Re: [Computer-go] Facebook Go AI

[Petr Baudis]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 01:39:00PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 10:00:27PM -0800, David Fotland wrote:
> > 1 kyu on KGS with no search is pretty impressive.
> 
> But it doesn't correlate very well with the reported results against
> Pachi, it seems to me.
> 
> ("Pachi 10k" should correspond to ~5s thinking time on 8-thread FX8350.)
> 
> > Perhaps Darkforest2 is too slow.
> 
> Darkfores2 should be just different parameters when training the
> network, according to the paper if I understood it right.

  Never mind, darkfores2 is now on KGS and got a 3d rank, which totally
fits the reported results. Wow.

  Very impressive - computers can now play "just by intuition" better
than most people who spend many years studying and playing the game.
(Noone can call this "brute force".)

-- 
Petr Baudis
If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] 7x7 Go is weakly solved

[Aja Huang]

Hi Erik,

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Erik van der Werf <
erikvanderw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Aja,
>
> This result seems consistent with earlier claimed human solutions for 7x7
> dating back to 1989. So what exactly is new? Did he write a program that
> actually calculates the value?
>

Did you mean 7x7 Go was weakly solved before?

Aja


> Best,
> Erik
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Aja Huang  wrote:
>
>> It's the work by Chinese pro Li Zhe 7p.
>> http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_53a2e03d0102vyt5.html
>>
>> His conclusions on 7x7 Go board:
>> 1. Optimal komi is 9.0.
>> 2. Optimal solution is not unique. But the first 3 moves are unique, and
>> the first 7 moves generate 5 major optimal solutions.
>> 3. There are many variations not affecting final score.
>>
>> Aja
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] 7x7 Go is weakly solved

[Petr Baudis]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 11:52:47AM +, Aja Huang wrote:
> Hi Erik,
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Erik van der Werf <
> erikvanderw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Aja,
> >
> > This result seems consistent with earlier claimed human solutions for 7x7
> > dating back to 1989. So what exactly is new? Did he write a program that
> > actually calculates the value?
> >
> 
> Did you mean 7x7 Go was weakly solved before?

I think the question is whether it was exhaustively searched (can be
mathematically proven / reproduced) or just (thoroughly) investigated
by a human.

Petr Baudis
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] 7x7 Go is weakly solved

[Erik van der Werf]

Hi Aja,

This result seems consistent with earlier claimed human solutions for 7x7
dating back to 1989. So what exactly is new? Did he write a program that
actually calculates the value?

Best,
Erik


On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Aja Huang  wrote:

> It's the work by Chinese pro Li Zhe 7p.
> http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_53a2e03d0102vyt5.html
>
> His conclusions on 7x7 Go board:
> 1. Optimal komi is 9.0.
> 2. Optimal solution is not unique. But the first 3 moves are unique, and
> the first 7 moves generate 5 major optimal solutions.
> 3. There are many variations not affecting final score.
>
> Aja
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] 7x7 Go is weakly solved

[Erik van der Werf]

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Aja Huang  wrote:

> Hi Erik,
>
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Erik van der Werf <
> erikvanderw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Aja,
>>
>> This result seems consistent with earlier claimed human solutions for 7x7
>> dating back to 1989. So what exactly is new? Did he write a program that
>> actually calculates the value?
>>
>
> Did you mean 7x7 Go was weakly solved before?
>

It depends on what you mean by 'weakly solved'. If we take the definition
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game:

*'Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for
either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of
the game.'*

then no, I did not mean that, and that's why I asked you if he actually
wrote a program that does this for 7x7.

Strong humans players including some pro's claimed to have solved 7x7
already back in 1989 (see my phd thesis for a reference), but AFAIK they
did not implement an algorithm, so just like most of the other small board
results by humans these were never really proofs in a strict sense.

Best,
Erik
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] 7x7 Go is weakly solved

[Marc Landgraf]

Google translate on the article tells, that there is no algorithm, but that
they combined human and computer power on a larger scale to explore all
variations. It can't be proven that the result is correct, but the
likelihood is ~100%.

2015-11-30 13:20 GMT+01:00 Erik van der Werf :

> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Aja Huang  wrote:
>
>> Hi Erik,
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 10:37 AM, Erik van der Werf <
>> erikvanderw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Aja,
>>>
>>> This result seems consistent with earlier claimed human solutions for
>>> 7x7 dating back to 1989. So what exactly is new? Did he write a program
>>> that actually calculates the value?
>>>
>>
>> Did you mean 7x7 Go was weakly solved before?
>>
>
> It depends on what you mean by 'weakly solved'. If we take the definition
> from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solved_game:
>
> *'Provide an algorithm that secures a win for one player, or a draw for
> either, against any possible moves by the opponent, from the beginning of
> the game.'*
>
> then no, I did not mean that, and that's why I asked you if he actually
> wrote a program that does this for 7x7.
>
> Strong humans players including some pro's claimed to have solved 7x7
> already back in 1989 (see my phd thesis for a reference), but AFAIK they
> did not implement an algorithm, so just like most of the other small board
> results by humans these were never really proofs in a strict sense.
>
> Best,
> Erik
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go