Le mercredi 28 février 2007 16:49, Oliver Lewis a écrit :
On 2/23/07, David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 22, Feb 2007, at 9:03 PM, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
... I made very slow progress to formalize this ...
But the whole stuff is rather coherent in my mind.
Then I envy you.
I do agree with Alain that beginners mix too little and random
players too much.
I am most intrigued with the recent results from Dave Hillis,
where he shows what I have been calling a move towards a
transition temperature with a selected set of heuristics in
the playout. When he is willing to
One more thought:
It would be interesting to see the degree to which following a
proximity heuristic leads to the renormalizations looking cold.
Cheers,
David
On 28, Feb 2007, at 11:07 AM, David Doshay wrote:
I do agree with Alain that beginners mix too little and random
players too much.
Chaos theory has been said to suffer from eerily reminiscent syndrome:
you do some tests, generate some graphical results, the significance of it is
uncertain, but the images are so eerily reminiscent of something or other
So, in that fine tradition:, I'm temporarily posting some
On 2/23/07, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but not all such boards are equivalent anyway!
Add a stone to the board. Add another stone to one of its liberties. Add
a third stone to any (empty) liberty of the last stone. There are three
possibilities. Choose the one that maximises
On Tue, 2007-02-27 at 11:11 +0900, igo wrote:
If computers ever become world champion strength at 19x19, there will
probably have been some simplification that makes this possbile, I
don't
see it being a (direct) result of faster computers or more processors.
So in this situation it
Hello Jacque:
Thanks for the comments.
my point is that 19x19 is the optimal size for human abilities.
I don't think so.
19x19 is merely the size of Go originally.
for human abilities in Go, 19x19, 21x21...99x99 are about the same.
... The entire fuseki theory is board size dependent.
no englich me french
igo [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit : Hello Jacque:
Thanks for the comments.
my point is that 19x19 is the optimal size for human abilities.
I don't think so.
19x19 is merely the size of Go originally.
for human abilities in Go, 19x19, 21x21...99x99 are about the same.
On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 02:50 +0900, igo wrote:
My point is simple.
for example, [MoGo] can beat a 3d person at 9x9 now.
but the same person(3d) will beat [MoGo] at 13x13 easily at this
time.
Will you agree ?
when [MoGo] can beat the same person at 13x13,
then the same person will beat
Hello igo:
igo wrote (on behalf of Making the board bigger would probably make the
game
weaker for humans. I presume the day a computer is world champion,
increasing
board size would give the computer even more advantage.):
I presume exact the opposite way.
Of course, who knows. This is
One question for both of you:
Are these the result of one random playout or are they from one
MC player playing against another (each using many playouts to
determine its move)?
Also one MC playout, for the same reason as Chris :-).
Sylvain
___
The difference is small, and only the renormalizations that would show
any real differences.
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_0.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_1.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_2.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_3.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_4.pbm
so do you see something?
Magnus Persson wrote:
... it is impossible to make eyes when attacks on the eyes
has so many directions to escape. Every reasonable well
played game will end in seki.
I totally agree. In 2D a free stone has 4 liberties. In 3D, 6. In nD, 2n.
The higher n, the less interesting. You could give
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:19:52PM -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
Here is a thought experiment to test: define the board only logically
using a graph (nodes and neighbor nodes). No topological shape and no
mesh layout over any shape is needed. If all nodes have exactly four
neighbors, there is
Ray Tayek wrote:
it's also hard to see why 21x21 would be boring (i
can see 17x17 being too simple in some sense).
There is also the length of a game. 21x21 is 22% bigger
in terms of cells. Professional players can work two
days on a 19x19 game. Making the board bigger would
probably make
The number of liberties is not the same measure as dimensionality.
You need to look at a area/boundary ratio.
At some point I adapted libEGO to hexagonal topology, and the game -
Hex Go ( Ho? :-) )
was actually very interesting. Major features are:
- almost no capture tactics
- no ko
- a lot of
Making the board bigger would probably make the game weaker for humans.
I presume the day a computer is world champion,
increasing board size would give the computer even more advantage.
(Againstthe common search-width based intuition.)
I presume exact the opposite way.
The day a
On 23, Feb 2007, at 1:44 AM, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
The difference is small, and only the renormalizations that would show
any real differences.
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_0.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_1.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_2.pbm
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_3.pbm
I've started playing with this too. It may be a missing piece to a puzzle
that interests me. I doubt anyone with a background in fractals could look at a
go board and not see something there.
I'm comparing light MC playouts (pure random, non-eyefilling) and
heavy (it tries to find a
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:03 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
Your analogy with physics encourage me to share other physical analogies.
1/ Cooling the simulation could be done by controlling
@computer-go.org
Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
This looks like the only plausible precondition: given a board of n points, n-1
are filled with the same color, and the opposing player plays the nth point,
capturing the lot. Hopefully, any player of modest
Interesting.
I'm currently trying to find some correlation between playing strength
and average chain size. I'm using random player as a baseline and
then doing very weak MC as the stronger player. To get anything more
than two chains at the end of almost every game, you have to go up to
about
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:55:15PM -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
Whether it is a torus or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters
from a go game play perspective is the graph topology. If all points
have 4 neighbors the actual physical shape or layout doesn't matter.
There can still be
Hello,
Yes, clearly MoGo is doing good stuff inside their playouts. I, too,
would like to see if the result of a large-board MoGo playout looks
any different from mine.
Seems interesting! I'll do that (don't when though), hoping that
MoGo's architecture would allow such big boards (not so
Quoting Tapani Raiko [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
In 3D Go, you need a surface of stones to surround space but just a
string of stones peeking in to ruin it. In normal 2D Go, you surround
area by strings and ruin area by strings, so there is a nice balance. My
guess is that Go in any other dimensionality
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Feb 21, 2007 at 07:55:15PM -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
Whether it is a torus or not is irrelevant. The only thing that matters
from a go game play perspective is the graph topology. If all points
have 4 neighbors the actual physical shape or layout doesn't matter.
I'm not sure I agree with this. I hypothesize that 2d, 3d, 4d, torus,
or any other shape is completely irrelevant with regard to game play.
The only thing that matters is the graph topology.
it is true that the only thing that matters is graph topology. it is
also true that graph topology
If I take a plane, I can draw a 9x9 board on it or a 19x19 board on
it. I can also draw the previously mentioned circular / cylindrical
board on it. Could you explain how you propose to extract the topology
of these, given only the fact that I have drawn them on a plane?
excellent point. :)
Yes, clearly MoGo is doing good stuff inside their playouts. I, too,
would like to see if the result of a large-board MoGo playout looks
any different from mine.
Hello,
I did the experiments, but it seems that the results are not different
from those with an uniform random player. Certainly
The difference is small, and only the renormalizations that would show
any real differences.
Or you could create a chart that tracks board size and average chain
size and see if there is any association between the two. Do you
agree that that is also a sensible test, David?
I will think about that, but I know that the renormalization trick is
very sensitive. I find it hard to believe that any other test could be
any more sensitive. And I know the basis for the renormalization.
One question for both of you:
Are these the result of one random playout or are they
Are these the result of one random playout or are they from one
MC player playing against another (each using many playouts to
determine its move)?
One MC playout. At 100 playouts per move, generating a 1000x1000
graphic would take something like 95 years to compute, assuming you
did not
alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le jeudi 22 février 2007 14:11, Matt Gokey a écrit :
The only thing that matters is the graph topology. A corollary is
that on any board that is completely balanced at the beginning with
identical number of neighbors for all nodes, any 1st play is
equivalent and
I don't understand. I think everyone is thinking too visually. What
does straight mean in the context of go? Only liberties are
meaningful. It is isotropic if you stop visualizing the shape and only
consider the graph.
I think straight would mean that when moving from one node to an
adjacent
Le vendredi 23 février 2007 01:19, Matt Gokey a écrit :
Here is a thought experiment to test: define the board only logically
using a graph (nodes and neighbor nodes). No topological shape and no
mesh layout over any shape is needed. If all nodes have exactly four
neighbors, there is no
Tapani Raiko wrote:
Matt Gokey wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with this. I hypothesize that 2d, 3d, 4d, torus,
or any other shape is completely irrelevant with regard to game play.
The only thing that matters is the graph topology. A corollary is that
on any board that is completely balanced at
Nick Apperson wrote:
I considered making a version of go that plays with tetrahedral
geometry. It is a 3D arrangment where all nodes have 4 neighbors and
the angles between each are 109 degrees. Its connection properties
though are very different because of the way it it layed out.
Hence, I
Matt Gokey wrote:
alain Baeckeroot wrote:
Le jeudi 22 février 2007 14:11, Matt Gokey a écrit :
The only thing that matters is the graph topology. A corollary is
that on any board that is completely balanced at the beginning with
identical number of neighbors for all nodes, any 1st play is
Le jeudi 22 février 2007 01:16, David Doshay a écrit :
It is pretty clear to me that, if the analogy to MC simulations in
magnets
is of any value, the temperature of the Go game you show is hotter than
optimal.
If the temperature were at the transition temperature, then each of the
At 09:03 PM 2/22/2007, you wrote:
4/ shape/size resonance
(un)fortunately the 19x19 size is just the critical size to have problems.
-17x17 is too small, corners influence is too strong, it is quickly
possible to take the border. (= 3 bubbles)
-21x21 is too wide, it is not possible to
Le mercredi 21 février 2007 02:10, Antonin Lucas a écrit :
No need for those difficulties, you can play along this board :
http://www.youdzone.com/go.html
I think this is not a torus, even if each vertice has 4 neighbours.
I can easily mentally transform this into a cylinder, with an
David Doshay wrote (on behalf of the 3x3 block of pixels
applied repeatedly):
But if done all the way to just one pixel it will show the winner.
Shouldn't that require some kind of error propagation? In dithering
techniques, you count the error produced, because it is not the same
to count
Sorry, my mind jumped to the physics, and I should have said
in the limit of an infinite board.
Cheers,
David
On 21, Feb 2007, at 2:43 AM, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
David Doshay wrote (on behalf of the 3x3 block of pixels applied
repeatedly):
But if done all the way to just one pixel it
Hi Chris,
Again, thanks for the work. But again, I need to ask for a small
change to see what I am looking for.
Can you please replace each 3x3 block of pixels with a single
pixel? My mind can't do the transformation visually. I really do
want each lattice to be smaller than the previous, but
That board needs to have the inside edge be connected to its outside
edge, in order to represent a torus.
Weston
On 2/20/07, Antonin Lucas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No need for those difficulties, you can play along this board :
http://www.youdzone.com/go.html
On 2/21/07, Weston Markham
(oops. Other people have already pointed this out, in an
appropriately re-named thread.)
On 2/21/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That board needs to have the inside edge be connected to its outside
edge, in order to represent a torus.
Weston
Can you please replace each 3x3 block of pixels with a single
pixel? My mind can't do the transformation visually. I really do
want each lattice to be smaller than the previous, but at the
same pixel scale.
What I am looking for is how much the renormalized lattice looks
like a piece of the
On 21, Feb 2007, at 4:41 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Can you please replace each 3x3 block of pixels with a single
pixel? My mind can't do the transformation visually. I really do
want each lattice to be smaller than the previous, but at the
same pixel scale.
What I am looking for is how much the
It is pretty clear to me that, if the analogy to MC simulations in
magnets
is of any value, the temperature of the Go game you show is hotter than
optimal.
If the temperature were at the transition temperature, then each of the
renormalized lattices would look just like a piece that size cut
Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
On 2/21/07, alain Baeckeroot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le mercredi 21 février 2007 02:10, Antonin Lucas a écrit:
No need for those difficulties, you can play along this board :
http://www.youdzone.com/go.html
I think this is not a torus, even if each vertice has 4
I have seen such a board for sale online. I would have to search to
find it again.
Cheers,
David
On 21, Feb 2007, at 9:29 PM, Nick Apperson wrote:
I considered making a version of go that plays with tetrahedral
geometry. It is a 3D arrangment where all nodes have 4 neighbors
and the
- Original
Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
2007-02-20 09:55 Re: [computer-go] Big board
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:24:45PM -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board
paper out of it.
You see similar images from percolation studies and iterated prisoner's
dilemma.
Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:20 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board
On Monday 19 February
Chris Fant wrote:
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board.
For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
I think you mean aesthetics. Ascetics are guys who torture themselves,
and deny themselves pleasure, in a struggle to
On Tue, 2007-02-20 at 08:20 -0700, Markus Enzenberger wrote:
On Monday 19 February 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board.
For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
Not only shiko, but many joseki depend on properties of the edges and corners.
On a torus, there are no edges or corners.
Terry McIntyre
From: David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Playing on a torus changes ladders too!
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 9:29 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
I wonder how
I like the idea of taking away the edges. In fact, the engine that
generated this board are capable of doing that. But not as a torus.
I simply wrap left-right and wrap up-down. This is cleaner, IMO. Go
is so pure. I don't like the non-pureness of the edges.
On 2/20/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL
Actually, I think what I did is equivalent to a torus. I just never
thought of it that way.
On 2/20/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I like the idea of taking away the edges. In fact, the engine that
generated this board are capable of doing that. But not as a torus.
I simply wrap
here's my first guess at don's question about how this
would affect the game. my intuition is weak here, but
i'll take a stab at it just for fun.
no edges, no corners and no center mean that
you're effectively playing in the middle at all times.
this should mean that life would be harder to make
On 20, Feb 2007, at 2:27 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Actually, I think what I did is equivalent to a torus. I just never
thought of it that way.
Yes, it is.
Your picture looks very much like the MC simulations of phase
transitions
in magnetic systems I did while in graduate school. Since that
Somewhere online, I played a game on a torus, against someone's Java
applet that has this option. I seem to recall playing a normal game
at either 9x9 or 13x13, and then a game on the same-sized torus. I
recall the first game as being somewhat challenging to me, (a
beginner) and the second game
How would it look like without filling eyes?
(Something like goboard-kaya-wood-yellow...)
Without filling eyes, it looked a little speckled which gave it an
imprecise feel.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board.
For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
I think you mean aesthetics. Ascetics are guys who torture themselves,
and deny themselves pleasure, in a struggle to attain
No need for those difficulties, you can play along this board :
http://www.youdzone.com/go.html
On 2/21/07, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Somewhere online, I played a game on a torus, against someone's Java
applet that has this option. I seem to recall playing a normal game
at
I'd be curious on the size of the captures during the game. Imagine
capturing a 1 stone dragon!
- Original Message -
From: Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 10:32 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board
The way we did this in the MC simulations of magnets was to
renormalize
the lattice using block spins. A block spin is the net result of
adding up
all of the elements in (for instance) a 3x3 block. It works for this
lattice too,
just using B and W, and the result just being B or W. Just call
Is there any chance you would take the whole lattice and renormalize it
repeatedly this way?
I have used a 5-block shape like a cross.
http://fantius.com/0.bmp (the initial image)
http://fantius.com/1.bmp
http://fantius.com/2.bmp
http://fantius.com/3.bmp
http://fantius.com/4.bmp
Thanks for doing this so quickly!
But it was not what I was trying to ask for. The renormalization I was
suggesting would make each successive lattice smaller by a factor of
3 in each direction at each step.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 8:29 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
Is there any chance
On 2/20/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any chance you would take the whole lattice and renormalize it
repeatedly this way?
I have used a 5-block shape like a cross.
http://fantius.com/0.bmp (the initial image)
http://fantius.com/1.bmp
http://fantius.com/2.bmp
That is correct. Down to small is enough.
But if done all the way to just one pixel it will show the winner.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Feb 2007, at 8:53 PM, Chris Fant wrote:
That is what I initially thought, but when I reread renormalize it
repeatedly, I figured you must not mean that because
But it was not what I was trying to ask for. The renormalization I was
suggesting would make each successive lattice smaller by a factor of
3 in each direction at each step.
http://fantius.com/0.bmp
http://fantius.com/1.bmp
http://fantius.com/2.bmp
http://fantius.com/3.bmp
If you looked for these images within that last 15 minutes, you would
not have found them. They are there now.
I started with 726x726 since that is a power of 3.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On 2/21/07, Chris Fant [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you looked for these images within that last 15 minutes, you would
not have found them. They are there now.
I started with 726x726 since that is a power of 3.
I meant 729x729
___
computer-go
Here is a completed game of Go between two random players... on a very
large board.
For ascetics, the eyes have been filled after both players passed.
http://fantius.com/RandomGo1600x1200.png
Sorry, no SGF available :)
___
computer-go mailing list
74 matches
Mail list logo
