On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 12:06, Alain Baeckeroot
wrote:
> Maybe have a look at signal processing, using higher-orders statistics ?
> mean
> std-deviation = order 2 (or 1 ?)
> ...
>
> win by 10 with std = 100 seems much less secure than win by 5 with std=1
> but maybe this is included in modern
Le 26/11/2009 à 10:08, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
>
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 00:43, Darren Cook wrote:
> > When I read this it reminded me of experiments I tried before to pass
> > more than one piece of information up from the leaf nodes of a (min-max)
> > tree. E.g. a territory estimate and an
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 00:43, Darren Cook wrote:
> When I read this it reminded me of experiments I tried before to pass
> more than one piece of information up from the leaf nodes of a (min-max)
> tree. E.g. a territory estimate and an influence estimate. I gave up as
> it got too complex to han
>> This is taken onto account in the tree.
>> If playing one move lead 10% of time to +10, and 90% to -20,
>> the resulting value is -17
>> (of course with the bot evaluation/playout)
>
> Reducing the value to -17 is losing a lot of information. Another move
> might have 20% chances of +10 and 80%
on the
receiving end of this...hmm.
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: Nick Wedd
To: computer-go
Sent: Tue, Nov 24, 2009 6:42 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Hahn system tournament and MC bots. and KGS
tournament ?
In message <200911242252.09463.alain.baecker...@la
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 15:49, Alain Baeckeroot
wrote:
>> If using a more generic approach,
>> the strategy can be parametrized and optimized (both offline and
>> online), hopefully resulting in a better gameplay.
> I don't understand how anything could be better than the expectation,
> exept if
Le 25/11/2009 à 15:11, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
> What I am considering is a way to analyze a list of moves, each having
> in turn a value that is a list of expected outcomes and their
> respective estimated probabilities, and to sort the moves by the
> expected outcome in the context of a given r
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 14:18, Nick Wedd wrote:
>>> If playing one move lead 10% of time to +10, and 90% to -20,
>>> the resulting value is -17
>>> (of course with the bot evaluation/playout)
>>
>> Reducing the value to -17 is losing a lot of information. Another move
>> might have 20% chances of
In message
<95be1d3b0911250448r79a5b7ddu61a42c0b42410...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu writes
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:51, Alain Baeckeroot
wrote:
Le 25/11/2009 à 12:39, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
Making the largest move available is just one possible strategy to
attain the goal of endin
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:51, Alain Baeckeroot
wrote:
> Le 25/11/2009 à 12:39, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
>> Making the largest move available is just one possible strategy to
>> attain the goal of ending the game with the most points scored. A more
>> general strategy is to weigh the moves' size
Le 25/11/2009 à 12:39, Vlad Dumitrescu a écrit :
>
> On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04, Nick Wedd wrote:
> > A program to play Hahn Go has no
> > reason to calculate probabilities, it should just make the biggest move it
> > can.
>
> Ah, okay, now I understand your point of view. Thanks for explaini
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:04, Nick Wedd wrote:
> A program to play Hahn Go has no
> reason to calculate probabilities, it should just make the biggest move it
> can.
Ah, okay, now I understand your point of view. Thanks for explaining.
Making the largest move available is just one possible stra
In message
<95be1d3b0911242338u1b6bedcasf91d53bd80f69...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 23:58, Nick Wedd wrote:
Vlad Dumitrescu writes
Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about st
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 23:58, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Vlad Dumitrescu writes
>> Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
>> normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
>> players.
>
> Are you talking about omniscient players? If not, I have already an
2009/11/24 terry mcintyre :
>>Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
>>normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
>>players.
>
>>In my view, we have
>> hahn: object of the game = max board score
>> normal: object of the game = board scor
In message <200911242252.09463.alain.baecker...@laposte.net>, Alain
Baeckeroot writes
In another thread Nick Wedd wrote:
The December KGS bot tournament will be 9x9. I guess that if a
cluster-Zen competes in that (I am hoping it will), it will be
unbeatable.
The existing pattern of KGS bot
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:11:55AM +0100, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
>
> A professional gambler has a 2 step task.
> 1. Find a weaker player (aka "fish")
[...]
> So the whole idea of "optimizing" the score it totally besides the point.
I was using the professional gambler as a rational player in an
No professional gambler, if he had the numbers laid out for him, would
ever choose unoptimal play, not when he's playing for the long
term. The computer, in the same way, would have to be modeled to
maximize expected value. Nothing else makes sense.
In a single game with high stakes, yes mindset
In message
<95be1d3b0911241346o3d26135eif8f184eb3f516...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 22:15, Nick Wedd wrote:
But the "additive" property of Hahn scoring makes life easy for players. If
the board has become separated into regions that do not interact, player
From: Vlad Dumitrescu
>I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't get it. There must be some subtle
>detail that escapes me...
>Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
>normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
>pl
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> If i understand what D.Hillis said, it can put in light some hidden
> aspects of the bots, and should be more spectacular than the
> wise-sure-win style of MC *Go* bots.
> And i guess it does not require lot of change in the code, "only"
> points instead of win/loss in th
Le 24/11/2009 à 00:24, dhillism...@netscape.net a écrit :
>
> For my fast/dumb neural net engine, Antbot9x9, I coevolved the weights using
> a similar tournament system. Each individual played a number of games against
> all the others, round robin, and the score was the sum of points for all of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 22:15, Nick Wedd wrote:
> But the "additive" property of Hahn scoring makes life easy for players. If
> the board has become separated into regions that do not interact, players
> can just work out what they think is the biggest local move on each part of
> the board, and t
In message <20091124193826.303...@gmx.net>, Ingo Althöfer
<3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> writes
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
I think this game [go with Hahn scoring; IA] is clearly more
difficult than a binary win/loss game.
That is one of the possible question, and I also vote for "yes",
as normal go is si
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> I think this game [go with Hahn scoring; IA] is clearly more
> difficult than a binary win/loss game.
That is one of the possible question, and I also vote for "yes",
as normal go is simply a Hahn-Go veriant with "coarsened" evaluation.
Even more interesting might be this
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me "If I seal off my territory at
> A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I
> will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points".
>
> If I am playing Go,
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> Sure. But different gamblers have different "break-even" limits, i.e.
> different mindsets. Some are cautious and prefer 80% for those 25
> points; some are reckless and would go for B even with 60%.
No professional gambler, if
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me "If I seal off my territory at
> A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I
> will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points".
>
> If I am playing Go, I
In message
<95be1d3b0911240657g24467ecey84cdb05918ca7...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
to los
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:57:37PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the strategy should be to
> push each game to the limit. Trying to win with a large margin is less
> safe than with a small one, so it depends on the gambler's mindset.
That's why I sai
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>> So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
>> to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
>> there's no reason to try to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
> to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
> there's no reason to try to win big, unless the goal is to reach a
> certain amount of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 14:20, Tapani Raiko wrote:
> Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>> Just a thought: if the bet is "I can beat you with X points on the
>> board or more", then it's exactly like trying to win a normal game
>> with X points komi, right?
>>
>> Are there any other kind of bets?
>>
> Yes, ha
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko wrote:
>
>> One can also play a single game for instance with money bets based on
>> the Hahn points, which makes Hahn go strategy relevant also for a single
>> game.
>>
>
> Just a thought: if the bet is "I can beat you w
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko wrote:
> One can also play a single game for instance with money bets based on
> the Hahn points, which makes Hahn go strategy relevant also for a single
> game.
Just a thought: if the bet is "I can beat you with X points on the
board or more", then it'
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko wrote:
> Hi,
>> Hahn go strategy is only relevant for a tournament (otherwise one can
>> simply play normal go, it doesn't matter by how many points one wins).
>> And thus it includes a meta-strategy involving the results in the
>> other games and knowle
Hi,
> Hahn go strategy is only relevant for a tournament (otherwise one can
> simply play normal go, it doesn't matter by how many points one wins).
> And thus it includes a meta-strategy involving the results in the
> other games and knowledge of one's opponents.
>
One can also play a single ga
Hi all,
If I may get out of lurking mode and try to understand the problem here...
IMHO there is another issue here that creates a difference and makes
the strategies for "normal go" and "hahn go" incomparable. I has been
touched upon by previous posters, but not spelled out.
Normal go strategy
Don Dailey wrote:
What is happening here is that we keep shifting back and forth between
contexts.
Exactly, this I have tried to exhibit.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/lis
In message <4b0ad6f5.1010...@snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek
writes
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game
tree. They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago
but I do not recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing
to do with psychology o
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:12:39PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> If you lose a won game that is not maximizing the points on the board, so
> what you are saying is nonsense. We are supposed to be taking about
> GoGod strategy.
I got somehow lost in the thread - why is it even interesting to dis
on, Nov 23, 2009 4:10 am
Subject: [computer-go] Re: Hahn system tournament and MC bots
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted
see ... http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem
Thanks for the interesting stuff and the links.
>From the link HahnSy
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > If all moves lose, how would YOU select?
>
> E.g., I choose some that creates the most ready traps.
>
>
> Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies?One is
>> to
>> maximize the points on the boa
see http://senseis.xmp.net/?BangNeki
Terry McIntyre
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to
rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey
___
computer-go mailing list
compute
Don Dailey wrote:
> If all moves lose, how would YOU select?
E.g., I choose some that creates the most ready traps.
Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies?One is to
maximize the points on the board and the other is to not make any
distinction whatsoever between moves
In message <5212e61a0911231302j6d838d2dnae1cbc875af0...@mail.gmail.com>,
Don Dailey writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
In message <
5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>, Don
Dailey writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek
Don Dailey wrote:
So why then did you start talking about knowing the opponetns strategy in
hindsight?
Because the Devil does know it. Not by psychology but by defined
abstraction of the human player.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
c
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
> In message <5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Don Dailey writes
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek
>> wrote:
>> Don Dailey wrote:
>>
>>In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly
In message
<5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>, Don
Dailey writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek
wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good
enough."
If God is set to play any randomly chose
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game tree.
> They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago but I do not
> recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing to do with
> psychology or
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good enough."
>>
>
> If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes.
>
>
> Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or c
>
>
>
> > What I cannot decide is if it is really more
>
>> challenging - I just know it's more challenging to do it perfectly.
>>
>
> More challenging for whom? For God, it is equally boring.
More challenging in the sense that more work must be done.
- Don
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game
tree. They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago but
I do not recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing to do
with psychology or probabilistic playing.
--
robert jasiek
___
I avoided using the title "God" because I wanted to avoid issues such as god
looking into your brain and playing in such as way as to befuddle the
opponent or specially playing against your weaknesses or changing the laws
of physics in order to win a game.
So to keep it simple I am imagining an in
ward Abbey
From: Don Dailey
To: computer-go
Sent: Mon, November 23, 2009 8:21:15 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: Hahn system tournament and MC bots
I have repeatedly stated that the Hahn system is a simplification, but this is
just a guess on my part and I might have it
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good enough."
If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes.
Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or chances
in any context.
For a simple definition of God applied to a sin
I have repeatedly stated that the Hahn system is a simplification, but this
is just a guess on my part and I might have it backwards.I'm not sure
whether that invalidates the idea that computers will play this better or
not.
Here is a thought experiment.Imagine an omniscient player or pr
steve uurtamo wrote:
the idea that i like about keeping track of number of points won or
lost by is that not only could you find the winner, but you could find
how absolutely dominant, on average, they were against their
opponents.
Under normal Go: no! E.g., some players have the style to let e
In message
<402a9a520911230730u7cac1eeci8215a50f74133...@mail.gmail.com>, steve
uurtamo writes
:)
my point was that simply totaling total "won by" points after each
game is over, or totalling total "won by" points divided by ten after
each game should produce the same rank order of results, th
:)
my point was that simply totaling total "won by" points after each
game is over, or totalling total "won by" points divided by ten after
each game should produce the same rank order of results, therefore not
punishing anyone.
my comment that one handicap difference in strength, in an even game
steve uurtamo wrote:
> dividing by 10 for everyone wouldn't change the overall result
First you describe something like handicap steps, then you describe
something different (a mere division by 10). Therefore
> so it wouldn't punish anyone, right?
...this question cannot be answered.
--
robe
i'm just thinking that approximating the 10 stones on the board == 1
stone of handicap phenomenon might be a nice way to keep track of
score in a tournament. i realize that it's not terribly accurate, but
it would give a number that's easier to parse. dividing by 10 for
everyone wouldn't change t
steve uurtamo wrote:
maybe divided by ten?
To punish programs or me for the ability of killing 70 stones dragons?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
maybe divided by ten?
s.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Ingo Althöfer wrote:
>>
>> I would have found a "completely continuous result system"
>> more natural, for instance
>> giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
>> giving -40.5 points for each loss with 40.
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
I would have found a "completely continuous result system"
more natural, for instance
giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
giving -40.5 points for each loss with 40.5 or more
The most natural score-dependent Go variant(!) would be the game result
x for the sc
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted
> see ... http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem
Thanks for the interesting stuff and the links.
>From the link HahnSystem:
> Winning By 0.5-10 gets 60 points
> Winning by 10.5-20 gets 70 points
> Winn
66 matches
Mail list logo
