Re: [computer-go] Results of recent Computer Go events
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Does anyone have any information on the results of [the computer Go aspects of] these events? Cotsen go tournament 2008 September 20 21 http://www.cotsengotournament.com/ treats it as being in the future Jiuding Cup September 22-26 http://219.142.86.87/English/index.asp times out World 9x9 Computer Go Championship September 26 27 http://go.nutn.edu.tw/eng/main_eng.htm treats it as in the future Thanks to David Fotland, Hideki Kato, and Okasaki Masahiro For providing information about these events. I have included what they sent me in these pages: http://www.computer-go.info/events/future.html future computer Go events http://www.computer-go.info/events/index.html past computer Go events http://www.computer-go.info/h-c/index.html human-computer Go challenges 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] Analysis of 6x6 Go
I (EGF 4d) am probably not strong enough to give well founded comments on 9x9 games, but already move 2 at D3 seems strange from a shape point of view (whatever that may be worth on 9x9) The continuation B C3 B4 D5 seems the most natural continuation once D3 is played, but on 19x19 this is kind of exchange is usually bad for white (he gets a hane on the head of two stones). Black's last move at D5 would definitely be better than D2 on 19x19 and I would be very surpised if D2 would be better on 9x9. I'm speculating Leela's tendency to respond B C4 at D3 to be the cause of the discrepancy between the 2.0 komi from Leela and the 4.0 komi from Erik. Might W D3 be 2 points worse then the optimal white move (unknown to me)? Is there any support for W D3 being good from professional 9x9 games? I've never seen it in professional play, but I'm not a specialist on 9x9. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey Verzonden: do 25-9-2008 22:14 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so I'm not in any position to really say. The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center point. I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I am playing games with Leela at 5 minutes per side on a loaded core 2 duo computer. From the evidence I have now, which I admit is not enough to base a solid conclusion on, it looks like 2.0 is the correct komi. When I set komi to 1.5, black has won 10 out of 10 games. When I set komi to 2.5, black onl wins 16.667% or 2 out of 12 games. When I did the 7x7 study over a year ago (or maybe 2) I noticed that at reasonably strong levels it tended to be very one sided in one direction or other based on how you set komi. My plan is to run a LOT of games at 2.5 komi and then analyze the results based on the move sequences looking to see if some common early black blunder is preventing wins for black at 2.5 komi. When I do this I will try to reorient the move sequence to some canonical representation so that we are not looking at too many equivalent games with different orientations. Superficially, I noticed this: 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 Which means when black played D5 on move 5 he won, but when he played D2 he lost. 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 Same above - Black played 2 different moves and got two different results. The other games vary before this but could be transpositions of these positions - I don't have the time right now to compute all the transpositions to check this out. I didn't actually look at those moves so I don't know if they are game changing or not. Are there any strong players willing to comment on these 2 diversions? The other possibility is that white is supposed to WIN all those games and is making the occasional error. The results indicate that is a more likely possibility. Here is the complete list of games up to the 9th move. The first column is the number of times this exact result/sequence was played. 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 D2 C2 E4 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 B3 C2 D6 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 E5 B2 D2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 E3 E2 D2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 E2 B5 E4 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 2 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 E2 E4 B5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 D5 B3 B2 2 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 E4 E5 D5 - Don 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 But for now, perhaps you stronger go players can look at the following 6 moves sequences that represent the games. The first column is how many times this exact result/sequence occurred. For instance you see that white won 3 times when the game started C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 Does anyone see any obviously bad moves for black? 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 3 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 What I see that is slightly interesting (just from this data, not looking at the actual position) is that C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org
RE: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go
Sorry, I just realized this is about 6x6 go. Please ignore my previous response. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Verzonden: ma 29-9-2008 20:09 Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go; computer-go Onderwerp: RE: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go I (EGF 4d) am probably not strong enough to give well founded comments on 9x9 games, but already move 2 at D3 seems strange from a shape point of view (whatever that may be worth on 9x9) The continuation B C3 B4 D5 seems the most natural continuation once D3 is played, but on 19x19 this is kind of exchange is usually bad for white (he gets a hane on the head of two stones). Black's last move at D5 would definitely be better than D2 on 19x19 and I would be very surpised if D2 would be better on 9x9. I'm speculating Leela's tendency to respond B C4 at D3 to be the cause of the discrepancy between the 2.0 komi from Leela and the 4.0 komi from Erik. Might W D3 be 2 points worse then the optimal white move (unknown to me)? Is there any support for W D3 being good from professional 9x9 games? I've never seen it in professional play, but I'm not a specialist on 9x9. Dave Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED] namens Don Dailey Verzonden: do 25-9-2008 22:14 Aan: computer-go Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: On Wed, Sep 24, 2008 at 6:30 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't know if even size boards are special, but it seems to me that such small boards should have very high komi's. 4.0 seems pretty low but then I'm really no expert on komi's and I'm a pretty weak player so I'm not in any position to really say. The center is the best opening move for all small odd size boards. Small even size boards have a lower komi because there is no center point. I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I am playing games with Leela at 5 minutes per side on a loaded core 2 duo computer. From the evidence I have now, which I admit is not enough to base a solid conclusion on, it looks like 2.0 is the correct komi. When I set komi to 1.5, black has won 10 out of 10 games. When I set komi to 2.5, black onl wins 16.667% or 2 out of 12 games. When I did the 7x7 study over a year ago (or maybe 2) I noticed that at reasonably strong levels it tended to be very one sided in one direction or other based on how you set komi. My plan is to run a LOT of games at 2.5 komi and then analyze the results based on the move sequences looking to see if some common early black blunder is preventing wins for black at 2.5 komi. When I do this I will try to reorient the move sequence to some canonical representation so that we are not looking at too many equivalent games with different orientations. Superficially, I noticed this: 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 Which means when black played D5 on move 5 he won, but when he played D2 he lost. 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 Same above - Black played 2 different moves and got two different results. The other games vary before this but could be transpositions of these positions - I don't have the time right now to compute all the transpositions to check this out. I didn't actually look at those moves so I don't know if they are game changing or not. Are there any strong players willing to comment on these 2 diversions? The other possibility is that white is supposed to WIN all those games and is making the occasional error. The results indicate that is a more likely possibility. Here is the complete list of games up to the 9th move. The first column is the number of times this exact result/sequence was played. 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 D2 C2 E4 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 B3 C2 D6 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E3 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 E5 B2 D2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 E3 E2 D2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 E2 B5 E4 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 E5 E4 2 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 E2 E4 B5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 D5 B3 B2 2 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 E4 E5 D5 - Don 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 But for now, perhaps you stronger go players can look at the following 6 moves sequences that represent the games. The first column is how many times this exact result/sequence occurred. For instance you see that white won 3 times when the game started C3 D4 D3 C4 B4 B5 Does anyone see any obviously bad moves for black? 1 W D4 C3 C4 D3 B3 B2 1 W D4 C3 D3 C4 C5 B5 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D2 E2 1 B C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 C2 1 W C4 D3 C3 D4 D5 E5 1 W C4 D3 D4 C3 B3 B2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 1 W C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 1 W C3 D4 D3 C4 B3 E3 3 W C3 D4
Re: [computer-go] Using playouts for more than position evaluation?
I agree with much of what you say (to the degree that anyone needs to agree with questions). Good of you not respond as Kosh might have: Yes (warble sound effects;-) The discussions on this list dealing with ownership maps, RAVE and AMAF have to do with using additional information from the playouts. I've found the thread for ownership maps: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-February/008897.html and I guess the explanations and origins of RAVE/AMAF are somewhere in the 100 references each brings up in the archives? Perhaps the archives should be published in printed form, to make catching up easier (I wonder whether David Brin was a member of this list when he wrote his Uplift series)?-) Playouts can't be unbiased. Picking a move with uniform probability is a bias too, and not a good one. I was thinking of unbiased in the sense of not excluding valid moves (no blind spots), but I guess after one accounts for trying to search an effectivly infinite space with finite resources, the difference between not there and not likely isn't all that big. And since one is sure to miss some important moves, one has to try an tune the heuristics so that the available resources are spent in the most likely areas of the search space. It all comes down to experiments, probably, but the experimentation tends to be limited to self-play, play against a couple of freely available opponents, and low-frequency tournaments. Not exactly ideal for exposing unfortunate biases in experimental heuristics, no matter how much math one throws at it. I assume everyone is aware of how computer go is self-similar, the research/development following the same patterns as the go engines? Where there used to be deep study followed by few deliberate moves or engine releases, there is now a need for frequent tournaments as playouts for testing many possible playout heuristics:-) Computer go papers here: http://www.citeulike.org/group/5884/library Thanks! Together with the list archives, I guess I'll not run out of reading material for a while. I've already found some papers relevant to my questions, but having the right search terms and reference lists is just as important. What I haven't yet seen is a FAQ for this list (search terms, topics, terminology, links, and the like). Is there one? Thanks for your comments, keywords, and library url, Claus ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Using playouts for more than position evaluation?
Regarding test protocols: I strongly suspect that we'll need to harvest test cases from computer games, run them past high dan-level players, and find out what it takes to handle such cases well while still beating other programs. One of the problems with playing imperfect programs is that one can learn sub-optimal trick plays which work only because the programs persist in making the wrong reply; better programs would punish such trick plays; that's why we call trick plays overplays. But in the environment of not-very-good programs, overplays look good; they programs are pursuing local optima, not the globally best play. Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] We must stop dressing up the slaughter of foreigners as a great national cause. -- Sheldon Richman ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Results of recent Computer Go events
At 07:27 AM 9/28/2008, you wrote: Does anyone have any information on the results of [the computer Go aspects of] these events? Cotsen go tournament 2008 mr. kim played mogo again. this time he won with 7 stones. don't know where a game record is. thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Correct Komi for 6x6 is 2.0
On Wed, 2008-09-24 at 19:48 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: I'm quite confident that 4.0 is the correct komi for 6x6. I am quite confident that it is 2.0 :-) I admit there is some room for error on my part, but I have just done a fairly significant study of 6x6 Go using Leela. My primary room for doubt is if there is some kind of end of game issue (in programs like Leela) such as seki that causes a gross and systematic error. Here is why I think komi should be 2.0 and if you can prove me wrong, I think we will probably both have learned something interesting - I hope you can. Here is my analysis: I did an analysis of 784 6x6 leela games. These games were played at 2.5 komi and white tends to win most of the games. After converting all the game to a canonical representation, I discovered that Leela always plays the first 4 moves the equivalent of this: C3 D4 C4 D3 - all 784 games started like this or the equivalent After this, BLACK varied significantly: BLACK WINS/GAMES PERCENTAGE - - C3 D4 C4 D3 C20 out of6 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 C51 out of4 =25.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 103 out of 428 =24.065 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 82 out of 339 =24.189 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E30 out of4 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E40 out of2 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E50 out of1 = 0.000 percent For the rest of this discussion, the Wins and Percentage are ALWAYS from BLACK'S point of view. In this sequence, the only statistically interesting moves are D2 and D5 for black, because these 2 choice constitute the vast majority of the games. (It might be slightly more interesting if other moves showed black doing well, but in the minor lines of play black is losing.) The 2 good moves appear to be approximately equal in value ... however, let's check that out. Let's consider D2 first. If black plays D2 white plays either E2 or C5. C5 appears to be a mistake. When white plays C5 black wins 70% of the games. However, Leela only played that move 20 times. 408 times it played E2 doing quite well - holding black to about 22% BLACK WINS/GAMES PERCENTAGE - - C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 89 out of 408 =21.814 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 C5 14 out of 20 =70.000 percent Let us assume that C5 is a blunder and with correct play black aways wins (all of this assume 2.5 komi.) AT this point black plays 3 different moves, all of them losing: C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 C20 out of7 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 E41 out of 42 = 2.381 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 88 out of 359 =24.513 percent Again, the only interesting move here is D5 for black. White responds with E5 or C2. C2 appears to be a blunder and Leela played it 15 times, losing every time as white. However, E5 keeps black down to 21.221 percent: C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 E5 73 out of 344 =21.221 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 E2 D5 C2 15 out of 15 = 100.000 percent At this point we seem to be well into the 6x6 game and none of blacks responses seem to be game winning. Carrying this out 1 pair of moves farther (which I am not including here), I see more of the same - there is nothing that indicates that black has a surprise game winning move that white cannot avoid. Ok. So let's go back to our other early black choice, 5. D5 C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 82 out of 339 =24.189 percent Leela played 2 moves here, again, one of them may be a blunder because it allows black to win 81% of the games: C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 C2 13 out of 16 =81.250 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 69 out of 323 =21.362 percent So let's see if E5 is interesting. If it is, we might be able to furnish empirical proof that black can win a 2.5 komi: C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 69 out of 284 =24.296 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 F50 out of1 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 C50 out of4 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 E30 out of 34 = 0.000 percent Apparently, only 1 black choice here is reasonable, D2. After Black plays D2, Leela probably loses after white plays C5, so E2 is the move of choice for white here: C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 62 out of 276 =22.464 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 C57 out of8 =87.500 percent The 3 lines Leela plays as black are: C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E3 30 out of 128 =23.438 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E4 32 out of 143 =22.378 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E10 out of5 = 0.000 percent So now we have 2 lines to chase down, E3 and E4. To make a long story shorter, skipping ahead to all the variations and ignoring E1 which loses in all 5 lines we get: C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5 D2 E2 E3 E4 E1 30 out of 128 =23.438 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 E5
Re: [computer-go] Correct Komi for 6x6 is 2.0
Don Dailey wrote: After converting all the game to a canonical representation, I discovered that Leela always plays the first 4 moves the equivalent of this: C3 D4 C4 D3 - all 784 games started like this or the equivalent After this, BLACK varied significantly: BLACK WINS/GAMES PERCENTAGE - - C3 D4 C4 D3 C20 out of6 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 C51 out of4 =25.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 103 out of 428 =24.065 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 82 out of 339 =24.189 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E30 out of4 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E40 out of2 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E50 out of1 = 0.000 percent In this sequence, the only statistically interesting moves are D2 and D5 for black, because these 2 choice constitute the vast majority of the games. (It might be slightly more interesting if other moves showed black doing well, but in the minor lines of play black is losing.) The 2 good moves appear to be approximately equal in value ... however, let's check that out. They ought to be equal in value, because they're equivalent moves under reflection. -M- ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Correct Komi for 6x6 is 2.0
You are right, I didn't notice that. I am doing the 8 transformations of move SEQUENCES, which is not quite the same as transforming and adjusting the positions themselves which would be a more powerful way to do this. Doing sequences was easier with a quick and dirty script. Of course this should not change the conclusion. - Don On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 21:46 +0100, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: Don Dailey wrote: After converting all the game to a canonical representation, I discovered that Leela always plays the first 4 moves the equivalent of this: C3 D4 C4 D3 - all 784 games started like this or the equivalent After this, BLACK varied significantly: BLACK WINS/GAMES PERCENTAGE - - C3 D4 C4 D3 C20 out of6 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 C51 out of4 =25.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D2 103 out of 428 =24.065 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 D5 82 out of 339 =24.189 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E30 out of4 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E40 out of2 = 0.000 percent C3 D4 C4 D3 E50 out of1 = 0.000 percent In this sequence, the only statistically interesting moves are D2 and D5 for black, because these 2 choice constitute the vast majority of the games. (It might be slightly more interesting if other moves showed black doing well, but in the minor lines of play black is losing.) The 2 good moves appear to be approximately equal in value ... however, let's check that out. They ought to be equal in value, because they're equivalent moves under reflection. -M- ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Correct Komi for 6x6 is 2.0
On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are right, I didn't notice that. I am doing the 8 transformations of move SEQUENCES, which is not quite the same as transforming and adjusting the positions themselves which would be a more powerful way to do this. Doing sequences was easier with a quick and dirty script. Of course this should not change the conclusion. In practice, it shouldn't, but doing it on move sequences is safer. Doing it from positions could in theory result in problems with the application of the super-ko rule. It would certainly get you in trouble if you were analyzing 2x2 go. Álvaro. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Correct Komi for 6x6 is 2.0
On Mon, 2008-09-29 at 17:14 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote: On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 5:11 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You are right, I didn't notice that. I am doing the 8 transformations of move SEQUENCES, which is not quite the same as transforming and adjusting the positions themselves which would be a more powerful way to do this. Doing sequences was easier with a quick and dirty script. Of course this should not change the conclusion. In practice, it shouldn't, but doing it on move sequences is safer. Doing it from positions could in theory result in problems with the application of the super-ko rule. It would certainly get you in trouble if you were analyzing 2x2 go. An interesting hybrid approach that is also safe in the sense you are talking about is to match positions but only if the canonical boards up to this point matched. In other words the canonical position must match and also the canonical history. This is almost, but not quite the best of both worlds (it doesn't pick up transpositions.) The hybrid approach would have at least picked up the position that Matthew noticed. - Don Álvaro. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Super-duper computer
That chessbrain is a commercial attempt of a few guys looking for money, not an attempt to really search parallel in a decent manner. This is why they kept their logfiles of course all 'secret'. I'm not the only one who offered my help to them, without payment, but that wasn't accepted at all. In itself weird, they have little experience in parallellizing game tree search at many processors. The software they use is getting used in an embarrassingly parallel manner. So their speedup is real ugly bad of course. A 8 core will easily totally outcalculate chessbrain with respect to search depth. Seems to me the project died, bad shame in itself. It is very complicated to get something to work that can play realtime. Long term analysis projects are more viable and real interesting for several reasons. Yet what you see that most of those projects do is keep the parallel search frame source code secret. Just publish an article claiming victory, without really data to statistically significant back that up. That means in short, that no one can learn from them, nor objectively draw conclusoins. A team that isn't doing supreme effort in getting a good speedup will of course not succeed. Vincent On Sep 28, 2008, at 2:15 PM, Claus Reinke wrote: If you're looking for spare processors, how about a [EMAIL PROTECTED] program for Go?-) It appears that the Chess community has had such a project already: ChessBrain: a Linux-Based Distributed Computing Experiment http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6929 ChessBrain II - A Hierarchical Infrastructure for Distributed Inhomogeneous Speed-Critical Computation IEEE CIG06, Reno NV, May 2006 (6 pages) (IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence and Games) http://chessbrain.net/docs/chessbrainII.pdf old project site: http://chessbrain.net/ From the chessbrainII paper, it seems they considered Go, but before the recent developments that made parallel processing promising. The papers might also be interesting for their discussion of parallel tree search and communication issues. Claus Local versions of the top programs could offer to connect to their main incarnation's games, explaining internal state (it is sure it will win, it thinks that group is dead, ..) in exchange for borrowing processing resources. Or, instead of doing this on a per-program basis, there could be a standard protocol for donating processing power from machines whose users view a game online. That way, the more kibitzes a game attracts, the better the computer player plays; and if the game cannot hold an audience, the computer player might start to seem distracted, losing all those borrowed processors;-) Mogo might even find some related research at INRIA ([EMAIL PROTECTED] style (desktop) grid computing, ..), so perhaps there's scope for collaboration there? Claus Q: why do you search for extra-terrestrial intelligence? A: we've exhausted the local search space. ___ 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] Results of recent Computer Go events
David Fotland wrote: Mogo and Many Faces played round 3 early, on KGS. One game was scored by both programs as a win for Many Faces, but the board has a seki, so the correct score is Mogo wins. I think the monthly KGS tournaments would give this win to Many Faces since both programs agreed on the final score, but I don't know yet what will be the ruling here. Apparently it was ruled a loss for Many Faces of Go. I am appealing it - there is no reason why the refree has to intervene when the players agree on the score. The result of the game could be very important for the tournament result. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] the Cotsen Go Tournament results
http://usgo.org/tournaments/costen.html Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] We must stop dressing up the slaughter of foreigners as a great national cause. -- Sheldon Richman ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
