RE: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Sorry, I just realized this is about 6x6 go. Please ignore my previous response. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: ma 29-9-2008 20:09 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go; computer-go Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go I (EGF 4d) am probably not strong enough to give well founded comments on 9x9 games, but already move 2 at D3 seems strange from a shape point of view (whatever that may be worth on 9x9) The continuation B C3 B4 D5 seems the most natural continuation once D3 is played, but on 19x19 this is kind of exchange is usually bad for white (he gets a hane on the head of two stones). Black's last move at D5 would definitely be better than D2 on 19x19 and I would be very surpised if D2 would be better on 9x9. I'm speculating Leela's tendency to respond B C4 at D3 to be the cause of the discrepancy between the 2.0 komi from Leela and the 4.0 komi from Erik. Might W D3 be 2 points worse then the optimal white move (unknown to me)? Is there any support for W D3 being good from professional 9x9 games? I've never seen it in professional play, but I'm not a specialist on 9x9. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey Verzonden: do 25-9-2008 22:14 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > > I'm not in any position to really say. > > The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. > Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center > point. > > I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I am playing games with Leela at 5 minutes per side on a loaded core 2 duo computer. >From the evidence I have now, which I admit is not enough to base a solid conclusion on, it looks like 2.0 is the correct komi. When I set komi to 1.5, black has won 10 out of 10 games. When I set komi to 2.5, black onl wins 16.667% or 2 out of 12 games. When I did the 7x7 study over a year ago (or maybe 2) I noticed that at reasonably strong levels it tended to be very one sided in one direction or other based on how you set komi. My plan is to run a LOT of games at 2.5 komi and then analyze the results based on the move sequences looking to see if some common early black blunder is preventing wins for black at 2.5 komi. When I do this I will try to reorient the move sequence to some canonical representation so that we are not looking at too many equivalent games with different orientations. Superficially, I noticed this: 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 Which means when black played D5 on move 5 he won, but when he played D2 he lost. 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 Same above - Black played 2 different moves and got two different results. The other games vary before this but could be transpositions of these positions - I don't have the time right now to compute all the transpositions to check this out. I didn't actually look at those moves so I don't know if they are game changing or not. Are there any strong players willing to comment on these 2 diversions? The other possibility is that white is supposed to WIN all those games and is making the occasional error. The results indicate that is a more likely possibility. Here is the complete list of games up to the 9th move. The first column is the number of times this exact result/sequence was played. 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 D2 C2 E4 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 B3 C2 D6 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 E5 B2 D2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 E3 E2 D2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 E2 B5 E4 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 2 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 E2 E4 B5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 D5 B3 B2 2 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 E4 E5 D5 - Don 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 But for now, perhaps you stronger go players can look at the following 6 moves sequences that represent the games. The first column is how many times this exact result/sequence occurred. For instance you see that white won 3 times when the game started "C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5" Does anyone see any obviously bad moves for black? 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4
RE: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
I (EGF 4d) am probably not strong enough to give well founded comments on 9x9 games, but already move 2 at D3 seems strange from a shape point of view (whatever that may be worth on 9x9) The continuation B C3 B4 D5 seems the most natural continuation once D3 is played, but on 19x19 this is kind of exchange is usually bad for white (he gets a hane on the head of two stones). Black's last move at D5 would definitely be better than D2 on 19x19 and I would be very surpised if D2 would be better on 9x9. I'm speculating Leela's tendency to respond B C4 at D3 to be the cause of the discrepancy between the 2.0 komi from Leela and the 4.0 komi from Erik. Might W D3 be 2 points worse then the optimal white move (unknown to me)? Is there any support for W D3 being good from professional 9x9 games? I've never seen it in professional play, but I'm not a specialist on 9x9. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey Verzonden: do 25-9-2008 22:14 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > > I'm not in any position to really say. > > The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. > Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center > point. > > I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I am playing games with Leela at 5 minutes per side on a loaded core 2 duo computer. >From the evidence I have now, which I admit is not enough to base a solid conclusion on, it looks like 2.0 is the correct komi. When I set komi to 1.5, black has won 10 out of 10 games. When I set komi to 2.5, black onl wins 16.667% or 2 out of 12 games. When I did the 7x7 study over a year ago (or maybe 2) I noticed that at reasonably strong levels it tended to be very one sided in one direction or other based on how you set komi. My plan is to run a LOT of games at 2.5 komi and then analyze the results based on the move sequences looking to see if some common early black blunder is preventing wins for black at 2.5 komi. When I do this I will try to reorient the move sequence to some canonical representation so that we are not looking at too many equivalent games with different orientations. Superficially, I noticed this: 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 Which means when black played D5 on move 5 he won, but when he played D2 he lost. 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 Same above - Black played 2 different moves and got two different results. The other games vary before this but could be transpositions of these positions - I don't have the time right now to compute all the transpositions to check this out. I didn't actually look at those moves so I don't know if they are game changing or not. Are there any strong players willing to comment on these 2 diversions? The other possibility is that white is supposed to WIN all those games and is making the occasional error. The results indicate that is a more likely possibility. Here is the complete list of games up to the 9th move. The first column is the number of times this exact result/sequence was played. 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 D2 C2 E4 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 B3 C2 D6 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 E5 B2 D2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 E3 E2 D2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 E2 B5 E4 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 2 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 E2 E4 B5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 D5 B3 B2 2 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 E4 E5 D5 - Don 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 But for now, perhaps you stronger go players can look at the following 6 moves sequences that represent the games. The first column is how many times this exact result/sequence occurred. For instance you see that white won 3 times when the game started "C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5" Does anyone see any obviously bad moves for black? 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 3 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 What I see that is slightly interesting (just from this data, not looking at the actual position) is
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
You guess also in go: side who begins wins game? Vincent On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:08 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote: On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:14 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-Hirn- [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts >>> to solve 6x6 Go? >> >> Didn't Erik van der Werf do it under his rules? > > He did it for 5x5-Go, see at > http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/5x5/5x5solved.html > Several 6x6 positions were solved, but not the empty board. E.g., for the following position we could prove a Black win by at least 2 points (which took about 13 days in 2002). . . . . . . . . . # O . . . # O . . . . # O . . . . . # O . . . . . . . Optimal play on 6x6 under Chinese rules is expected to give a Black win by 4 points. Erik ___ 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] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Don Dailey wrote: > The only thing I know to check is to see if I am sending the proper komi > to the programs.The only other possible glitch is that the version > of leela I am using is ignoring the komi I send - but I don't think this > is the case. The problem was that Leela reset the komi on a boardsize command, which is against the GTP spec. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
even-sized boards have the disability that there's no tengen. i think that this makes mirror go functional until fairly late in the game. s. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Ok, I resolved what I believe is the problem, it's an interface issue. I'm now testing komi 3.5 to see what happens. If 4.0 is the correct komi, we should expect to see black win the majority of the games.If this happens I'll try switching to 4.5 komi. If white then wins, it will be empirical evidence that 4.0 is indeed the correct komi. - Don On Thu, 2008-09-25 at 10:48 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > > > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > > > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > > > I'm not in any position to really say. > > > > The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. > > Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center > > point. > > > > I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. > > I'm playing a series of games with Leela to see what Leela thinks is the > correct komi for 6x6 boards. > > I must be doing something wrong, but I cannot figure out what it is. I > tried a bunch of 3.5 komi games and white won all 12 of them. > > So I tried 2.5 and white won the first game. > > So I tried 0.5 komi and white won 2 games! > > The only thing I know to check is to see if I am sending the proper komi > to the programs.The only other possible glitch is that the version > of leela I am using is ignoring the komi I send - but I don't think this > is the case. I can test that on a bigger board. > > Here are the two 0.5 komi games: > > (;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8] > RU[Chinese]SZ[6]KM[0.5] > PW[LeeA]PB[LeeB]DT[2008-09-25]PC[Autotest]RE[W+Resign]GN[1] > ;B[cd] > ;W[dc] > ;B[dd] > ;W[cc] > ;B[db] > ;W[ed] > ;B[bc] > ;W[cb] > ;B[eb] > ;W[ec] > ;B[bb] > ;W[ce] > ;B[ee] > ;W[de] > ;B[bd] > ;W[fe] > ;B[ef] > ;W[df] > ) > > (;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8] > RU[Chinese]SZ[6]KM[0.5] > PW[LeeB]PB[LeeA]DT[2008-09-25]PC[Autotest]RE[W+Resign]GN[2] > ;B[dd] > ;W[cc] > ;B[cd] > ;W[dc] > ;B[ec] > ;W[eb] > ;B[ca] > ;W[ed] > ;B[ee] > ;W[bd] > ;B[fc] > ;W[bb] > ;B[be] > ;W[ae] > ) > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > Erik > > ___ > > 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/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > > I'm not in any position to really say. > > The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. > Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center > point. > > I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I am playing games with Leela at 5 minutes per side on a loaded core 2 duo computer. From the evidence I have now, which I admit is not enough to base a solid conclusion on, it looks like 2.0 is the correct komi. When I set komi to 1.5, black has won 10 out of 10 games. When I set komi to 2.5, black onl wins 16.667% or 2 out of 12 games. When I did the 7x7 study over a year ago (or maybe 2) I noticed that at reasonably strong levels it tended to be very one sided in one direction or other based on how you set komi. My plan is to run a LOT of games at 2.5 komi and then analyze the results based on the move sequences looking to see if some common early black blunder is preventing wins for black at 2.5 komi. When I do this I will try to reorient the move sequence to some canonical representation so that we are not looking at too many equivalent games with different orientations. Superficially, I noticed this: 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 Which means when black played D5 on move 5 he won, but when he played D2 he lost. 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 Same above - Black played 2 different moves and got two different results. The other games vary before this but could be transpositions of these positions - I don't have the time right now to compute all the transpositions to check this out. I didn't actually look at those moves so I don't know if they are game changing or not. Are there any strong players willing to comment on these 2 diversions? The other possibility is that white is supposed to WIN all those games and is making the occasional error. The results indicate that is a more likely possibility. Here is the complete list of games up to the 9th move. The first column is the number of times this exact result/sequence was played. 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 D2 C2 E4 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 B3 C2 D6 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 E5 B2 D2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 E3 E2 D2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 E2 B5 E4 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 2 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 E2 E4 B5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 D5 B3 B2 2 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 E4 E5 D5 - Don 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 But for now, perhaps you stronger go players can look at the following 6 moves sequences that represent the games. The first column is how many times this exact result/sequence occurred. For instance you see that white won 3 times when the game started "C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5" Does anyone see any obviously bad moves for black? 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 3 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 What I see that is slightly interesting (just from this data, not looking at the actual position) is that C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 > > Erik > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > > I'm not in any position to really say. > > The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. > Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center > point. > > I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I'm playing a series of games with Leela to see what Leela thinks is the correct komi for 6x6 boards. I must be doing something wrong, but I cannot figure out what it is. I tried a bunch of 3.5 komi games and white won all 12 of them. So I tried 2.5 and white won the first game. So I tried 0.5 komi and white won 2 games! The only thing I know to check is to see if I am sending the proper komi to the programs.The only other possible glitch is that the version of leela I am using is ignoring the komi I send - but I don't think this is the case. I can test that on a bigger board. Here are the two 0.5 komi games: (;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8] RU[Chinese]SZ[6]KM[0.5] PW[LeeA]PB[LeeB]DT[2008-09-25]PC[Autotest]RE[W+Resign]GN[1] ;B[cd] ;W[dc] ;B[dd] ;W[cc] ;B[db] ;W[ed] ;B[bc] ;W[cb] ;B[eb] ;W[ec] ;B[bb] ;W[ce] ;B[ee] ;W[de] ;B[bd] ;W[fe] ;B[ef] ;W[df] ) (;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8] RU[Chinese]SZ[6]KM[0.5] PW[LeeB]PB[LeeA]DT[2008-09-25]PC[Autotest]RE[W+Resign]GN[2] ;B[dd] ;W[cc] ;B[cd] ;W[dc] ;B[ec] ;W[eb] ;B[ca] ;W[ed] ;B[ee] ;W[bd] ;B[fc] ;W[bb] ;B[be] ;W[ae] ) - Don > > Erik > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > > I'm not in any position to really say. > > The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. > Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center > point. > > I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I'm sure you know more about this than I do. - Don > > Erik > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:42 -0700, terry mcintyre wrote: > To satisfy my standards of proof, games would have to be post-analyzed to > determine whether either side could have made better moves. Duplicate games > would be thrown out; games with inferior play would be tossed. We might not > have the resources to completely solve the game, but we could improve the > quality of the estimate. At this date, computer-vs-computer matches still > tend to have gross errors in the evaluation of seki, nakade, etc. Programs > think they are ahead when the real result is the opposite. Yes, as I mentioned this is not a proof. Neither is post-analysis, but it would at least add some confidence. There is always the possibility that some nakade glitch or something makes it return the wrong results. Also, the possibility that some difficult to find key move masks the true result. It's also possible that a strong go program is more likely to return a false result due to having more idiosyncrasies. On 5x5 and 7x7 it DID return what is believed by humans to be the correct komi, but that doesn't mean it will at any other board size. I like the idea of playing thousands of games and building a tree for later inspection. If anything looks really wrong, it can be further analyzed. - Don > Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > "Go is very hard. The more I learn about it, the less I know." -Jie Li, 9 dan > > > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that > such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low > but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so > I'm not in any position to really say. The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center point. I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
To satisfy my standards of proof, games would have to be post-analyzed to determine whether either side could have made better moves. Duplicate games would be thrown out; games with inferior play would be tossed. We might not have the resources to completely solve the game, but we could improve the quality of the estimate. At this date, computer-vs-computer matches still tend to have gross errors in the evaluation of seki, nakade, etc. Programs think they are ahead when the real result is the opposite. Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Go is very hard. The more I learn about it, the less I know." -Jie Li, 9 dan ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 15:17 +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: > > I think a better way to do this is to self-play a few hundred games with > > various komi values. > > Do you mean HUMAN self-play or COMPUTER self-/auto-play? > > When you mean human self-play, I am not sure that > this is a safer way for such small boards. I am talking about computer self-play on small boards - I think it gives a very reliable way to determine komi (on small boards.) It's of course not a proof, just as your method is not a proof. Somewhere in the archives I posted data based on a lot of games at 7x7 using 9.5 and 8.5 komi. I used Lazarus, not a particularly strong program, but not a weak program either (about 2200 ELO on CGOS.) I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it was ridiculously one-sided. I did not have to set Lazarus to a very high level in order to get almost 100% win results with white using 9.5 komi. When I went to 8.5 komi, Black wins almost every single game. My empirical conclusion is that the correct komi is probably 9.0 for the 7x7 board size. This method I propose doesn't give a proof. However, you can improve your confidence like this: Play (let's say) 1000 games for each komi we are testing, then do a statistical analysis of the results. If for instance it looks like black wins 98% of the games with some komi, we could take a look at the 2% he lost and try to determine if black just made a stupid move, or white happened to find a very difficult move which actually leads to a win regardless of black does.If there is some evidence that white found a very difficult move which changes things, we could do a further analysis based on the same methodology, but from this new starting position. I would like to do this test but Lazarus doesn't support even size boards (although I might be able to fix this without a lot of trouble) and I don't have a copy of Leela although I might convince Gian Carlo to send me a copy.I'm not sure what mogo supports. > > The correct komi will be clear from those games. > > This worked on 7x7 > > Are such 7x7-games documented somewhere, for > instance in the internet? Yes, I posted my results some time ago. This may go back a couple of years or more. I will look for it. > > so I assume it would work on 6x6. Of course this > > cannot be considered a "proof." > > Right. > What I did is a computer-aided (incomplete) analysis: > running repeated Monte-Carlo searches where the komis > for both sides differ by 1. I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so I'm not in any position to really say. - Don > > Ingo. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Don Dailey wrote: > I think a better way to do this is to self-play a few hundred games with > various komi values. Do you mean HUMAN self-play or COMPUTER self-/auto-play? When you mean human self-play, I am not sure that this is a safer way for such small boards. > The correct komi will be clear from those games. > This worked on 7x7 Are such 7x7-games documented somewhere, for instance in the internet? > so I assume it would work on 6x6. Of course this > cannot be considered a "proof." Right. What I did is a computer-aided (incomplete) analysis: running repeated Monte-Carlo searches where the komis for both sides differ by 1. Ingo. -- GMX Kostenlose Spiele: Einfach online spielen und Spaß haben mit Pastry Passion! http://games.entertainment.gmx.net/de/entertainment/games/free/puzzle/6169196 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
I think a better way to do this is to self-play a few hundred games with various komi values. The correct komi will be clear from those games. This worked on 7x7 so I assume it would work on 6x6. Of course this cannot be considered a "proof." - Don On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 09:53 +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Erik van der Werf wrote: > > ... > > Optimal play on 6x6 under Chinese rules is expected > > to give a Black win by 4 points. > > I want to lay open, why my expectation for > 6x6-Go under Chinese rules is +2 for Black. > > With Leela, I played two games (or game fragments) > in analysis mode, starting the machine from fresh > in each situation, and stopping analysis after > 500,000 nodes. > > Game 1: > Whenever it was Black's turn, komi was set to 3.5 . > Whenever it was White's turn, komi was set to 4.5 . > The numbers in brackets are the win percentages, as > shown by Leela after 500,000 nodes. > 1.c3 (39.9) 2.d4 (73.7) > 3.c4 (46.0) 4.d3 (77.0) > 5.d5 (55.3) 6.e5 (85.6) > 7.d2 (42.0) 8.e2 (91.8) > 9.e4 (24.5) 10.e3 (96.1) > 11.e6(17.6) > Resigned on behalf of Black. > > Game 2: > Whenever it was Black's turn, komi was set to 1.5 . > Whenever it was White's turn, komi was set to 2.5 . > The numbers in brackets are the win percentages, as > shown by Leela after 500,000 nodes. > 1.c3 (71.5) 2.d4 (55.5) > 3.d3 (75.4) 4.c4 (60.2) > 5.b3 (64.1) 6.e3 (74.5) > 7.e2 (59.2) 8.e4 (68.2) > 9.b5 (58.9) 10.b4 (73.3) > 11.a4 (53.3) 12.a5 (73.6) > 13.a3 (65.2) 14.c5 (72.6) > 15.a6 (77.1) 16.f2 (81.6) > 17.e1 (81.7) 18.c6 (76.6) > 19.a5 (81.4) 20.e5 (94.3) > 21.c1 (98.6) > So, both sides are optimistic to reach their respecitve goals. > > Conclusion: From the viewpoint of Leela (at 500,000 nodes), > komi=2.0 is in the "habitable zone" for the > the starting position of 6x6-Go, whereas komi=4.0 is not. > > When instead fair komi would be 4, each of the games above > should contain errors. > > Ingo. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Erik van der Werf wrote: > ... > Optimal play on 6x6 under Chinese rules is expected > to give a Black win by 4 points. I want to lay open, why my expectation for 6x6-Go under Chinese rules is +2 for Black. With Leela, I played two games (or game fragments) in analysis mode, starting the machine from fresh in each situation, and stopping analysis after 500,000 nodes. Game 1: Whenever it was Black's turn, komi was set to 3.5 . Whenever it was White's turn, komi was set to 4.5 . The numbers in brackets are the win percentages, as shown by Leela after 500,000 nodes. 1.c3 (39.9) 2.d4 (73.7) 3.c4 (46.0) 4.d3 (77.0) 5.d5 (55.3) 6.e5 (85.6) 7.d2 (42.0) 8.e2 (91.8) 9.e4 (24.5) 10.e3 (96.1) 11.e6(17.6) Resigned on behalf of Black. Game 2: Whenever it was Black's turn, komi was set to 1.5 . Whenever it was White's turn, komi was set to 2.5 . The numbers in brackets are the win percentages, as shown by Leela after 500,000 nodes. 1.c3 (71.5) 2.d4 (55.5) 3.d3 (75.4) 4.c4 (60.2) 5.b3 (64.1) 6.e3 (74.5) 7.e2 (59.2) 8.e4 (68.2) 9.b5 (58.9) 10.b4 (73.3) 11.a4 (53.3) 12.a5 (73.6) 13.a3 (65.2) 14.c5 (72.6) 15.a6 (77.1) 16.f2 (81.6) 17.e1 (81.7) 18.c6 (76.6) 19.a5 (81.4) 20.e5 (94.3) 21.c1 (98.6) So, both sides are optimistic to reach their respecitve goals. Conclusion: From the viewpoint of Leela (at 500,000 nodes), komi=2.0 is in the "habitable zone" for the the starting position of 6x6-Go, whereas komi=4.0 is not. When instead fair komi would be 4, each of the games above should contain errors. Ingo. -- Der GMX SmartSurfer hilft bis zu 70% Ihrer Onlinekosten zu sparen! Ideal für Modem und ISDN: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/smartsurfer ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:14 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts >>> to solve 6x6 Go? >> >> Didn't Erik van der Werf do it under his rules? > > He did it for 5x5-Go, see at > http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/5x5/5x5solved.html > Several 6x6 positions were solved, but not the empty board. E.g., for the following position we could prove a Black win by at least 2 points (which took about 13 days in 2002). . . . . . . . . . # O . . . # O . . . . # O . . . . . # O . . . . . . . Optimal play on 6x6 under Chinese rules is expected to give a Black win by 4 points. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Hello Robert, thx for the feedback. >> Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts >> to solve 6x6 Go? > > Didn't Erik van der Werf do it under his rules? He did it for 5x5-Go, see at http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/5x5/5x5solved.html Ingo. -- Pt! Schon vom neuen GMX MultiMessenger gehört? Der kann`s mit allen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/multimessenger ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Ingo Althöfer wrote: Stefan Reisz is the author of the website http://www.reisz.de/gohome.htm There he claims to have a solution for 6x6-Go with Japanese rules. This is not a "solution" in a mathematical sense because - it is not specified which Japanese rules are used - during the scoring, the rules are applied without showing exactly that - during the scoring, the number of studied hypothetical-sequences is zero instead of huge or infinite - in every move-sequence, the game is not ended by successive passes properly - MANY other possible moves are missing (and my manual study of some simplistic (but arcane) positions under some particular Japanese rulesets has convinced me that there are more unexpected but correct plays or passes than one fears) Too often the word solution is abused. "preliminary study" is more appropriate. The largest board for that I could solve Go under Japanese 2003 Rules manually was 1x1. Already 1x2 was too tough: While it is still possible to denote all hypothetical-sequences, listing all hypothetical-strategies is clearly no fun. Possible if one spends several days or weeks. But if somebody or a program claims to have solved under some Japanese ruleset, I am more than sceptical and want to see mathematical proofs. Although I have done preliminary studies of how to formulate and prove useful propositions, this is work for months. It doesn't matter whether proving scoring propositions is done manually or by algorithm. Only those board sizes that allow killing all are simpler because all you have to do is to prove just that. There are exceptional tiny board sizes that allow other types of elegant proofs, but they won't help much for bigger boards. Solving(!) Go under whichever Japanese ruleset is for the rules experts rather than for computer go. Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts to solve 6x6 Go? Didn't Erik van der Werf do it under his rules? -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Stefan Reisz is the author of the website http://www.reisz.de/gohome.htm There he claims to have a solution for 6x6-Go with Japanese rules. The outcome of his handmade analysis is that komi=3 would be fair. The analysis may be downloaded from the site, as sgf file. Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts to solve 6x6 Go? Ingo Althofer. PS: After some hours of interactive analysis with Leela my impression is that in case of Chinese rules the value of 6x6-Go might be +2. -- Ist Ihr Browser Vista-kompatibel? Jetzt die neuesten Browser-Versionen downloaden: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/browser ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
