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
t
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) i
> 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 Heusd
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
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.
A
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
oise to one's estimates. One hopes that they balance
> evenly, but perhaps they do not.
>
> Terry McIntyre
>
> “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
> Aesop
>
> --
> *From:* Don Dailey
> *To:* com
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
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'
On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 9:39 AM, Magnus Persson wrote:
> 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
nesday, 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 i
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 gam
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 pro
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,
erry McIntyre
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 10:20:58 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
2009/8/13 terry mcintyr
Terry McIntyre
>
> “We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
> Aesop
>
> --
> *From:* Don Dailey
> *To:* computer-go
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:27:11 AM
>
> *Subject:* Re: [computer-go]
t;
moves, and provide an equitable balance against good play.
Terry McIntyre
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 9:27:11 AM
Subject: Re: [com
that doesnt contradict the long term goal(no
> komi search) while trying for a short term goal(komi search)
> if no long term goal is available.( Or if every move satisfies the long
> term goal in case of taking handicap)
>
>
> Stefan
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message
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
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
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
t
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 on
o public office.” --
Aesop
From: terry mcintyre
To: computer-go
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2009 7:08:45 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
One reason dynamic komi seems a bit odd is that the numbers are pulled out of
thin air. Why shoul
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 ahead
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 percenta
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 1:39 AM, Christoph Birk 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 can ge
opponents is fairly narrow. None approach
>> high-dan levels on 19x19 boards - yet.
>>
>> Terry McIntyre
>>
>> We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. --
>> Aesop
>> --
>> *From:* Brian Sheppard
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, w
> I used "dynamic komi" in the following "Rule 42" way. Starting point for
> this internal artificial komi was a very high value (to compensate for
> the handicap stones), typically 300.5 or 320.5 .
> Then, always when the evaluation had climbed up to 42 % or higher,
> dynamic komi was reduced by
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 9
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.
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 unfortu
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 :
>
> On Aug 12, 2009, a
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
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 i
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 a
2009/8/12 Don Dailey :
>
> 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 hidden assumption
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 opin
percent might make the program locally
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
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
etween the win rates of all possible moves.( with higher
deviation dynamic komi is less called for)
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: "Mark Boon"
To: "computer-go"
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 11:36 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
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
me than dynamic komi. Surely, it
is also harder to implement well.
Stefan
- Original Message -
From: Don 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
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:03 PM, 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 op
c office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
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
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:58 PM, Mark Boon wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Don Dailey :
> >
> > 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 progra
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 beh
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:51:09 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
2009/8/12 terry mcintyre
Most
2009/8/12 Don Dailey :
>
> 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
have to up the komi.
2009/8/12 terry mcintyre
> 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
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Mark Boon 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. They'll consider it
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
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 beginn
first loses the war.
Terry McIntyre
“We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Wednesday, August 12, 2009 2:11:58 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps
The pr
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 to
--
> *From:* Don Dailey
> *To:* computer-go
> *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
eat ones to public office.” --
> Aesop
> --
> *From:* Brian Sheppard
> *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 proba
ginal Message-
From: terry mcintyre
To: computer-go
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 other fixed schedule, it varies according t
ice.” --
Aesop
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
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 doin
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 win.
rom: Brian Sheppard
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 it and not be sub
>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 o
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) an
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 handic
63 matches
Mail list logo
