Re: [computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
If scoring matters, then instead of just estimating the winrate for a certain move, a bot has to estimate a komi/winrate function. As a shortcut, maybe a simoid scoring function will suddenly start to shine. But that really folds winrate and winning score into a single dimension. If that is too much of a simplification only testing can tell. For humans it just means don't resign, don't try anything too funny to catch up, and don't take it too easy in a winning position. Put even more shortly it means don't bother counting for humans, which is ironic because for bots it means exactly the opposite. Stefan - Original Message - From: Don Dailey To: computer-go Sent: Monday, November 23, 2009 1:22 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots I'm pretty sure that this simplification of the rules would favor computers. Of course that would require some program modifications, primarily counting points on the board instead of wins and losses. These rules basically takes out some (or at least reduces) elements of the game that humans are better at, such as knowing how to judge risk, knowing when to go for it, etc. Go is still way too complex for computers to process well so any simplification like this is going to help computers. - Don On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Alain Baeckeroot alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote: A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted on kgs/eurogo TV With these rules, the actual count makes a difference (as opposed to just win/lose) Winning by 40.5gets 100 points ...... Losing by 40.5gets 0 point see http://senseis.xmp.net/?Bangneki http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem How current MCx bots can handle this kind of rules ? The traditional safe way would ensure 60 points, but trying crazy things (when losing) would cost a lot if the result ends by losing by resignation or -40.5 What is the impact for chosing the best move ? (choose the greediest amongst several with highest winning rate ?) Alain. ___ 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] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Don Dailey wrote: this simplification of the rules Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy. I am asserting that a properly modified bot is going to better at this variant of the game. It's way easier to play go like a beginner who is focused more on not losing points on the board. If you remember, we started programming MC that way and it was harder to beat them by high scores but it was easier to beat them.Then it was discovered that scoring wins and losses made a huge difference in their ability to win.This is pretty much a proof that playing for score is a significantly DIFFERENT strategy. It almost certainly has to be a simpler strategy because it's more like how weaker players play the game. - Don -- robert jasiek ___ 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] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
Don Dailey wrote: It's way easier to play go like a beginner who is focused more on not losing points on the board. I do not think that strategy for Hahn should be to play like a beginner. Rather one should include the following in one's considerations: - Enlarging one's win score / decreasing the opponent's win score in relation to an increased risk in the context of a tournament system and the current tournament standings. - Limiting further risk increment at or slightly above the top Hahn score. - Modifying risks according to the non-linear progress of Hahn score steps. In comparison in Go, a predictable secure or likely loss of any (also the smallest) size is met by increasing the risk as much as possible. Three instead of one major meta-aims make Hahn meta-strategy more complicated than Go meta-strategy. (Plus, they create a different game.) This is pretty much a proof that playing for score is a significantly DIFFERENT strategy. Many, if not by far the most, human players have made this empirical proof, too. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Alain Baeckeroot alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote: Le 23/11/2009 à 15:04, Don Dailey a écrit : On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Don Dailey wrote: this simplification of the rules Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy. I am asserting that a properly modified bot is going to better at this variant of the game. It's way easier to play go like a beginner who is focused more on not losing points on the board. If you remember, we started programming MC that way and it was harder to beat them by high scores but it was easier to beat them. Yes, but the aim was to win, not to win by a lot, this is NOT the same rules. I don't think we can guess if the bot are weaker or stronger with this new rules (i guess it's about the same :-) ) Of course you can guess, and that's what I am doing. I am estimating that this is a simpler game but I could be wrong. I think simpler games favor computers.I think it's simpler because I am a weak player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games (in my beginners mind there is no difference even though objectively I know better, but it's too much for me to process.) Even strong players do this as a shortcut to make it easier to think about their next move, but they are more aware of concepts like, I MUST win this chunk of the board or I will lose the game. So it seems pretty evident to me that this is a simpler concept to grasp and play by and thus one that computers would do better at relative to good human players who are much better at risk assessment than computers. I won't go so far as to say that this eliminates the element of risk from the game, but it seems obvious to me that it is an easier way to think about the game. Then it was discovered that scoring wins and losses made a huge difference in their ability to win.This is pretty much a proof that playing for score is a significantly DIFFERENT strategy. It almost certainly has to be a simpler strategy because it's more like how weaker players play the game. http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem says it forces players to fight more. and improves reading skill. All that really means is that the game is longer. You have to fight for points even if 350 points have already been decided and there are 11 left to fight over. I think it's a stretch to claim this means it takes a lot more skill to play with the Hahn system. - Don For sure it would be fun for people to watch a kgs hahn tournament, with bots fighting hard and crushing the weaker one. (with R.Jasiek rule : 1 point on board gives 1 point for tournament) btw, gnugo would be better at this, as it tries to maximise score. Alain ___ 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] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
Don Dailey wrote: I think it's simpler because I am a weak player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games Many weak players have told me (and for me when I was a beginner it was the same) that they do not count territories at all...! Simpler than what you are suggesting:) it seems obvious to me that [very rough positional counting] is an easier way to think about the game. The actual step of counting may be easier but every strategic consequence becomes harder because all decision making has to take into account an error range, i.e., per decision many more follow-up decisions remain valid and thus still have to be considered. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Don Dailey wrote: I think it's simpler because I am a weak player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games Many weak players have told me (and for me when I was a beginner it was the same) that they do not count territories at all...! Simpler than what you are suggesting:) I'm not claiming that weak players count up the board, I am saying the opposite.Weak players don't care about what they have already won or lost, they are just trying to grab up what they can with little concern about what they actually NEED. There is a huge difference in what you think I said and what I was trying to communicate. it seems obvious to me that [very rough positional counting] is an easier way to think about the game. The actual step of counting may be easier but every strategic consequence becomes harder because all decision making has to take into account an error range, i.e., per decision many more follow-up decisions remain valid and thus still have to be considered. Are you on my side now?I think I am saying what you just said.Really good players are constantly estimating their chances and doing this harder calculation (if I am understanding your correctly) while weaker players are pretty much not concerned with anything but trying to win points, regardless of any assessment of the winning chances. In other words strong players are more likely to secure the win or take the risk when it's needed to win, while weaker players are just trying to pick off points. -- robert jasiek ___ 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] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
In my experience, go players (I include myself) rarely count territory until they reach the low-kyu level. It's all about slaying dragons and adventure. Terry McIntyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
Well No, this games game lot harder. Even when point matter, 1st goal is to win the game in traditional sense to get any points at all. Which make just as hard as normal game. Then comes huge risk assesment risks involved. Lets assume - not so rare case - that you can go for the throat or attack mildly to secure some points. In Normal go most players - if they are willing to use the time - can make score estimate with 10 pt accuracy and use that as a guidance. In Hahn go the assessment comes lot harder and involves fuzzy variables that are hard to estimate by computer or human as well. But this is exactly kind of thing where human reasoning can give good results. Petri 2009/11/23 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com I am estimating that this is a simpler game but I could be wrong. I think simpler games favor computers.I think it's simpler because I am a weak player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games (in my beginners mind there is no difference even though objectively I know better, but it's too much for me to process.) Even strong players do this as a shortcut to make it easier to think about their next move, but they are more aware of concepts like, I MUST win this chunk of the board or I will lose the game. So it seems pretty evident to me that this is a simpler concept to grasp and play by and thus one that computers would do better at relative to good human players who are much better at risk assessment than computers. I won't go so far as to say that this eliminates the element of risk from the game, but it seems obvious to me that it is an easier way to think about the game. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted on kgs/eurogo TV With these rules, the actual count makes a difference (as opposed to just win/lose) Winning by 40.5gets 100 points ...... Losing by 40.5gets 0 point see http://senseis.xmp.net/?Bangneki http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem How current MCx bots can handle this kind of rules ? The traditional safe way would ensure 60 points, but trying crazy things (when losing) would cost a lot if the result ends by losing by resignation or -40.5 What is the impact for chosing the best move ? (choose the greediest amongst several with highest winning rate ?) Alain. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
I'm pretty sure that this simplification of the rules would favor computers. Of course that would require some program modifications, primarily counting points on the board instead of wins and losses. These rules basically takes out some (or at least reduces) elements of the game that humans are better at, such as knowing how to judge risk, knowing when to go for it, etc. Go is still way too complex for computers to process well so any simplification like this is going to help computers. - Don On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:23 PM, Alain Baeckeroot alain.baecker...@laposte.net wrote: A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted on kgs/eurogo TV With these rules, the actual count makes a difference (as opposed to just win/lose) Winning by 40.5gets 100 points ...... Losing by 40.5gets 0 point see http://senseis.xmp.net/?Bangneki http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem How current MCx bots can handle this kind of rules ? The traditional safe way would ensure 60 points, but trying crazy things (when losing) would cost a lot if the result ends by losing by resignation or -40.5 What is the impact for chosing the best move ? (choose the greediest amongst several with highest winning rate ?) Alain. ___ 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] Hahn system tournament and MC bots
Don Dailey wrote: this simplification of the rules Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
