to affect their ability to write a go playing program. One chess player I taught (who quickly surpassed me) found many strategic principles common to both games. But the basic strategic principles of go are highly counterintuitive to most chess players. (I like to think that much of the tone of oriental culture may have originated in efforts to make sense of go strategy...) There is such a thing in chess as a premature attack, but not to the extent where leaving an opponent alone (not to strengthen him by attacking) in an area you hoped to attack later would be a common consideration. A tempo can be important in a chess game, but it's seldom as important as a piece--and sacrifices are much more natural in a game like go, where a tempo and a piece are the very same thing. I see strong players using the center a lot in modern go games, but the center in chess is critical while in go it's just another area. Sente is crucial in go, but no one gets to keep it throughout a game--and pressing an opponent with no particular object in mind is more likely to backfire than pay off. For whatever reason, good chess players often have trouble catching on to good style, although many chess-playing skills prove useful later. One major difference is in how far ahead a player can (and sometimes must) read out a position--ladders being the main example. (Some 30 moves ahead without a branch, or with perhaps one or two--and the human advantage is the ability to automatically reject the many irrelevant branches a program would need to consider in such positions.) Forrest Curo - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] 9x9 games wanted and the next big challenge
However GTP was way better than what preceded it and yet even the top programmers believed GMP was sent by god and anything else was blasphemy. I have to object to this characterization :) GMP was very good at what is was designed to do, which was to allow people to play using a 1200 baud modem, before the internet was invented. This we very useful, since there were many people in the US that had no local club. Because the link was slow and unreliable, GMP was binary, and had reties, and provision for sending text messages, etc. Once the internet was invented, GMP was immediately obsolete, but because so many programs had implemented it, it became a de-facto standard for computer go tournaments. I think tournament organizers continued to specify it since it was too hard for organizers to invent something different. Even things like time-control systems are very logical in Chess, but not in Go. Time control in go is quite logical if you remember that it is traditional and was invented before electronics. You can't do fisher time control by hand. I think go puts more emphasis on tradition than go, so things that were very logical and practical before computers, are still being used. Even though computers and electronic timers enable better approaches. The traditional ranking system of Go isn't very rational although it's understandable how it evolved. The ranking system is also very logical if you remember that it is intended to be maintained by hand, without electronic assistance. It's very easy to track the handicap I use with the people I play with most often, and change the handicap after a few consecutive wins or losses. Chess doesn't have a similar handicap system, so it has to rank based on probability of winning. Go, instead, adjusts that handicap until the winning probability is 50%. It may be that because GO is more of a right brained activity, it appeals more to the emotional, visual type of person. These kind of people are probably a bit more into the culture and history of a game than in the pure mathematical game itself. (There are also chess players who love the culture of chess more than the game itself.) I think you are right. I don't see many chess players talking about creating a beautiful game. Also, Chess has evolved more recently, there have been fundamental rule changes within the last 2 or 3 hundred years I believe. Go also has many recent rule changes. Go was traditionally played without written rules. Codifying the traditions is what makes Japanese rules so complex. Take a look at the Ing Ko rule sometime :) David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
