Re: [Computer-go] CGOS boardspace

On 11/19/2015 05:46 AM, Joshua Shriver wrote: I did a restart of the 9x9 and 19x19 as a test. Anyone mind testing it to see if you can connect? I connected two bots to cgos.boardspace.net:6867 but no games are starting and the page http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html does not

Re: [Computer-go] Komi 6.5/7.5

On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:44 AM, Nick Wedd wrote: > However, there's a powerful counterargument to the above I can put the first > black stone on the board as well as any professional can. And now, assuming I > am playing an equally weak human, it's White who suffers most from

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS

On Jun 10, 2015, at 9:53 AM, Detlef Schmicker d...@physik.de wrote: After my ISP crashed, I do not get up 9x9 at the moment. Immediatly myCtest tries to connect from within the middle of a game i think and DODs the server…. They try to re-connet once a minute … I stopped them now. Christoph

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS

On 05/26/2015 02:41 AM, Detlef Schmicker wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- it should be up nearly 24/7 I hope and use less than 5W electrical power, until the sd card is full :) Thank you, Christoph ___ Computer-go mailing list

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS

On May 23, 2015, at 12:40 AM, Detlef Schmicker d...@physik.de wrote: 24/7 is only useful, if other than open source bots are run on the server, otherwise the author can run it simply on gomill... While I agree that it is not ideal having so few programs running, shutting down the server is

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS

On May 22, 2015, at 10:46 AM, Detlef Schmicker d...@physik.de wrote: I wonder, if it would help to put it up once a week or so, with announcement, and take it down again, if the number of bots falls below 5 or so? I am not actively developing a bot, but IMHO without being up 24/7 CGOS is not

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS

On May 1, 2015, at 10:21 PM, Detlef Schmicker d...@physik.de wrote: I set up a CGOS server at home. It is connected via dyndns, which is not optimal of cause :( Great, I will try to run ‘myctest’ on Monday, Christoph ___ Computer-go mailing list

Re: [Computer-go] What's a good playout speed?

On Apr 7, 2015, at 4:34 AM, Urban Hafner cont...@urbanhafner.com wrote: I suspected you'd say something like this. ;) It is definitely on my list of things to steal a few things from Michi. But maybe I'll start with simpler and/or well defined things like RAVE or the hand picked MoGo 3x3

Re: [Computer-go] What's a good playout speed?

On Apr 7, 2015, at 7:16 AM, Urban Hafner cont...@urbanhafner.com wrote: I wouldn't know, Christoph. My (and Igor's) bot is called Iomrascálaí. :P It's running as the various Imrscl-XYZ bots on CGOS due to the username length restriction and the fact that the current CGOS can't handle Unicode

Re: [Computer-go] Weak bots to run on CGOS

On Mar 20, 2015, at 5:11 AM, Urban Hafner cont...@urbanhafner.com wrote: So, I now have a new version of my bot running on CGOS (http://cgos.boardspace.net/13x13/cross/Imrscl-016-AMAF.html). It's still considerably weaker than GnuGo so I'm pretty sure it will loose all games against it.

Re: [Computer-go] Weak bots to run on CGOS

On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Urban Hafner cont...@urbanhafner.com wrote: I'm currently running Brown (random bot) and GnuGo on CGOS 13x13. Mainly to get a feel for the strength of my own bot. And my bot is really bad. ;) So bad that it looses all games against GnuGo, but wins all games

Re: [Computer-go] Weak bots to run on CGOS

On Mar 9, 2015, at 7:50 AM, Christoph Birk b...@obs.carnegiescience.edu wrote: On Mar 9, 2015, at 2:08 AM, Urban Hafner cont...@urbanhafner.com wrote: I'm currently running Brown (random bot) and GnuGo on CGOS 13x13. Mainly to get a feel for the strength of my own bot. And my bot is really

Re: [Computer-go] Weak bots to run on CGOS

I would like to ask the owner of 'resign13' to stop it, please. Since the rating algorithm appears to be capped at '0' Elo, 'resign13' is skewing the ratings at the lower end. Thanks, Christoph ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org

Re: [Computer-go] cgos.computergo.org down?

On Mar 2, 2015, at 6:55 AM, Joshua Shriver jshri...@gmail.com wrote: It was migrated back to the original boardspace. Please try there. cgos.boardspace.net The 9x9 and 19x19 servers never got running. The 13x13 server ran for a while, but crashed about a month ago and has not been restarted.

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS back online

On Jan 16, 2015, at 1:51 AM, valky...@phmp.se wrote: I forgot to turn of automatic Power off in Windows so after an hour my computer hibernated. I had started Valkyria again this morning (now using 6 threads) and then CGOS seemed to recover. Maybe CGOS froze because of this? No, CGOS

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS back online

On 01/16/2015 12:03 PM, David Doshay wrote: cgos.boardspace.net http://cgos.boardspace.net says: At the current time there is one player called FatMan with a fixed ELO of 1800 on the 9x9 server and Gnugo-3.7.10 at level 10 serves as the anchor player on the 13x13 and 19x19 server, also with a

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS back online

On Jan 15, 2015, at 9:35 AM, Joshua Shriver jshri...@gmail.com wrote: Aye I'm still tinkering with it, and trying to get anchors on. Still having issues. :( The 13x13 server is up and running, Christoph ___ Computer-go mailing list

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS back online

On Jan 15, 2015, at 1:03 AM, Urban Hafner cont...@urbanhafner.com wrote: On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Christoph Birk b...@obs.carnegiescience.edu wrote: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html was updated last about 2 years ago. I noticed that, too. Also, it seems like

Re: [Computer-go] CGOS back online

On Jan 14, 2015, at 7:30 AM, folkert folk...@vanheusden.com wrote: I've connected a couple of programs but nothing happens. They login and that's about it. Same here. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html was updated last about 2 years ago. Christoph

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:52 AM, Woody Folsom woody.fol...@gmail.com wrote: I would be interested in participating, particularly as a containerized environment puts me on a more even footing with projects which have a lot more hardware to throw at the problem. That’s an interesting setting for

Re: [Computer-go] Teaching Deep Convolutional Neural Networks to Play Go

On 12/15/2014 01:39 PM, Dave Dyer wrote: You don't need a neural net to predict pro moves at this level. My measurement metric was slightly different, I counted how far down the list of moves the pro move appeared, so matching the pro move scored as 100% and being tenth on a list of 100 moves

Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps

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

Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps

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

Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps

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

Re: [computer-go] Dynamic komi at high handicaps

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.

Re: [computer-go] Finding specific CGOS game

On Aug 2, 2009, at 8:05 AM, Don Dailey wrote: Here are last few games of Pebbles where pebbles lost on time as black - which is what would happen in a crash. Pebbles is losing a lot of games on time. And all of them as black. 794069|gnugo-3.7.12-l10F|1759|Pebbles|2155|2009-06-23

Re: [computer-go] Re: Mirror Go against Zen

On Thu, 23 Jul 2009, Zach Wegner wrote: White can simply pass if black plays in the center. Black passing in response would be an instant loss (provided komi is 0 of course). Quite the opposite. If white passes after black's first move since all empty points just touch black, so black get the

Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.

On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Brian Sheppard wrote: Please don't do anything that decreases the frequency of games in order to accommodate programs that want to play on multiple venues. Keep venues strictly separate. Programs that want to play on multiple venues can just log in multiple times. I second

Re: [computer-go] Rating Drift

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, sheppar...@aol.com wrote: Pebbles learns from every game it plays. So I can't agree; drift is inherent. But since you had bugs in the earlier version, how do you know, without restarting it after bug-fixes how much of the drift is from the learning part and how much from

Re: [computer-go] Rating Drift

On Tue, 21 Apr 2009, Jason House wrote: AMAF and RAVE are the same thing. The MoGo team pioneered use of AMAF but called it RAVE because of their paper's target audience. I always thought them to be the application of the same heuristic at a different time. AMAF is usually applied at the end

Re: [computer-go] Could be that nobody is playing?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, ?ukasz Lew wrote: Is there a rating drift? I remember that pure UCT no RAVE with 100k playouts got over 1700 elo. That seems a little high. My 50k-pure-UCT searcher is around 1580 for a long time. Christoph ___ computer-go

Re: [computer-go] Could be that nobody is playing?

On Mon, 20 Apr 2009, ?ukasz Lew wrote: Is there a rating drift? I remember that pure UCT no RAVE with 100k playouts got over 1700 elo. There is no 'anchor' (FatMan-1 ?) runnig on CGOS-9x9 for at least 36 hours. That could create a drift. Christoph

Re: [computer-go] Could be that nobody is playing?

On Fri, 17 Apr 2009, Brian Sheppard wrote: I saw on Sensei's Library page http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots that there are a range of basic UCT implementations that would be excellent opponents (rating 1171 through 1603), but I haven't seen these players in weeks. Is it possible to get

Re: [computer-go] How to properly implement RAVE?

On Feb 6, 2009, at 9:55 AM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: By the way, I've seen 2 games when checking my bot's status where one of the myCtest bots lost because of an illegal ko move. Maybe there's a bug in handling superko? Not a bug, I never implemented it :-( Christoph

Re: [computer-go] UCT concept

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, matt harman wrote: With an empty board, assuming I am using proximity heuristic of 1 Manhattan distance, from the root I will have 4 possible positions which will make up 4 children of the root. Each child will be simulated (eg) 1000 times and a winrate is calcuated. If

RE: [computer-go] UCT concept

On Mon, 26 Jan 2009, matt harman wrote: Thanks for the quick answer, so 1 simulation is run because too many will give lots of noise to the result? if only 1 is run then the 4 children can either win or lose the single simulation 0 or 1. This would be non-deterministic so how would you decide

Re: [computer-go] 3-4-5 rule

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2008-12-30 at 14:23 -0500, Jason House wrote: I hope you're joking... It lost twice as many as it won, you're not convinced? :-) Ok, I'll let it run a few hundred more games just in case it somehow manages to turn things around. I agree

Re: [computer-go] 3-4-5 rule

On Tue, 30 Dec 2008, Don Dailey wrote: Distance 3 could easily play worse - we shall see. Just because a distance 3 move is sometimes good doesn't mean it will make the program play better not throwing those out. If it's RARELY best, then the reduced effort and increased focus on (usually)

Re: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...

On Nov 18, 2008, at 11:28 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It depends very much on what exactly you mean by amateur master level. Is it a level that compares to amateur master level in chess? And what is amateur master level in chess? USCF master, FIDE master or international

RE: [computer-go] Re: Opportunity to promote ...

On Wed, 19 Nov 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think that would not be enough, because that would only fix one point. You can use the width too. That should give a pretty good comparision for moderatly strong/weak players (see below). EGF ratings are not pure Elo ratings. EGF ratings are

Re: [computer-go] Another enhancement to AMAF

On Wed, 29 Oct 2008, Mark Boon wrote: the implementation with one that clears the array instead of increasing the marker. And I'll only have to make changes in one place instead of dozens, or more. Not that I had this in mind when I designed it, it's just the beneficial side-effect of OO

Re: [computer-go] reference bots java and C

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: And now after about 11,000 games we are within 1 standard deviation and the score is very close to 50% so I have confidence that we have 2 functionally equivalent bots. Why are they not running on CGOS? Christoph

Re: [computer-go] reference bots java and C

On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 13:47 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: And now after about 11,000 games we are within 1 standard deviation and the score is very close to 50% so I have confidence that we have 2 functionally

Re: [computer-go] komi for 9x9

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Ingo Althöfer wrote: I would like to see all Go programs to be able to live with possible draws (or even with any score spectrum). My program (myCtest) works with draws, but it's fairly weak at about 1550 ELO (3.2 GHz P4). Christoph

Re: [computer-go] AMAF Scalability study + Responses to previous

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Denis fidaali wrote: tCan we degrade performances more with more simulations ? :) How does 5000AMAF fares agains 1AMAF, i wonder. Although i'm more interested about the upscales that the downscales :) I tried 50k vs 10k and saw no further improvement (no degradation

Re: [computer-go] Light simulation : Characteristic values

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph, Do you use all-moves-as-first? If not, this data seems to match mine very well. The upper bound seems to be around 1300 ELO give or take a few ELO.Ike seems to be around 1300 ELO with 10k play-outs but they are all-as-first.I'll let it

Re: [computer-go] 7.5-komi for 9x9 in Beijing

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: much more common.There were just a few games that used 6.5 komi because when I first started CGOS I had set 6.5 by mistake but I think that was just for a few hours at most. The vast majority of these are 7.5 komi games: After all this discussion

Re: [computer-go] More Characteristic values (AMAF Characteristics from empty board)

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Denis fidaali wrote: Now, i wanted to make sure that my implementation had any chances to be correct. So i though I'd post the characteristic statistical values that i get out of it. Indeed i though it could benefits others later on, in particular if someone could

Re: [computer-go] More Characteristic values (AMAF Characteristics from empty board)

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Denis fidaali wrote: To Don and Christoph : I reallize that i was probably not as clear as i though i was. I have built up a light simulator. There are no tree involved. It is only choosing a move with equiprobabilty from the set of empty points on the board. That's

Re: [computer-go] 7.5-komi for 9x9 in Beijing

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: On Wed, 2008-10-08 at 11:47 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: On Wed, 8 Oct 2008, Don Dailey wrote: much more common.There were just a few games that used 6.5 komi because when I first started CGOS I had set 6.5 by mistake but I think that was just

Re: [computer-go] Light simulation : Characteristic values

On Tue, 7 Oct 2008, Denis fidaali wrote: The engine is written in java, and run on a quad core Q9300 @ 2.50 Ghz. The code has been lightly optimized, and use pseudo-liberties to detect captures. Run it on CGOS, it should get a similar rating to 'myCtest': name#light_simulations

Re: [computer-go] Re: OT: Teaching Go (was Re: Disputes under Japanese rules)

On Thu, 18 Sep 2008, Don Dailey wrote: It didn't take very long at all before I figured out all the basic cases for myself.Even the 2 eye rule I had heard of and even understood it from a book, but it was still rather abstract to me until I actually experienced it for myself. Only when it

Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote: In 19x19, it's much better, but the MPI parallelization of 9x9 Go is challenging. The bright side here is that 9x9 is not really important but just a test bed. If it works for 19x19, that's good. Christoph

Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas

On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote: testbed for parallelization because it's more difficult) and as real targets (as there are players for both). Sorry, but there are (almost) no players for 9x9. To repeat D.Fotland's earlier comment: 9x9 is just for beginner's practice. It's not go.

Re: [computer-go] cgos 13x13 seems down

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008, Magnus Persson wrote: I will also run Valkyria on CGOS 13x13 over the weekend, (or long as things are stable). One anchor would be nice. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org

Re: [computer-go] yet a mogo vs human game

On Aug 25, 2008, at 10:47 PM, Olivier Teytaud wrote: Just for information, mogo will play in a few minutes (on Kgs / computer-go) some games against high level humans. MogoTitan is playing 9x9 against nutngo ? Christoph ___ computer-go mailing

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Don Dailey wrote: But let's not exaggerate. This was not just a simple matter of filling empty points. It was. It was obviously unclear enough to some of us that it required some analysis. Even the strong Leela did not see this as merely filling in the empty points.

Re: [computer-go] Re: Strength of Monte-Carlo w/ UCT...

On Aug 10, 2008, at 1:46 PM, Robert Waite wrote: Exhaustive search is scalable in that I could give it all the memory and time it wanted. And it would approach a finite amount of memory and a finite amount of time. Yes, but exhausitve search does not improve your player by 63% (eg.) for a

Re: [computer-go] Strength of Monte-Carlo w/ UCT...

On Aug 9, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Don Dailey wrote: On Sun, 2008-08-10 at 01:59 +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: On Aug 9, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I'm curious what you guys think about the scalability of monte carlo with UCT. The MCTS technique appears to be extremely scalable. The

[computer-go] Gnugo-3.7.10-a3

Achor 'Gnugo-3.7.10-a3' loses a lot on time. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] komi for 13x13 and 19x19

On Aug 2, 2008, at 10:34 AM, Don Dailey wrote: Does it make sense to use a komi of 7.5 for 13x13 and 19x19 under CGOS rules? I don't know about 13x13, but for 19x19 you should use 6.5. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list

Re: [computer-go] 13x13 server up and running

On Aug 2, 2008, at 1:48 PM, Don Dailey wrote: Ok, the 13x13 server is up and running. Here are some temporary instructions that will probably be understandable for those with bots already running: would be nice to get a few bots on 13x13 to get it started off. myCtest-10k-UCT is

Re: [computer-go] 13x13 server up and running

On Aug 2, 2008, at 2:23 PM, Christoph Birk wrote: would be nice to get a few bots on 13x13 to get it started off. myCtest-10k-UCT is running ... Weired. I got disconnected during my first game (12) but CGOS does not mention this game as a loss for myCtest ... it ignored it entirely

Re: [computer-go] linux and windows

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, David Fotland wrote: Not trolling for flames, just expressing an opinion. If someone is not willing to put in one day effort to port from Linux to Windows, why should they expect anyone else to put in one day effort to make Linux available as a platform? It seems Linux

Re: [computer-go] Re: linux and windows

On Thu, 17 Jul 2008, Dave Dyer wrote: If your program has ANY gui at all though, you're pretty much screwed. Mac Windows and Linux GUIs are about as far apart as any three platforms can be. There are lots of compatibility solutions, including your choice of platform independent languages; but

Re: [computer-go] 10k UCT bots

On May 13, 2008, at 7:25 AM, Jason House wrote: I'm testing my bot on CGOS using pure UCT, no pondering, and 10,000 playouts per move. Can someone put up a comparable bot? I will re-start 'myCtest-10k-UCT' later today. Christoph ___

Re: [computer-go] 10k UCT bots

On May 13, 2008, at 10:00 AM, Jason House wrote: On May 13, 2008, at 12:00 PM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] games.com wrote: When you say pure uct, what is the playout policy? Pure random moves except don't fill one point eyes? That's exactly what I meant. I'd also assume other stuff

Re: [computer-go] 10k UCT bots

On Tue, 13 May 2008, Mark Boon wrote: If this asymmetry really bothers you, you could very easily fix this by wrapping the search around. There's no asymmetry in a circle. That doesn't fix anything. Why not? The whole argument is about a bias against points towards the end. In a circular

Re: [computer-go] CG'2008 paper: Whole-History Ratings

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Andy wrote: For example: Suppose a player's true strength is 1500 for some time, and then he suddenly improves to 2000. Both before and after he plays a fixed number of games per day (say 10). Show a graph of what each rating algorithm would think his rating is over time.

Re: [computer-go] CG'2008 paper: Whole-History Ratings

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, terry mcintyre wrote: How does 500 elo points compare to kyu ranks? Beginning players do improve by 4-5 ranks in a short period of time. We don't all start as dan-level players, alas! Yes, but short time will still be many games. Christoph

Re: [computer-go] CG'2008 paper: Whole-History Ratings

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: Beginning players do improve by 4-5 ranks in a short period of time. We don't all start as dan-level players, alas! Yes, but short time will still be many games. It might be that most of those games aren't visible to the rating system. That

Re: [computer-go] now: operating systems and love, was: Paper for AAAI (David Silver) PDF problem

On Tue, 8 Apr 2008, steve uurtamo wrote: There isn't, and this is actually a fortunate thing, yet any way to use unix without at some point needing to use a command-line tool. This is what will keep it out of the hands of consumers for a long time to come, but I think that it's an inherent fact

Re: [computer-go] State of the art of pattern matching

On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote: I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone can make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case it can still be horrible but very seldomly worse than random. I would expect playing a not-working ladder to be

Re: [computer-go] State of the art of pattern matching

On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote: Christoph Birk wrote: On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote: I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone can make at least two liberties (ladder problem) in which case it can still be horrible but very seldomly

Re: [computer-go] 9x9

On Mar 26, 2008, at 12:32 AM, Olivier Teytaud wrote: ... is room for improvement. But 19x19 is something else, perhaps we can have the Dan, but I'm not sure of that in spite of the gentle words of Catalin, and I'm sure the current mogo can't win against a professionnal player in 19x19

[computer-go] Ing Challenge

On Mar 26, 2008, at 9:47 AM, David Fotland wrote: The lower level prizes were given for games against Insei, but the top prize was for play against t top professional. http://www.smart-games.com/worldcompgo.html I can't find any official data on-line, but the information in the page

[computer-go] 9x9 CGOS

http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html is not updating. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: So I have created this page: http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots and summed up what I could find in the thread about the various bots. Please clarify if anything there is wrong / unknown, and add your bots if they aren't there. I wanted to

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Heikki Levanto wrote: Would it make sense to have a similar page for pure MC programs (without uct), so that we beginning developers could check that portion of our code against known results? I have two long-term CGOS programs: myCtest-10k: 1011 ELO myCtest-50k: 1343

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Wed, 12 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: 1. My UCT constant is 1.0 - my formula is averageScore + c * sqrt( (2.0 * log(n)) / (10.0 * m) ); so your contstant is 2/10 = 0.2 inside the sqrt(), which is equivalent to c=0.44 ? Christoph ___ computer-go

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this will finish around 1600 ELO on CGOS. I have long term rating for simple random playouts: myCtest-10k and myCtest-50k. I keep them active since Sept/2006. Please don't use 25k.

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: This isn't simple random play-outs.It's monte carlo with UCT tree search. Ok, I will use 50k to match your test.It means I probably cannot run 2 tests on that machine and is why I hoped it would be minimal resource usage, but since you have

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: I am going to keep the 25k playouts running and add a 10k play-out version of UCT. I want to establish a standard testing size so that Great! That way Jason can also participate. myCtest-10k-UCT has a long-term rating of about 1250. For the 50k

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: MoGo displays the depth of the principle variation in the stderr stream. I have been wondering, does that include _any_ nodes, or only these above certain number of playouts? What is the playout threshold? The 'principal variation' is usually the one

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: With 110k playouts per move and no domain knowledge in the playouts, the ratings are now: c=0.2 (pachi1-p0.2-light) ELO 1627 (285 games) c=1.0 (pachi1-p1.0-light) ELO 1590 (120 games) c=0.05 (pachi1-p0.05-light)

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:07PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: I think you may still have a bug. You should get well over 1700 with 110,000 playouts, even if they are light playouts. I will run myCtest with 110k-playout, c=0.25 and node creation after the

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:07PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: I think you may still have a bug. You should get well over 1700 with 110,000 playouts, even if they are light playouts. I will run myCtest with 110k

Re: [computer-go] Floating komi

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: One last time: Nobody suggested a one fix for all positions/problems. The floating komi was suggested to guide the UCT search along certain lines of play during specific (close!) endgame positions. When I said all positions I meant all games.You expect

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: And can I assume the tree portion is also inhibited from seeing this due to a combination of factors such as heuristics to delay exploring ugly moves as well as the weakness of the play-outs in this regard (which would cause the tree to not be inclined to

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: advantageous to give away stones that not. Despite what many people believe, MC programs don't normally believe it's better to win small and they are not hell-bent on giving away stones in order to try to make the score come out to be exactly 0.5 win.

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Weston Markham wrote: You are right, but I think that you may also be misconstruing the nakade problem as a lack of concern about margin, when it is really a fundamental failure to understand (i.e., failure to explore Sorry, you miss-understood. The nakade problem is

Re: [computer-go] Floating komi

On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Don Dailey wrote: Don Dailey wrote: not assuming that MC plays the best move. The problem isn't the assumptions I am making, but the assumptions others are making, that it's NOT playing the best move.You want to apply a fix to all positions without really

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Magnus Persson wrote: But here you are missing the point that close to 0% winning probability means that it cannot win against random play. The opponent could lose only by killing his own groups. I don't know why you (and Don) keep bringing up the 0% against random play

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: I really believe the source of peoples confusion on this is believing that the program starts playing ugly random moves as soon as it is down a little. But in fact, when it gets into ugly mode it is because the score is very close to 0.0 or in some

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: When you get into opponent modeling, you have to understand your opponent, because usually opponent modeling involves playing weaker moves in exchange for better practical winning chances. No, I don't want to do any opponent modelling. And no, opponent

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Magnus Persson wrote: I do not see why an MC programs in general is biased towards winning with 10p instead of a single 1p mistake. It is not biased, that's my point. It should be biased toward the '1pt' loss, if loss is unavoidable, not for beauty but for the likelihood of

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Weston Markham wrote: greater loss by the program. (You also characterize the opponent's blunder in (b) as stupid, but I understand this to simply be a subjective characterization based on the fact that it leads to a large loss.) In my own experience it is much easier to

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: My feeling is that in lost positions, the only thing we are trying to accomplish is to make the moves more cosmetically appealing (normal) and at best improve the programs chances of winning against weak players. After all, if the program is in bad shape,

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: This is true in GO too. I'm talking about the kinds of position where go program start to play aimlessly and they only do that when the result is like being down a queen in chess.Even being down a piece in chess is playable if there is some

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent modeling.You want to optimize for the case that you might occasionally salvage a game against an opponent that is much weaker than you but is beating you anyway. No, absolutely not. The idea

  1   2   3   >