I've been wrapping my head about dynamic komi adjustments for MCTS,
namely on the thesis by the Pachi creator, Petr Baudic.
On value-based situational compensation the author uses the average on
win rates from the previous simulations to decide whether or not to
change the komi. But I don't
The best contenders may be best for entirely different reasons. How do you
compare a line that tries to bring down a huge group with a line that
cautiously tries to optimize safe points. It's really hard to do. And
whereever the dynamic komi lands, pedestrian variations may look great or
totally
On 04/09/2015 16:29, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
The best contenders may be best for entirely different reasons. How do
you compare a line that tries to bring down a huge group with a line
that cautiously tries to optimize safe points. It's really hard to do.
That's for the search policy to
go.org] On
> Behalf Of Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira
> Sent: Friday, September 04, 2015 7:13 AM
> To: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Subject: [Computer-go] Dynamic komi - VBSC
>
> I've been wrapping my head about dynamic komi adjustments for MCTS,
> namely on the thesis by the
I'd like to introduce a paper presented a few days ago in CIG2015,
Taiwan.
The main idea is to enlarge the KL-divergence between optimal move and
others by biasing the threshold of win/loss in MCTS algorithms. Not
exactly the same as dynamic komi but similar and I believe it has some
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 05:29:36PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Does anyone have data based on several thousands games that attempts to
measure the effect of dynamic komi?I would like to see results that are
statistically meaningful. We need to see a few thousand games played
against a
I'm not being critical of anything that has already been presented, I just
have not seen it myself and I've been pretty busy working on chess so my
focus is not currently on this.
But I look forward to reading the paper if it's public. (I'm not going to
buy the paper.)
Don
2010/2/18 Petr
Hello,
I informed the German go scene that there is (some) progress
at KGS bots with dynamic komi. Based on this, a friend told me
that they would have an open afternoon for go beginners in the
middle of March - and they expect many newbies with strengths
between 17k and 30k. His question is if a
Fuego_9x9_1h (or a variation of this name) played on OGS a couple of handicap
9x9 games. It used dynamic komi. I think it was manually adjusted after every
move, and worked well.
-ibd
Am 17.02.2010 um 22:51 schrieb Ingo Althöfer:
Hello,
I informed the German go scene that there is (some)
Does anyone have data based on several thousands games that attempts to
measure the effect of dynamic komi?I would like to see results that are
statistically meaningful. We need to see a few thousand games played
against a fixed opponent WITH dynamic komi, and then the same program
without
After many (hand-operated) games with dynamic komi
in high handicap situations I have - amongst other
things - found the following for board size 19x19,
when the side who has to catch up uses dynamic komi:
(i) At handicap 7 the dynamic komi seems to give at
least one additional level (one stone)
Good work Ingo.
But why should it be near 50%? If it is, the komi is too large.(if giving
handicap)
You just have to reserve some thinking time for reruns, in case the komi
estimate from the last move doesn't fit anymore.
Stefan
(ii) Also on 13x13 board dynamic komi seems to help, although
My suggestion is to modify a program such as fuego to follow one of the
algorithms as suggested - then test it with a large sample of games. If
How? At CGOS?
Because i noticed that twogtp.pl says eg constantly that stop-0.4 wins
of 0.5 while at cgos I see the opposite.
Folkert van
steve uurtamo wrote:
zen wins many more of its even games with no handicap than it does
with even, say, an even 2 stone handicap as either black or white. i
haven't compiled numbers for it (i'm not zen's maintainer), but i
watched it happen over the course of about 50 games one day. it was
I'm glad to see some are actually experimenting with this.
My suggestion is to modify a program such as fuego to follow one of the
algorithms as suggested - then test it with a large sample of games. If
it doesn't work we can experiment until it does or until we are satisfied
that it won't.
Yamato: 4a8d2cc8.29578c0a.3f87.6...@mx.google.com:
steve uurtamo wrote:
zen wins many more of its even games with no handicap than it does
with even, say, an even 2 stone handicap as either black or white. i
haven't compiled numbers for it (i'm not zen's maintainer), but i
watched it happen over
One last rumination on dynamic komi:
The main objection against introducing dynamic komi is that it ignores the true
goal
of winning by half a point. The power of the win/loss step function as scoring
function underscores
the validity of this critique. And yet, the current behaviour of mc bots,
One must decide if the goal is to improve the program or to improve it's
playing behavior when it's in a dead won or dead lost positions.
It's my belief that you can probably cannot improve the playing strength
soley with komi manipulation, but at a slight decrease in playing strength
you can
Don, what you write is certainly true for even games, but I think the
problem is a real one in high handicap games with the computer as
white. I use a hack to make Valkyria continue playing the opening in
handicap games as white. It is forbidden to resign in the opening and
early middle
Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2009 6:03:50 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
One must decide if the goal is to improve the program or to improve it's
playing behavior when it's in a dead won or dead lost positions.
It's my belief that you can probably cannot improve
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Magnus Persson magnus.pers...@phmp.sewrote:
Don, what you write is certainly true for even games, but I think the
problem is a real one in high handicap games with the computer as white. I
use a hack to make Valkyria continue playing the opening in handicap
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 07:27:00AM -0700, terry mcintyre wrote:
Consider the game when computer is black, with 7 stones against a very
strong human opponent.
Computer thinks every move is a winning move; it plays randomly; a
half-point win is as good as a 70-point win.
Didn't
zen wins many more of its even games with no handicap than it does
with even, say, an even 2 stone handicap as either black or white. i
haven't compiled numbers for it (i'm not zen's maintainer), but i
watched it happen over the course of about 50 games one day. it was
pretty consistently worse
, 2009 6:03:50 AM
*Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
One must decide if the goal is to improve the program or to improve it's
playing behavior when it's in a dead won or dead lost positions.
It's my belief that you can probably cannot improve the playing strength
soley
Don wrote:
But how do you create the required tension in a way that
produces a program that plays the game better?
At least in high handicap go on 19x19 (with the dynamic bot being
the stronger player) it seems to work when the bot is kept
in some 35-45 % corridor, as long as it is clearly
I'm curious to find out what is meant by lazy. If, as I am led to
believe by your report, Monte Carlo strategies applied to Double Step
Races are lazy, yet they converge to perfect play, then I'm not sure
why we are meant to worry. I certainly understand that the strategies
can converge faster
Maybe I should ask first, for clarity sake, is MCTS performance in
handicap games currently a problem?
Mark
Yes, it's a big problem. And thats not a matter of opinion.
MC bots, leading a game by a large margin, will give away their advantage
lighly except for the last half point.
Even on a
I don't think the komi should be adjusted.
Instead:
Wouldn't random passing by black during the playouts model black making
mistakes much more accurately? The number of random passes should be
adjusted such that the playouts are close to 50/50. Adjusting the komi
would make black play greedily,
:* Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:33:13 PM
*Subject:* [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
The small samples is probably the least of the problems with this. Do you
actually believe that you can play games against it and not be subjective
in
your observations or how you play against
This idea makes much more sense to me than adjusting komi does.At least
it's an attempt at opponent modeling, which is the actual problem that
should be addressed. Whether it will actually work is something that
could be tested.
Another similar idea is not to pass but to play some
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Christoph Birk b...@ociw.edu wrote:
On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I believe the only thing wrong with the current MCTS strategy is that you
cannot get a statistical meaningful number of samples when almost all games
are won or lost.You
One reason dynamic komi seems a bit odd is that the numbers are pulled out of
thin air. Why should the komi be X instead of Y? When should the value be
changed?
Going back to the original thought experiment: the komi at the start of the
game should reflect the expert assessment of how far
With crazystone-like playouts, you can just put noise over the
possibilites. the more noise, the more random the playout is, which is
weaker. The best move in the tree is then the one that requires the
least amount of noise for the other player to reach 50% win chance if
behind, or the one
)
if no long term goal is available.( Or if every move satisfies the long term
goal in case of taking handicap)
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: Don Dailey
To: tapani.ra...@tkk.fi ; computer-go
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:02 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi
There is one crude way to measure goal compatibility. See if you can make
the same move work with different komi.If I'm on the east coast of the
US traveling to the west coast, I will probably start off on the same road
regardless of whether I'm going to Seattle or San Diego.If the same
.( Or if every move satisfies the long
term goal in case of taking handicap)
Stefan
- Original Message -
*From:* Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
*To:* tapani.ra...@tkk.fi ; computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
*Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2009 4:02 PM
*Subject:* Re: [computer-go
13, 2009 9:27:11 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
2009/8/13 Stefan Kaitschick stefan.kaitsch...@hamburg.de
Modeling the opponents mistakes is indeed an
alternative to introducing komi.
But it would have to be a lot more exact than
simply rolling the dice
office.” --
Aesop
--
*From:* Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
*To:* computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
*Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:27:11 AM
*Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
2009/8/13 Stefan Kaitschick stefan.kaitsch
the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:20:58 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
In the last few weeks I have experimented a lot with dynamic
komi in games with high handicap. Especially, I used the
really nice commercial program Many Faces of Go (version 12.013)
with its Monte Carlo level (about 2 kyu on 19x19 board) and
its traditional 18-kyu level as the opponent.
At
2009/8/12 Ingo Althöfer 3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de
In the last few weeks I have experimented a lot with dynamic
komi in games with high handicap. Especially, I used the
really nice commercial program Many Faces of Go (version 12.013)
with its Monte Carlo level (about 2 kyu on 19x19 board) and
its
The small samples is probably the least of the problems with this. Do you
actually believe that you can play games against it and not be subjective
in
your observations or how you play against it?
These are computer-vs-computer games. Ingo is manually transferring moves
between two computer
From: Brian Sheppard sheppar...@aol.com
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:33:13 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
The small samples is probably the least of the problems with this. Do you
actually believe that you can play games
Ok, I misunderstood his testing procedure. What he is doing is far more
scientific than what I thought he was doing.
There has got to be something better than this. What we need is a way to
make the playouts more meaningful but not by artificially reducing our
actual objective which is to
.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:05:36 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
Ok, I misunderstood his testing procedure. What he is doing
Message-
From: terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, Aug 12, 2009 3:42 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
Ingo suggested something interesting - instead of changing the komi according
to the move number, or some
:* Brian Sheppard sheppar...@aol.com
*To:* computer-go@computer-go.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2009 12:33:13 PM
*Subject:* [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
The small samples is probably the least of the problems with this. Do you
actually believe that you can play games against
computer-go@computer-go.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2009 1:05:36 PM
*Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
Ok, I misunderstood his testing procedure. What he is doing is far more
scientific than what I thought he was doing.
There has got to be something better than
Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:11 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
The problem with MCTS programs is that they like to consolidate. You set
the komi and thereby give them a goal and they very quickly make moves which
commit
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
The problem with MCTS programs is that they like to consolidate. You set the
komi and thereby give them a goal and they very quickly make moves which commit
to that specific goal. Commiting to less than you need to actually win
I started to write something on this subject a while ago but it got
caught up in other things I had to do.
When humans play a (high) handicap game, they don't estimate a high
winning percentage for the weaker player. They'll consider it to be
more or less 50-50. So to adjust the komi at the
Most experiments are done on even games; this dynamic algorithm applies
particularly to handicap games.In that context, it is not an ungainly kludge,
but actually reflects the assessment of evenly matched pro players - they look
at the board, and see a victory of n times 10 handicap stones ( or
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
I started to write something on this subject a while ago but it got
caught up in other things I had to do.
When humans play a (high) handicap game, they don't estimate a high
winning percentage for the weaker player.
2009/8/12 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com
Most experiments are done on even games; this dynamic algorithm applies
particularly to handicap games.In that context, it is not an ungainly
kludge, but actually reflects the assessment of evenly matched pro players -
they look at the board,
2009/8/12 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
I disagree about this being what humans do. They do not set a fake komi
and then try to win only by that much.
I didn't say that humans do that. I said they consider their chance
50-50. For an MC program to consider its chances to be 50-50 you'd
terrymcint...@yahoo.com
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:51:09 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go
Don Dailey wrote:
The problem with MCTS programs is that they like to consolidate. You
set the komi and thereby give them a goal and they very quickly make
moves which commit to that specific goal.
How did you form this opinion? Can you show an example game record
(on 19x19) showing this
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote:
2009/8/12 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
I disagree about this being what humans do. They do not set a fake komi
and then try to win only by that much.
I didn't say that humans do that. I said they consider
to maximize the winrate.
This makes dynamic komi a kind of blind spot.
2. Handicap go wasnt given special attention sofar.
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:24 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, Matthew Woodcraft
matt...@woodcraft.me.ukwrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
The problem with MCTS programs is that they like to consolidate. You
set the komi and thereby give them a goal and they very quickly make
moves which commit to that specific goal.
How did
. Handicap go wasnt given special attention sofar.
Stefan
- Original Message -
*From:* Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com
*To:* computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
*Sent:* Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:24 PM
*Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
Terry,
I
rates of all possible moves.( with higher
deviation dynamic komi is less called for)
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi
As for how to beat weaker players ... the strong players whom I have observed
make strong, stable positions; they wait for the weaker player to make
mistakes. The stronger player will leave things unresolved for longer, knowing
that there will be time to extend in one direction or another later
ambitious, without attempting the impossible with ko threat
type moves.
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 12:10 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Don Dailey wrote:
Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
The problem with MCTS programs is that they like to consolidate. You
set the komi and thereby give them a goal and they very quickly make
moves which commit to that specific goal.
How did you form this opinion? Can you
2009/8/12 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
If the program makes decisions about the best way to win N points, there
is no guarantee that this is ALSO the best way to win N+1 points.
Although this is obviously true, that doesn't automatically mean it's
not the best approach. Because there's a
No thought experiments are going to convince me on this subject.
Someone will have to do an actual test. Ingo's work is the best
to date on the subject.
Anyone who is overly committed to thought experiments should
consider that we are talking about applying MCTS to Go, that most
deterministic of
On Aug 12, 2009, at 2:51 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I disagree. I think strong players have a sense of what kind of
mistakes to expect, and try to provoke those mistakes. Dynamic
komi does not model that.
It also does the opposite of making the program play provocatively,
which I believe
On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
If the handicap is fair, their chance is about 50/50. However,
rigging komi to give the same chance is NOT what humans do. The
only thing you said that I consider correct is that humans estimate
their chances to be about 50/50.
One thing
Maybe they are long way from giving handicaps to you. But best of bots
in KGS are around 2k and there are hundreds of 9k and weaker players
present there at all times. So being able to play white is worthy
thing at least for commercial bot.
Petri
2009/8/13 Christoph Birk b...@ociw.edu:
On Aug
On Aug 12, 2009, at 3:43 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I believe the only thing wrong with the current MCTS strategy is
that you cannot get a statistical meaningful number of samples when
almost all games are won or lost.You can get more meanful
NUMBER of samples by adjusting komi, but
On Aug 12, 2009, at 10:31 PM, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
Maybe they are long way from giving handicaps to you. But best of bots
in KGS are around 2k and there are hundreds of 9k and weaker players
present there at all times. So being able to play white is worthy
thing at least for commercial bot.
One of the difficult questions is if (or better how)
dynamic komi can be used to improve the strength of
MCTS go programs in handicap games (both cases being
interesting: computer on strong side - and -
computer on weak side).
Especially, there are several normal go players
(non-programmers) who
I think we should open up to other ideas, not just dynamic komi
modification. In fact that has not proved to be a very fruitful technique
and I don't understand the fascination with it.
First we identify what it is we are trying to accomplish. You mentioned
improving the strength of MCTS go
The go-playing literature offers a bit of advice: when ahead, make moves which
simplify the game and preserve your advantage. When behind, take some risks to
grab more than you are entitled to - but not too many. Computer programs seem
bizarre in this regard, they tend to play quite
75 matches
Mail list logo
