Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
i'm not too sure what the protocol is on this, but it'd be interesting nonetheless -- the current 'human' KGS tournament this month is 9x9 -- anyone with a very strong 9x9 player should enter it, if it wouldn't offend anyone (i can't imagine that it would, since money isn't involved*). s. * touch of irony there __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
opponent and eventually could have passed for free. Had game been under Japanese rules I would have been 'forced' to think whether reply was needed and thus think a lot longer time for replies and possibly lost on time because reply would have been needed probably too often. Conclusion: Under Chinese rules and limited time player can end game easier and faster than under Japanese rules when opponent tries silly invasions. Not really. If you are ahead you reply every move. You got the extra prisoner so you can afford to reply, it does not change the fact that you won. Only if you are behind you could gain victory because opponent makes silly move that loses points Like in example from tournament game where a bot makes hundreds of useless moves. Rules that encourage that simply are not good. -- Petri Pitkänen e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +358 50 486 0292 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:37:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? If the handicap stones are placed on the traditional points (4-4, etc), then the answer is obviously yes. It is possible to live with a 3-3 invasion under such a stone. If the handicap stones are placed at 3-4 points, there should be ample room to approach from the side, and live in the corner or on the side. I guess that if the stones are places on 3-3, it should be possible to approach at 4-4, and slide to one of the sides, and possibly make a life there. Here I am not strong enough to say for sure. The last alternative I can think is to use 2 stones for each corner, but that leaves the sides wide open. Black can invade the middle of a side, and probably make a life there. Again I ask stronger players' opinions. So, my guess is that white can always squeeze a small life somewhere. In normal play black would of course welcome that, because he can secure so much more by containing the small white group. But what kind of player can give 9 stones to one who plays (near?) perfect? -Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
well, i'm pretty sure that against a top player i would need around 20 stones to have much of a shot, but if I remember correctly, at the professional level, a 17-18 stone free placement is needed to take the entire board. A 9 stone handicap is not nearly enough to take the whole board no matter where they are placed. On 1/5/07, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:37:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? If the handicap stones are placed on the traditional points (4-4, etc), then the answer is obviously yes. It is possible to live with a 3-3 invasion under such a stone. If the handicap stones are placed at 3-4 points, there should be ample room to approach from the side, and live in the corner or on the side. I guess that if the stones are places on 3-3, it should be possible to approach at 4-4, and slide to one of the sides, and possibly make a life there. Here I am not strong enough to say for sure. The last alternative I can think is to use 2 stones for each corner, but that leaves the sides wide open. Black can invade the middle of a side, and probably make a life there. Again I ask stronger players' opinions. So, my guess is that white can always squeeze a small life somewhere. In normal play black would of course welcome that, because he can secure so much more by containing the small white group. But what kind of player can give 9 stones to one who plays (near?) perfect? -Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ 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: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Petri Pitkanen wrote: Like in example from tournament game where a bot makes hundreds of useless moves. Rules that encourage that simply are not good. The only way to prevent this is a mandatory pass whenever a pass is a possible perfect play. When you think about it, you would furthermore want to require the ambient temperature to be 0 (otherwise it would be mandatory to pass already when each player could make endgame plays of the same values, for example). Now write this down as rules and then make your statement again. Before, IYO, good rules do not exist yet. So that you don't make the same mistakes again, first read http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 4-jan-07, at 19:37, Don Dailey wrote: If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? This is the same as asking if it's possible to make a living group, which is obviously possible by invading at 3-3. He'll get at least two of those. But I wouldn't be surprised if he could do better. Mark___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 4-jan-07, at 18:53, David Doshay wrote: I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be rewarded for that reading skill. I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase', where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve disputes in a fair manner. Since capturing dead stones would cost points, how do you resolve a dispute where your opponent claims his stones are not dead? (Think bent-four corner.)The actual proof consists of playing out the sequence that captures the stones. Every time your opponent passes and you continue playing moves to capture the stones you'd lose a point. That's why passing has to be compensated by paying a point. It's not about Go playing skills that should be rewarded but about being able to resolve disputes fairly. In the case at hand this phase is abused by a player who doesn't contest the status of stones but instead contests the result of the game when it would be counted according to Japanese rules. Personally I think programming your bot to play inside opponents territory when you obviously know it won't affect the outcome under normal circumstances is showing poor mentality. You'd be wasting my time and/ or computing time. Using the rules used as an argument doesn't hold for me. How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-threats at the end of the game? This is possible without punishment under any set of rules. In my opinion, the fact that we humans feel bad doing something like that should be enough to at least make an effort to make your program avoid such behaviour too. Unfortunately it seems rather frequent that the opposite is true and that some put effort into explicitly programming such bad behaviour. Personally I htink it's a waste of time. It may win you a game occasionally but it won't make your program play any better. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? This is the same as asking if it's possible to make a living group, which is obviously possible by invading at 3-3. He'll get at least two of those. But I wouldn't be surprised if he could do better. i think that the attached initial (13-stone) setup requires life to be made in the center rather than the sides or corners, but it looks difficult. a stronger player can comment, perhaps? the idea here was to remove room for 2-point extensions along the sides, and to enclose the corners in such a way as to protect them from being used as threats against the edge stones. tengen is intended to weakly influence against center development, but maybe this is a misguided idea. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com lifeq.sgf Description: x-unknown/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I think the whole discussion about Japanese vs. Chinese scoring is moot in the context of silly invasions. If my opponent passes and 1) I am ahead ... I pass and win. 2) I am behind ... I may start an invasion if I think I have a chance; loosing a couple more points (Japanese) does not matter. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, steve uurtamo wrote: i think that the attached initial (13-stone) setup requires life to be made in the center rather than the sides or corners, but it looks difficult. a stronger player can comment, perhaps? It should be possible to live with an attachment at the 3-3 point. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 22:37, Don Dailey a écrit : I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? 9 handicap is equivalent to 120-150 komi (this is estimated by pro players taking 9 handi and playing at maximum strenght) 8 h = 100 komi 4h = 40 komi Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
In our club we estimate twice the komi for sente equal to a handicap stone, except for the first handicap stone one, which is just one time the komi. Using a komi of 6.5 for sente amounts to: Hand. Value 1 = 6.5 2 = 19.5 3 = 32.5 4 = 45.5 5 = 58.5 6 = 71.5 7 = 84.5 8 = 97.5 9 = 110.5 Using a komi of 6 for sente amounts to: Hand. Value 1 = 6 2 = 18 3 = 30 4 = 42 5 = 54 6 = 66 7 = 78 8 = 90 9 = 102 These estimates are fairly close to yours. Dave - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] Datum: vrijdag, januari 5, 2007 8:17 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 22:37, Don Dailey a écrit : I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? 9 handicap is equivalent to 120-150 komi (this is estimated by pro playerstaking 9 handi and playing at maximum strenght) 8 h = 100 komi 4h = 40 komi 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] Re: Interesting problem
Mark Boon wrote: How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-threats at the end of the game? I am happy to win the game, of course. the fact that we humans feel bad doing something like that Not we humans. I don't feel bad when my opponent does it. When answers are not obvious, I also try some ko threats myself. It may win you a game occasionally but it won't make your program play any better. Winning more games is better play. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
And so we enter the second phase ... On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote: I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase', where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve disputes in a fair manner. Since capturing dead stones would cost points, how do you resolve a dispute where your opponent claims his stones are not dead? (Think bent-four corner.)The actual proof consists of playing out the sequence that captures the stones. Every time your opponent passes and you continue playing moves to capture the stones you'd lose a point. That's why passing has to be compensated by paying a point. It's not about Go playing skills that should be rewarded but about being able to resolve disputes fairly. I can see the purpose of a second phase to resolve disputes over the status of specific groups. Having the second phase played out with the give a pass stone does preserve the state as of the two passes that were intended to end the game, so I do not find this to be a problem. My argument against the pass stone costing a point applies to before the two consecutive passes that end the game. I would then expect that the moves made in this second phase be restricted to the life and death of specific groups in question. If our bots do this properly then there is no argument or objection from me. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote: David, I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way, defines the difference in the rule-sets. You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group is dead. But you are not 100 percent sure. What do you do? Chinese puts the emphasis on the actual truth of the situation. Japanese makes you gamble, and penalizes you for being wrong. It makes your opinion about the situation become a factor in the final result instead of the board position and your play leading up to it. Don, I can see that chinese rules let a player try a speculative invasion inside his opponents territory at the end of the game without risk, but you seem to be saying more than this. Could you give a 5x5 example or two please? I had heard that in some sense, chinese rules require more sophisticated understanding for perfect play. It might be best to construct the example by playing a pretend game so that each player has played the fair number of stones. Thanks ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I assume that cannot be captured by the opponent means that the opponent, playing first, cannot capture it. I accept that it is unclear whether this opponent is the actual one present in the game, or a hypothetical competent one. In an unresolved semeai it is not clear who is the one trying to capture and should thus get the first move. One more vote for simple rules. :) -- Tapani Raiko, [EMAIL PROTECTED], +358 50 5225750 http://www.cis.hut.fi/praiko/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Tapani Raiko [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes I assume that cannot be captured by the opponent means that the opponent, playing first, cannot capture it. I accept that it is unclear whether this opponent is the actual one present in the game, or a hypothetical competent one. In an unresolved semeai it is not clear who is the one trying to capture and should thus get the first move. It is fairly clear to me. You ask the players for the status of each group (alive, or dead. Alive in seki is a special case of alive). Where they agree, you accept what they say. Where they differ, you have to find out whether it can be captured, with its would-be capturer moving first. Of course, if the players do the finding out themselves, there is a danger that you end up with two adjacent dead groups. If this happens, I am not sure what to do next. One more vote for simple rules. :) Agreed. 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] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 08:01 +, Tom Cooper wrote: At 23:17 03/01/2007, Don wrote: David, I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way, defines the difference in the rule-sets. You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group is dead. But you are not 100 percent sure. What do you do? Chinese puts the emphasis on the actual truth of the situation. Japanese makes you gamble, and penalizes you for being wrong. It makes your opinion about the situation become a factor in the final result instead of the board position and your play leading up to it. Don, I can see that chinese rules let a player try a speculative invasion inside his opponents territory at the end of the game without risk, but you seem to be saying more than this. Could you give a 5x5 example or two please? I had heard that in some sense, chinese rules require more sophisticated understanding for perfect play. It might be best to construct the example by playing a pretend game so that each player has played the fair number of stones. + + O + O O # # + + + O + O O # # + + # O O O O O # # + # + O O # # # + + # O O # + # O + + + O # # + # + + + O O O # + + # + # O O # # # # + + + O O O # # # + + Here is an example from 9x9 which illustrates a key conceptual different in the rule-sets. I admit this is a rather trivial example but it illustrates what I need to say. In the diagram, black has a chance to make a live group but only if white plays stupidly. Although this is a trivial example, we might imagine a much more interesting example where it's not so clear, or where the better player has a real chance to make this group live. In such a situation, Japanese is more about gambling skill, can I get away with it? The strong Japanese player is inhibited for trying to take advantage of his extra skill. The Chinese player can apply his skill to such a position without being penalized if the opponent is able to defend. Now imagine that diagram is played out more, so that there are no chances to save groups - there is a point in any game, where the game is conceptually over and a strong player can compute what the exact score should be using any unambiguous rule-set. With Chinese rules, when the game is LOGICALLY over, the ACTUAL result will be the same as the LOGICAL result. With Japanese rules the game might be LOGICALLY over but the actual OUTCOME is needlessly delayed. In other words Japanese rules gets very petty about what happens AFTER the game is LOGICALLY over - the point where good players know what the result SHOULD be. Chinese rules is more intellectual about that - it doesn't care about things that are not important - Japanese is juvenile about this. That's why in my opinion Chinese rules are superior. They give more scope for skill, once a game is logically decided it's OVER and it doesn't place juvenile emphasis on what should be non-issues. Japanese is very petty about what happens AFTER the game is logically over and to me this isn't GO, it's poker. I wold point out that this is not a virtue, it is is a necessity designed to make the scoring come out right. It wasn't designed purposely to punish you for not passing. - Don Thanks ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petri Pitkanen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes All these are rather imaginary problems really. How many times you end arguing about the outcome of a game at the club? I rarely do. But 15-kyu players do; they generally ask a stronger player for help. This year, as referee at the London Open, I was not required to deal with any status problems. But I was summoned to deal with a game-end status argument there the previous year. Japanese rules are de-facto rules in international go and hence computer programs should implement them best they can. Humans can find it difficult enough. Requiring programs to do something that humans don't know how to do is unreasonable. If I am to referee a human event, I prefer area rules, which don't lead to these problems. If I am to referee a computer event, I greatly prefer them. Nick And they problems doe exist as Robert has pointed out, but simple counting procedure out weights any problems encountered so far. And besides on normal game difference is just 1 pt. Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly passes should be awarded a point for his skill. Petri -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
In the diagram, black has a chance to make a live group but only if white plays stupidly. there's a nice rule of thumb that says that you should only play moves whose outcome results in your opponent playing *what you think is the best move*. there's simply nothing more irritating than someone attempting an unreasonable invasion at the end of a game in order to try to turn a loss into a win. either they're assuming that you're unable to respond correctly, or hoping that you'll run out of time. exactly when this is the case -- that all reasonable people would stop playing -- is of course determined by the relative skill level of the players involved. many games in practice are resigned far before yose. many computer programs can determine when unambiguous end of game has occurred (i.e. when point-making yose has finished), and it would be most friendly of them at that point to discontinue playing. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
steve uurtamo wrote: there's simply nothing more irritating than someone attempting an unreasonable invasion at the end of a game in order to try to turn a loss into a win. I try this during the opening, the middle game, and the endgame. The only difference is in YOUR perception. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I try this during the opening, the middle game, and the endgame. The only difference is in YOUR perception. :) fair enough. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly passes should be awarded a point for his skill. This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my program passes 100+ times in the endgame. I do think that a bot that plays hundreds of endgame moves that amount to nothing and that their opponent does not even need to answer should pay a point for each of those moves. I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be rewarded for that reading skill. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Oh ... I should have been more complete ... I think that the things said below should be the case when the tournament is not announced as playing under Chinese rules, as are all KGS computer tournaments. I do think that the TD gets to set the rules that they prefer. I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. Cheers, David On 4, Jan 2007, at 12:53 PM, David Doshay wrote: On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly passes should be awarded a point for his skill. This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my program passes 100+ times in the endgame. I do think that a bot that plays hundreds of endgame moves that amount to nothing and that their opponent does not even need to answer should pay a point for each of those moves. I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be rewarded for that reading skill. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote: On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly passes should be awarded a point for his skill. This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my program passes 100+ times in the endgame. I do think that a bot that plays hundreds of endgame moves that amount to nothing and that their opponent does not even need to answer should pay a point for each of those moves. I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be rewarded for that reading skill. Chinese views all this as a clean-up phase that is not important to the real game and so do I. I'm certainly not interested in winning points that way and would take no delight in it. I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? - Don Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
OK, now I see your perspective ... the invader has the right to ask the defender to prove their skill, which I must say seems very much like a gamble to me, but should not be punished if their attempt is refuted. As such, I claim only that in this case we have to assume that it will be the norm for our programs because this is an unequal situation: no possible cost but some possible benefit. And indeed, it is what we see most programs do. Again, it only comes down to points when the defender tries things that the opponent can repeatedly ignore! If the invader is trying things that have to be answered move for move, then there is no penalty for trying. To me, this shows that there is balance in the risk/reward equation when the defender can pick up a point for properly evaluating the logical reality of the board position and then pass. This says to me that the one point loss per move you play that for which a defense is not required is indeed measuring skill and punishing a gamble. The Japanese player you mention below does not have to decide in advance if their opponent's defense of an invasion is possible or not, he just needs to determine if the opponent needs to answer at all. And to me, if this happens in the opening, the midgame, or the endgame, it is a standard part of determining the value of a move, and is a very good way to determine the strength of play. If my opponent keeps playing tenuki when I think my moves are meaningful, then I know that I am either going to win very big or get slaughtered by somebody who knows much better than me that those moves really did not matter. If they pass multiple times I have to ask why and look more carefully. In fact, it seems to me that saying PASS is the bigger gamble: you can easily just answer the invasion move for move and not change the score at all ... it takes greater faith to pass in order to pick up that point. I do not see why the situation should not be symmetric, and thus the invader must have equal faith that their probe *must* be answered. And while we are evaluating gambling in games of reason, I think that the skill level of everyone on this list is such that they have tried things they are not sure are going to work. It is the norm in very hard games, and we all know that Go is hard. This kind of gambling is even required in high handicap games. Cheers, David On 4, Jan 2007, at 9:08 AM, Don Dailey wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 15:57 +0200, Petri Pitkanen wrote: Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly passes should be awarded a point for his skill. No, this inhibits the application of skill. A silly invasion that wastes time is punished in all rules sets, but in Chinese it may not be silly if it doesn't waste time - Japanese rules unfairly defines these moves as silly. Chinese is better in this regard. You can try these invasions and put your opponent under pressure to refute them. When a Japanese player has a possible invasion that he knows is difficult but possible to defend, he must decide whether to play correctly or whether to gamble that his opponent won't be able to find the defense. With Chinese you can attack without inhibition in this situation and force your opponent to prove his skill.You can play more exciting games with Chinese rules. - 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] Re: Interesting problem
Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the interesting stuff? On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. I hope the programming effort isn't spend on this mundane stuff, but instead is applied to playing the game well - not trying to get rewards for passing. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:37 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I'm certainly not interested in winning points that way and would take no delight in it. I do not take delight in picking up the points, but in my feeling that this shows true understanding of the reality of what is on the board. Whenever it looks like my program is playing like it really understands the board, I am delighted. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Thanks Chris! that's all from me this time ... ;^) Cheers, David On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:46 PM, Chris Fant wrote: Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the interesting stuff? On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. I hope the programming effort isn't spend on this mundane stuff, but instead is applied to playing the game well - not trying to get rewards for passing. - 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] Re: Interesting problem
The discussion isn't mundane, it has helped me understand the rule-set differences even better. I also think it's an important discussion for the future of GO, I believe it's generally understood that Japanese rules is traditional, but the future is Chinese - that's the direction things have been moving. Most of the mediocre Chinese programs understand when the game is over and know what groups are dead. This isn't rocket science except in extreme cases it can get tough. In those cases the Japanese programs are equally clueless. Trying to determine the exact moment to pass seems like a tedious unimportant exercise that at best will give you a stone or two if you have a reasonable program. - Don On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 16:46 -0500, Chris Fant wrote: Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the interesting stuff? On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. I hope the programming effort isn't spend on this mundane stuff, but instead is applied to playing the game well - not trying to get rewards for passing. - 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] Re: Interesting problem
I'm done too ;-) - Don On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:58 -0800, David Doshay wrote: Thanks Chris! that's all from me this time ... ;^) Cheers, David On 4, Jan 2007, at 1:46 PM, Chris Fant wrote: Kinda like how the discussion is on this mundane stuff instead of the interesting stuff? On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:16 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I just hope that someday the extra skill required as mentioned below is applied to computer programs, and rewarded accordingly. I hope the programming effort isn't spend on this mundane stuff, but instead is applied to playing the game well - not trying to get rewards for passing. - 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Please stop this confusion. Chinese scoring != Chinese rules Japanese scoring != Japanese rules Moreover, both Japanese and Chinese rules are to be considered traditional rules. E. On 1/4/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I also think it's an important discussion for the future of GO, I believe it's generally understood that Japanese rules is traditional, but the future is Chinese - that's the direction things have been moving. Most of the mediocre Chinese programs understand when the game is over and know what groups are dead. This isn't rocket science except in extreme cases it can get tough. In those cases the Japanese programs are equally clueless. Trying to determine the exact moment to pass seems like a tedious unimportant exercise that at best will give you a stone or two if you have a reasonable program. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes snip I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? I used to play a game with someone much (~8 stones) stronger than me, where he started by placing eight stones where he wanted them, and I then tried to live anywhere on the board. Usually I failed, but sometimes I succeeded. So I think the answer to your question must be, yes. 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] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 23:28 +0100, Erik van der Werf wrote: Chinese scoring != Chinese rules Japanese scoring != Japanese rules So you can play with Chinese rules, but score the Japanese way? Please explain the difference so that I can use the correct terminology. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, 4 Jan 2007, Don Dailey wrote: I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect opponents wishes? Between equal players that's easy. I talked about this with very strong amateur ( 6d) from Taiwan and he told me that professionals estimate the handicap where white cannot live to be about 17 stones. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I was going to avoid more postings ... but it seems that any beauty of omission that might be achieved would be offset by the rudeness of not answering specifically posed questions. Answers embedded below. Cheers, David On 4, Jan 2007, at 4:29 PM, Jeff Nowakowski wrote: On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 12:53 -0800, David Doshay wrote: On 4, Jan 2007, at 5:57 AM, Petri Pitkanen wrote: Also It is good that unsound invasions are punished. This is supposed to be game of skill. If someone make silly invasion that does not require answer, the more skilled player i.e player that correctly passes should be awarded a point for his skill. This is the heart of my argument. I still consider it a feature when my program passes 100+ times in the endgame. Is it also a feature when a program cannot play out bent-4, because it knows that it is dead, but not why? Which program has more skill, the one that understands how to play it out, or the one that doesn't? It is difficult to discern the difference. But if you look at the SlugGo MoGo game in the slow KGS tournament, you will see that SlugGo avoided playing any time possible, and even avoided simple captures in a way that led to MoGo filling space in a way that avoided SlugGo having to play the extra capture stones. You can say that SlugGo understands nothing about endgame counting, or you can say that it shows signs of doing something well. Your choice. Again, almost all of those moves were pure GNU Go moves, so it speaks more to the quality of their endgame counting than anything I wrote for SlugGo. Japanese rules, in their pursuit of efficiency and beauty of omission, have thrown out the baby with the bathwater. This point I do not understand. However, I do understand how I can find that efficiency and beauty of omission lovely while others do not. I am a physicist, and very many of the equations I learned to understand are written explicitly in a max efficiency / min energy form. If the universe really works that way then it is lovely that this game captures it. You can no longer force an opponent to demonstrate his skill on the board; instead you must agree off the board what is alive or dead. I believe that this point was covered best by On 4, Jan 2007, at 2:28 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote: Please stop this confusion. Chinese scoring != Chinese rules Japanese scoring != Japanese rules I only wish to address how we should do our scoring, not the entire set of formal Japanese rules. Specifically, how we should score the result of a game when one bot passes and the other keeps playing. That is where this thread really got started, Lukaz's suggestion that a pass cost one point, because that will lead to the same result with Chinese or Japanese COUNTING. As Archivist of the AGA I have several volumes of Japanese rules. It is astounding how long those documents are. The only solace I get is that they are written in Japanese, and I don't read Japanese, so I do not have to worry about all of the details. And please, for once address this argument: When a player is *losing* under Japanese rules, how does it hurt him to make unreasonable invasions? Your argument is no argument at all. Japanese rules provide no benefit in this department. The only thing that happens is that they loose by more points to the extent that their opponent does not answer move for move. If your argument is that there is nothing beyond loosing, then yes, there is no clear motivation to avoid invasions that might bring the win back. I do not see a problem with that. To try is fine, perhaps even showing a tenacious spirit. That was my evaluation of the previously mentioned KGS tournament game between botnoid and SlugGo. SlugGo was going to win by 368.5 points, but botnoid kept playing and SlugGo kept passing, but eventually botnoid made things too complicated for SlugGo and lost by only 180 or so points. I had no problem with that. It was interesting and pointed out where SlugGo had evaluation problems. Even if SlugGo had lost the game, it would have been the same: a clear indication of a problem in counting in a liberty race. Winning may be more fun than loosing, but I usually learn more from loosing. In this case I had the lucky circumstance of both winning and learning, although there was the loss of 180 or so points. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Ok, since you broke the truce so will I :-) On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 13:55 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I guess we will just have to leave it as a disagreement about what is important and what is mundane. I do not find the question of correct endgame reading to be mundane. What does this have to do with correct reading? Most of the reasonable programs, whether using area or territory scoring know what is going on, they know what is dead or alive. I don't think this discussion has anything to do with reading. If SlugGo passes 100+ times and in the process the opponent builds something that is then mis-evaluated (as happened in a game against botnoid in a KGS tournament) this is a very important thing for me to fix. If it turns out to be correct as it hangs itself way out on the edge, counting every liberty and cut correctly, then I am happy. It is not the winning, but the appearance of understanding that is important to me. Im not in to this. I would be programming chat-bots if I were. I'm not that interested in the aesthetics unless it comes for free. I just want to make the program play stronger. I don't care one whit if it can pass the Turing test or not. But how is this related to territory scoring? It's just as easy to make an area scoring program pass. I don't get it? I think I just stick with the more logical rule-set. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
2007/1/4, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]: No, this inhibits the application of skill. A silly invasion that wastes time is punished in all rules sets, but in Chinese it may not be silly if it doesn't waste time - Japanese rules unfairly defines these moves as silly. It is silly if opponents best reply is pass Chinese is better in this regard. You can try these invasions and put your opponent under pressure to refute them. Is the refutation is pass even then? When a Japanese player has a possible invasion that he knows is difficult but possible to defend, he must decide whether to play correctly or whether to gamble that his opponent won't be able to find the defense. It it is severe enough that opponent has to reply It does not matter in any rule set. In Japanese if silly invasions needs a real refutation player gains point for extra prisoner and loses a point reply inside his/her own territory. No gamble there. BUT if it is so silly that PASS only thing that is needed, why in earth obviously the more skilled player i.e the one who knew that move does not even need an answer should not be awarded a point for it? Remember Chinese and Japanese rules give same outcome as long as players made same number of moves. -- Petri Pitkänen e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +358 50 486 0292 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hi Don, I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese rules. I am not saying the opposite, and again, I think the ideal rules for computer championships today are Chinese, but without penalizing pass moves. It's been said that if Alien beings ever contacted us, it's likely they would be GO players due to the simplicity of the rules. Let me use your SF argument to explain what I call natural evolution: In The Beginning, Martians, just like Earthlings, use Chinese rules. Those who want to improve, count during the game, not after every move, but many times. They count komi +/- territory +/- the stones. With time, players find counting the stones annoying and pointless since only the difference in captures has to be considered and that does not need to be counted, it can be added to komi. They also naturally recognize which groups are worth defending and which are not. Without noticing, they have become Japanese players. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hello, At one point in this lengthy ongoing discussion, it was noted that it is not polite to keep playing after the result is already determined. The Japanese rules do penalize these moves by one player as long as the other player is knowledgeable enough to see the situation correctly and simply pass, thereby picking up a point. For me the polite way to end a game is to resign as soon as the game is lost. The sooner one player resigns, the better he understands the position (assuming he does not resign on a won position :)). Games are often over much before the pass move... (at least in computer Go). To bring this back to computer Go and what it implies about the level of understanding of the game we can attribute to the programs, I will point to the last round of the recent KGS slow tournament. Look at the game between SlugGo and MoGo. Yes you're right, but MoGo is polite with human (you can play against it on KGS to see) and pass as soon as possible (if you pass), but that means you lost because else it would have resigned before :). Sometimes it is even too soon, as KGS counts territories only if there are totally closed, even if it does not matter where you close the territory. MoGo states status of territories using simulations, and consider that the game is finished if the number of undecided intersections do not change the final result. It is to be as polite as possible for humans. Again sorry for this incredibly long game, I was expecting that programs resign before the end. The politness by passing is enabled only against human. MoGo against computer is polite only by resigning, but hopefully does not resign on won games :). Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hi David, I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you agree on what they are. And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and will effectively get an advantage for it.At higher levels this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just keep passing and rack up points against a player who does not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker players.) In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw he keeps the title.I guess it is done out of respect for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose on the weaker player. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 13:05 -0800, David Doshay wrote: On 1, Jan 2007, at 12:15 PM, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: And now remember how this discussion started: There was a proposal to penalize pass moves made by Lukasz Lew. If that proposal is implemented, Japanese programs will no longer loose one or two points against a better ruleset adapted bot, but they would loose dozens of points. They will frequently loose won games. Maybe some programs can easily switch from Chinese to Japanese, but some others may not. Anyway, outside computer go, people understands go as Japanese. Beginners find it more complicated, but when they understand, they see its just concentrating on the only interesting part. A natural evolution of the game. When they are 10kyu or better they normally agree what is alive and what is not. If they don't, its probably worth playing out. I still think Chinese rules are better today for computer tournaments! But, of course, without penalizing pass moves. I hope that the day when computers evolve to Japanese rules as humans did, is near, but that cannot be forced. It is required that all programs agree when scoring games. At least: *when* nothing more can be won and what is *alive* and what is not at that moment. and On 1, Jan 2007, at 1:08 PM, Don Dailey wrote: By far, Chinese is more intuitive and natural. Japanese rules are based on some very non-intuitive concepts - that it really does come out the same as Chinese scoring (within a point or two) appears to be magic to the uninitiated. The proposal made by Lukaz is the same as AGA rules. The purpose is to assure that when a player thinking Japanese is playing against one thinking Chinese both come to the exact same conclusion. But I think that while this is an advantage, it also completely ruins a primary emphasis of the Japanese rules: efficiency, and efficiency all the way to the end of the game. At one point in this lengthy ongoing discussion, it was noted that it is not polite to keep playing after the result is already determined. The Japanese rules do penalize these moves by one player as long as the other player is knowledgeable enough to see the situation correctly and simply pass, thereby picking up a point. To address Don's point, I respectfully disagree. I reason, with liberal use of analogy, thus: The Chinese rules acknowledge that it takes two eyes to live, and in a way that to me is similar to the thinking of a military occupation, sees no value in any more space than that. If the rest of the group has extra open spaces or if those possible open spaces are filled with stones (or people) is of no consequence. Perhaps this is a consequence of living in a society where it is considered the norm for people to be packed tightly together. The Japanese rules also come down to it takes two eyes ... but give credit for the extra open spaces. To me, this is analogous to living in a city with more parks, or living in a village with more farmland and a less dense population, and I know that I would take the option with less crowding and more food production. It mirrors a quality of life issue very well. To bring this back to computer Go and what it implies about the level of understanding of the game we can attribute to the programs, I will point to the last round of the recent KGS slow tournament. Look at the game between SlugGo and MoGo. While I am not trying to say anything about who won, because the rules were clearly stated to be Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are clear, the dead stones are clear to a
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:32 PM, Sylvain Gelly wrote: Again sorry for this incredibly long game, I was expecting that programs resign before the end. The politness by passing is enabled only against human. I do not think that any apology is needed. The length of the game was due only to a setting you have that is totally appropriate for a Chinese rules tournament game. And SlugGo is set not to resign, just to pass, which I think is also appropriate in a tournament game, especially a close one. I know that I would never resign a game I thought I had lost by less than the komi. I would pass, expect the opponent to pass, and then count it openly. It is also the case that I would respond to repeated play by my opponent exactly as SlugGo did (except that I probably would have made several simpler captures to make the situation obvious to the opponent). My point is only that the consideration of the rules we use says something about what we expect our computers to do, and what we are willing to watch them do as a consequence of our rule set. There are often competing reasons, and often unexpected results. In this case I think the consequences are completely predictable with these rules, and with Tromp-Taylor rules even more so: very long extended endgames that humans 1) would never play, and 2) make derisive comments about, leading them to walk away with a very low opinion of the state of computer Go. There are times and places where Tromp-Taylor rules are clearly best, such as cgos-type servers where a large number of games must be scored automatically and without human intervention. I just think that we will eventually will need to accept that open play in a public forum deserves a different set of considerations. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I agree with your point that Japanese rules give an additional advantage to the stronger player. I just see the advantage as a natural extension of the advantage in the real world of being more efficient in all things, including ending things. I also see that advantage as dropping more rapidly than you do as the level of play of the weaker player reaches some level ... perhaps at 5k or so it is effectively zero. I think that your comment about being forgiving of ignorance is the most important point at this time, and looking forward: how forgiving do we want to be with our programs? While the desire is biased towards getting more people programming Go engines, then forgiving ignorance and tolerating weak play is good because it lowers the barriers of entry for new programs. But at some point in time it is also a good idea to raise the bar up to standards of acceptable human play. I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. Cheers, David On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you agree on what they are. And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and will effectively get an advantage for it.At higher levels this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just keep passing and rack up points against a player who does not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker players.) In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw he keeps the title.I guess it is done out of respect for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose on the weaker player. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Doshay wrote: Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty clear enough. Yes, W (mogo) wins by 2.5 pts But the game continued to move 526! All in invasions that were not reasonable by human standards, but which are not costly under Chinese rules. By Chinese rules MoGo wins by 2.5, by Japanese rules SlugGo wins at move 526 by almost 120. This difference I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts after move 525. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2 professionals argue about the outcome of a game. They are not clearly defined for obscure cases. In addition, they are not simple. Ing rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there is no room for argument about who wins. Japanese rules in my opinion shouldn't ever be used for tournements. On 1/3/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:30 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. But I don't feel any of this is important. Japanese rules isn't raising the bar - it's merely a different set of rules. All that's really important is making your program play as well as possible. Japanese rules doesn't have anything to do with this. My terminology isn't quite right. Forgiving ignorance is one way to look at it, but it conjures up images of rewarding ignorance in humans and creating problems. In my view Chinese is more objective and logical because it's fair about penalizing ignorance. If you play badly, you will be penalized and that's fair. But in Japanese you get penalized needlessly and extra in my view for not being sure about something that I feel doesn't really matter anyway. Of course I don't have any problem with writing programs that can handle Japanese rules - but I thought this was already common? - 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] Re: Interesting problem
On 3, Jan 2007, at 2:53 PM, Christoph Birk wrote: On Wed, 3 Jan 2007, David Doshay wrote: Chinese, note that SlugGo started passing, indicating that it saw no purpose in any more moves, at move 239. Here, the boundaries are clear, the dead stones are clear to a human, and the winner is plenty clear enough. Yes, W (mogo) wins by 2.5 pts But the game continued to move 526! All in invasions that were not reasonable by human standards, but which are not costly under Chinese rules. By Chinese rules MoGo wins by 2.5, by Japanese rules SlugGo wins at move 526 by almost 120. This difference I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts after move 525. Christoph Don't forget to include all those captured stones. The score is only the same under AGA rules, where SlugGo has to pay a stone for each pass. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
David, I thought of another way to put it which I think, in a way, defines the difference in the rule-sets. You are playing a game, and you think the opponent group is dead. But you are not 100 percent sure. What do you do? Chinese puts the emphasis on the actual truth of the situation. Japanese makes you gamble, and penalizes you for being wrong. It makes your opinion about the situation become a factor in the final result instead of the board position and your play leading up to it. I'm not saying that is BAD, but it's what makes the two rule-sets different. It's distasteful in my opinion because I would rather focus on how I got to that position and the quality of my play. But now it's like I also have to take a little test AFTER the game is technically over, a test that could give me a win I don't deserve. I think it's better to focus on the quality of the moves during the game, and not also have to deal with the gamesmanship after the game.I would say that Japanese would appeal to the right brain, Chinese to the left brain. And I'm left brained so maybe that explains it. - Don On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:30 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I agree with your point that Japanese rules give an additional advantage to the stronger player. I just see the advantage as a natural extension of the advantage in the real world of being more efficient in all things, including ending things. I also see that advantage as dropping more rapidly than you do as the level of play of the weaker player reaches some level ... perhaps at 5k or so it is effectively zero. I think that your comment about being forgiving of ignorance is the most important point at this time, and looking forward: how forgiving do we want to be with our programs? While the desire is biased towards getting more people programming Go engines, then forgiving ignorance and tolerating weak play is good because it lowers the barriers of entry for new programs. But at some point in time it is also a good idea to raise the bar up to standards of acceptable human play. I think our only real disagreement is when and where we raise the bar. I think we could do it very soon in public tournaments. Cheers, David On 3, Jan 2007, at 1:55 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I think this all comes down to pretty much one concept - Chinese is more forgiving of ignorance. Everything else is just rules and it doesn't matter what rules you play by as long as you agree on what they are. And that's what I don't like about Japanese rules - I feel it give the stronger player an ADDITIONAL advantage. The stronger player (at any level) will be smarter about when to pass and will effectively get an advantage for it.At higher levels this advantage may approach nil, but it's there. It strikes me as odd that you get penalized for capturing a group. It strikes me as odd that the opponent can just keep passing and rack up points against a player who does not know better. From Chinese eyes, this is ludicrous, and it just seems like the Japanese rules tend to favor a more arrogant approach to the game - less friendly and very harsh on the weaker player (not weak players, weaker players.) In some kind of Chess matches the reigning champion is given an advantage, such as if the match ends in a draw he keeps the title.I guess it is done out of respect for the stronger player and I just feel that Japanese rules respects the stronger player, looks down it's nose on the weaker player. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
The japanese rules have problems and there have been cases where 2 professionals argue about the outcome of a game. They are not clearly defined for obscure cases. In addition, they are not simple. Ing rules and chinese rules are both reasonable sets of rules because there is no room for argument about who wins. Japanese rules in my opinion shouldn't ever be used for tournements. to be pedantic (and i think that we're well past that point anyway), if i were to play a professional, he'd know the outcome of the game at, say, move 20. he'd be pretty sure by move 5, but it'd be certain by move 20. the rest would be yose for him, essentially. and what we're really talking about here is whether or not yose that doesn't change the score of the game is either a) fun to watch or b) fun to play against. computers don't care who they play against, and i haven't seen the kind of criticism that would lead me to believe that the general public is all that hostile toward the way computers play, but in any case, it's simply a matter of perspective between the two players involved and the level of play that they're at. playing a stone at a vital point may kill a 20-point group, but if one of those two players doesn't realize this, they will likely painfully play it out until it is clearly dead. the first time their opponent passes while they play inside their own dead territory, they should realize that to their opponent, the game is over. if they think that they can recusitate the dead, there's no harm in trying -- if their reading is that far different from their opponent, it's likely that the game score won't be close enough for rules differences to matter. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Wed, 2007-01-03 at 14:05 -0800, David Doshay wrote: I do not think that any apology is needed. The length of the game was due only to a setting you have that is totally appropriate for a Chinese rules tournament game. I don't agree with this at all. Is it appropriate under Japanese rules to continue playing, when the game is lost for sure and all territory has been made? This point has been made before, and yet needs repeating whenever this discussion comes up: Nothing forces you to pass in Japanese rules. A losing computer could keep on playing in the hopes of forcing the opponent out of time or to hit a bug. If a computer program knows how to play the endgame so that it doesn't lose points under Chinese rules, then it should know when to pass, and should do so. There's no need for a game to go on for 500 moves just because Chinese rules are being used. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 3, Jan 2007, at 2:53 PM, Christoph Birk wrote: I don't understand. Using Japanese counting W still wins by 2.5 pts after move 525. I was rushed in my previous reply but have more time now. My sgf reader (GoBan on a Mac) says the situation at the end of the game is: Black has 71 points on the board, 60 captured W stones, and 59 surrounded (dead) W stones on the board for a total of 190 points. White has 35 points on the board, 30 captured B stones, 0 surrounded B stones on the board, and 7.5 komi for a total of 72.5 points. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
David Fotland wrote: Most of the world plays be Japanese rules, so any commercial program must implement Japanese rules. I totally agree. A strong chinese player using chinese rules will pick up a point or two during the dame filling stage when playing a strong japanese player. The Chiense player will choose earlier moves that gain a later dame point that the japanese player will think have no benefit over other moves. That's interesting. And it confirms my point: the difference is small, the strategy is the same, but using the ruleset in one's own benefit some extra points can be won. In either direction. Not more than that. And now remember how this discussion started: There was a proposal to penalize pass moves made by Lukasz Lew. If that proposal is implemented, Japanese programs will no longer loose one or two points against a better ruleset adapted bot, but they would loose dozens of points. They will frequently loose won games. Maybe some programs can easily switch from Chinese to Japanese, but some others may not. Anyway, outside computer go, people understands go as Japanese. Beginners find it more complicated, but when they understand, they see its just concentrating on the only interesting part. A natural evolution of the game. When they are 10kyu or better they normally agree what is alive and what is not. If they don't, its probably worth playing out. I still think Chinese rules are better today for computer tournaments! But, of course, without penalizing pass moves. I hope that the day when computers evolve to Japanese rules as humans did, is near, but that cannot be forced. It is required that all programs agree when scoring games. At least: *when* nothing more can be won and what is *alive* and what is not at that moment. When that happens, the credibility of computer-go will increase a lot. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Hi Jacques, I think Chinese should be universally adapted, but before you flame me I'll tell you why. I know of players who thought Go might be an interesting game, but gave up quickly when they realized they could never play by Japanese rules. Even though they eventually could have learned to play by Japanese rules, it's not possible for 2 beginners to correctly play and score a game by these rules. And when someone comes along to do it for them, they are horrified by what seems to their limited perception to be gross unfairness. By far, Chinese is more intuitive and natural. Japanese rules are based on some very non-intuitive concepts - that it really does come out the same as Chinese scoring (within a point or two) appears to be magic to the uninitiated. To strong players who are immersed in the Japanese rules, it may seem to be more intuitive and natural, but so is anything that you want to get used to - it's like indenting style in C, and why there is style jokingly referred to as the one true brace style. If it's not YOUR brace style it somehow seems inferior. I wonder how many GO players have been lost forever because of the Japanese rules? It may not matter to most casual players, you may not care one iota about this, but what's good for the majority is usually good for everyone. The issue of dead stones is a non-issue. I'm not advocating playing games out to the bitter end. CGOS of course does this because it's simple and creates the least amount of problems, which by itself should tell you something. But Chinese rules as played by good players doesn't involve this kind of tedium. I'm not advocating that games be played out to the bitter end and this isn't what the debate is about. Of course it can be argued that Chinese encourages a more extended game, because you get severely punished under Japanese rules for not knowing which groups are dead. But when all things are considered, Chinese rules is better for the game in general. I do feel there is significant snobbery the GO community about this, although I don't claim you are like this. It is as if the Japanese have an elitist attitude where they don't care if the peon's don't understand the rules, it's not for the feeble-minded anyway. I think the fact that Japanese rules is used more than Chinese must be a historical accident.It's been said that if Alien beings ever contacted us, it's likely they would be GO players due to the simplicity of the rules. My guess is that they would play by Chinese rules. Of course I don't expect the world to adapt Chinese rules because Japanese is ingrained. I want to tell you a little about Chess notation in the USA. In the 1970's US players used a different system for recording games called descriptive notation.You would record moves like N-Kb3 meaning Knight to kings bishop 3. In algebraic that is Nf3 or Nf6 if you are black. It reminds me somehow of Japanese rules in GO, I'm not sure why but maybe because it was traditional and entrenched. Or because it was less explicit, N-KB3 could mean different things depending on the context, like in Japanese you can't always tell who is winning by looking at the board. There was much resistance changing over to algebraic, and a lot of old timers complained loudly. I even heard some threaten to give up Chess. There was a huge emotional attachment and to them algebraic was just insane and crazy. Many seemed to believe it would ruin the game.But a lot of players didn't care - they knew it had nothing to do with the game itself. I was one who quickly embraced it - I just felt it was superior but I didn't care that much. My first chess program had an option to use either notational style. - Don On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:15 +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: David Fotland wrote: Most of the world plays be Japanese rules, so any commercial program must implement Japanese rules. I totally agree. A strong chinese player using chinese rules will pick up a point or two during the dame filling stage when playing a strong japanese player. The Chiense player will choose earlier moves that gain a later dame point that the japanese player will think have no benefit over other moves. That's interesting. And it confirms my point: the difference is small, the strategy is the same, but using the ruleset in one's own benefit some extra points can be won. In either direction. Not more than that. And now remember how this discussion started: There was a proposal to penalize pass moves made by Lukasz Lew. If that proposal is implemented, Japanese programs will no longer loose one or two points against a better ruleset adapted bot, but they would loose dozens of points. They will frequently loose won games. Maybe some programs can easily switch from Chinese to Japanese, but some others may not. Anyway, outside computer go, people understands go as Japanese.
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
one early habit that is good for new go players to learn is to always fill dame. sometimes groups get ataried this way that the newer player wouldn't have noticed. it can result in massive point loss if you're not careful about it, and it's a good teaching tool (from the japanese rules point of view) about being careful at the end of the game. under chinese rules, you also do this because it's worth points to you. bent-four, triple ko, seki 'points', etc., are all things that have to be dealt with by any scoring ruleset, but are things that you would be foolish to try to explain to someone during their first game. it would only complicate what is otherwise a very simple set of rules unnecessarily, and when such situations arise, the exceptional cases can be pointed out and explained (or the curious player will read about them elsewhere). i think that the fun of go is in the playing, and not the scoring, and that anyone who has played more than two games can tell (however late in the process) that they're getting destroyed (and thus that scoring is unnecessary) or that it's close (and thus that scoring is necessary). one thing to keep in mind about japanese scoring is that after you've done it ten or so times, there are a number of counting shortcuts that you can force onto the board after the game is finished that can make it incredibly efficient to determine the difference in score. my guess is that many chinese players who haven't seen this would be horrified to see these happen on their board, because they are based upon assumptions implicit in the japanese system of counting. after you've counted a few 19x19 boards the naive way, this is much easier to appreciate. the only place i've seen japanese rules cause confusion with players is in LD situations where one player thinks that a group is dead and the other doesn't. the practical reality is that if one of the two is a much stronger player, then they can patiently explain on the board what the situation is, with playout or otherwise. if, on the other hand, the two are of equivalent and of low strength, playing it out to prove the case one way or the other is more important as a learning tool than the actual and exact score of the game. in point of fact, weak players often beat each other by huge margins where counting may be amusing for the winner, but entirely unnecessary. (here i am assuming that strong players don't generally disagree about status, or if they do, can agree upon an effective measure for determining status and don't mind the need to. [since one player generally thinks that the other is a fool for not seeing what is 'obviously dead', they are often more than happy to attempt to prove it.]). all that being said, simply for end-of-game counting over the board, japanese rules get my vote. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Let's not confuse japanese counting with Japanese rules. It is quite feasible with Chinese rules and the use of pass stones to end up doing territory counting over the board which is equivalent to area scoring, On 1/1/07, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: one early habit that is good for new go players to learn is to always fill dame. sometimes groups get ataried this way that the newer player wouldn't have noticed. it can result in massive point loss if you're not careful about it, and it's a good teaching tool (from the japanese rules point of view) about being careful at the end of the game. under chinese rules, you also do this because it's worth points to you. bent-four, triple ko, seki 'points', etc., are all things that have to be dealt with by any scoring ruleset, but are things that you would be foolish to try to explain to someone during their first game. it would only complicate what is otherwise a very simple set of rules unnecessarily, and when such situations arise, the exceptional cases can be pointed out and explained (or the curious player will read about them elsewhere). i think that the fun of go is in the playing, and not the scoring, and that anyone who has played more than two games can tell (however late in the process) that they're getting destroyed (and thus that scoring is unnecessary) or that it's close (and thus that scoring is necessary). one thing to keep in mind about japanese scoring is that after you've done it ten or so times, there are a number of counting shortcuts that you can force onto the board after the game is finished that can make it incredibly efficient to determine the difference in score. my guess is that many chinese players who haven't seen this would be horrified to see these happen on their board, because they are based upon assumptions implicit in the japanese system of counting. after you've counted a few 19x19 boards the naive way, this is much easier to appreciate. the only place i've seen japanese rules cause confusion with players is in LD situations where one player thinks that a group is dead and the other doesn't. the practical reality is that if one of the two is a much stronger player, then they can patiently explain on the board what the situation is, with playout or otherwise. if, on the other hand, the two are of equivalent and of low strength, playing it out to prove the case one way or the other is more important as a learning tool than the actual and exact score of the game. in point of fact, weak players often beat each other by huge margins where counting may be amusing for the winner, but entirely unnecessary. (here i am assuming that strong players don't generally disagree about status, or if they do, can agree upon an effective measure for determining status and don't mind the need to. [since one player generally thinks that the other is a fool for not seeing what is 'obviously dead', they are often more than happy to attempt to prove it.]). all that being said, simply for end-of-game counting over the board, japanese rules get my vote. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ 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/
