Re: [Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Ray Tayek]

On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:
Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the 
aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love 
to have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches,

 ...

shape  should be a candidiate. it's 
frequency in a game should correspond to rank.


thanks

--
Honesty is a very expensive gift. So, don't expect it from cheap people - 
Warren Buffett
http://tayek.com/

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

Re: [Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Josef Moudrik]

Some time ago, we (with pasky) looked into a related question of player
attribute prediction - such as territoriality, aggresivity, influence
oriented style, or strength. Project website is here:
http://gostyle.j2m.cz/

Imo you can predict/evaluate pretty much anything you get dataset for.
Aesthetics is subjective, but if there is some consistent agreement in the
dataset, the ML would find it. My guess would be, that nice games would
correlate with calm games without much fighting and honte moves.

Regards,
Josef

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 6:32 AM Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> Is playing bad moves good for aesthetics? No? Then why call it
> aesthetics? Call it perfect / good play. The most "beautiful" stone is
> bad if it is dead.
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> 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] Go Aesthetics

[Hendrik Baier]

I like the topic of aesthetics in gameplay. I think the focus in
previous studies in chess was more on compositions (artificial
problems) than on actual games, so the question is not whether a
player plays beautifully, but whether a problem is elegant and
beautiful. And they did come up with interesting measures - certainly
problems where bold sacrifices have to be made, weak pieces are used
effectively against strong pieces, etc are more interesting than
problems that can be solved in expectable and routine ways.
"Heuristics are successfully violated" in beautiful problems, as
Margulies writes.
Would certainly be interesting to define such metrics in Go. Problems
where the only good move violates traditional patterns or "good form"
or is in some other way surprising and interesting, as opposed to just
being hard to find because you have to think through many variations
("neither strangeness nor difficulty produces beauty"). I could
imagine measuring the distance between a heuristic evaluation (the
output of a DCNN for example) and the result of a deep search, for
example.
Many computer scientists have problems with concepts that aren't
immediately open to formalization, or even require psychological
insight, but it's worth it IMHO :)

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

Re: [Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Nick Wedd]

On 12 January 2016 at 13:29, Ray Tayek  wrote:

> On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:
>
> Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
> aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to
> have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches,
>
>  ...
>
> shape  should be a candidiate. it's
> frequency in a game should correspond to rank.
>

I would be interested to see if this is true.  My own experience suggests
otherwise.  When I watch 3-dan games, and 6-dan games, I think the 6-dans
make more empty triangles. The 3-dans are using shape as a guide (for the
previous moves, as well as the move in question), while the 6-dans don't
use such heuristics, they are able to read the stuff out.

Nick

>
> thanks
>
> --
> Honesty is a very expensive gift. So, don't expect it from cheap people - 
> Warren Buffetthttp://tayek.com/
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>



-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Josef Moudrik]

And do you find these "ugly yet working" moves aesthetically pleasing?

I think it all depends what do we mean by aesthetics. In my opinion, it is
not strength - the hard thing about go imo is that while the nice (shape,
..) do often work, sometimes, the ugly move works better - precisely as
Nick writes. It is probably hard to pinpoint; aesthetics could also be
discussed/defined on multiple levels:
 * nice shape moves
 * ease of uderstandability (I find professional games which are simple
aesthetically nicer than wild fights, big tenukis, or "wtf" moments that I
do not understand)
 * interesting strategic developments (e.g. comeback)
 * admiration of player heroism, fighting spirit, ...
All these are subjective points and they probably differ a lot based on the
viewer's own style and (maybe more) strength.

It would be interesting to make a questionnaire to have some base for what
do the players find nice. If we get some questions down, I am willing to
add it to the gostyle site.

Josef

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:12 PM Nick Wedd  wrote:

> On 12 January 2016 at 13:29, Ray Tayek  wrote:
>
>> On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:
>>
>> Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
>> aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to
>> have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches,
>>
>>  ...
>>
>> shape  should be a candidiate. it's
>> frequency in a game should correspond to rank.
>>
>
> I would be interested to see if this is true.  My own experience suggests
> otherwise.  When I watch 3-dan games, and 6-dan games, I think the 6-dans
> make more empty triangles. The 3-dans are using shape as a guide (for the
> previous moves, as well as the move in question), while the 6-dans don't
> use such heuristics, they are able to read the stuff out.
>
> Nick
>
>>
>> thanks
>>
>> --
>> Honesty is a very expensive gift. So, don't expect it from cheap people - 
>> Warren Buffetthttp://tayek.com/
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
> ___
> 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] Go Aesthetics

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

I agree that playing strength should not be determinant for Go 
aesthetics. Of course obvious mistakes are not pleasant, but I consider 
close matches* with either close styles (symmetry) or very different 
styles more important. Lopsided or early decided matches with big 
captures, handicaps, complicated fights, comebacks, desperate invasions, 
etc are not very pleasing.


Even if it is subjective there must be things like good shape, struggle 
to get sente, fundamentals, etc that most people agree in, even if it 
makes 6d look worse than 2d. (I'm way too weak a player to notice them 
though)


* Not including MCTS programs playing for the 0.5 win.

On 01/12/2016 03:56 PM, Josef Moudrik wrote:

And do you find these "ugly yet working" moves aesthetically pleasing?

I think it all depends what do we mean by aesthetics. In my opinion, it is
not strength - the hard thing about go imo is that while the nice (shape,
..) do often work, sometimes, the ugly move works better - precisely as
Nick writes. It is probably hard to pinpoint; aesthetics could also be
discussed/defined on multiple levels:
  * nice shape moves
  * ease of uderstandability (I find professional games which are simple
aesthetically nicer than wild fights, big tenukis, or "wtf" moments that I
do not understand)
  * interesting strategic developments (e.g. comeback)
  * admiration of player heroism, fighting spirit, ...
All these are subjective points and they probably differ a lot based on the
viewer's own style and (maybe more) strength.

It would be interesting to make a questionnaire to have some base for what
do the players find nice. If we get some questions down, I am willing to
add it to the gostyle site.

Josef

On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 4:12 PM Nick Wedd  wrote:


On 12 January 2016 at 13:29, Ray Tayek  wrote:


On 1/11/2016 7:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira wrote:

Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to
have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches,

  ...

shape  should be a candidiate. it's
frequency in a game should correspond to rank.



I would be interested to see if this is true.  My own experience suggests
otherwise.  When I watch 3-dan games, and 6-dan games, I think the 6-dans
make more empty triangles. The 3-dans are using shape as a guide (for the
previous moves, as well as the move in question), while the 6-dans don't
use such heuristics, they are able to read the stuff out.

Nick



thanks

--
Honesty is a very expensive gift. So, don't expect it from cheap people - 
Warren Buffetthttp://tayek.com/


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

[Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira]

Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the 
aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love 
to have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches, or 
across time periods or players. There are a few papers on aesthetics for 
chess so I don't see why not Go. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to 
make, after deciding on the things to look for. I'd like to kickstart 
this discussion.


For reference:
Advanced Computer Recognition of Aesthetics in the Game of Chess by 
Azlan Iqbal and Mashkuri Yaacob


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

Re: [Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Robert Jasiek]

Is playing bad moves good for aesthetics? No? Then why call it 
aesthetics? Call it perfect / good play. The most "beautiful" stone is 
bad if it is dead.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Go Aesthetics

[Steven Clark]

It's an inherently subjective thought-exercise -- ask 10 different players
and you will get 10 different ideas of what constitutes beauty. I'm not
even sure I agree with the metrics proposed in
http://www.wseas.us/e-library/transactions/computers/2008/26-184.pdf for
chess -- why is it inherently more "beautiful" to use a weaker piece as
opposed to a stronger piece?

In go, there are a lot of characteristics that exist on a continuum (e.g.
aggression vs. calm/steady, etc.) Play at either end of the spectrum has
its own appeal.
Metrics one could analyze:
-Willingness to tenuki
-Ability to maintain sente
-Tenacity of attack (how to measure?)
-Efficiency of shape (how to measure?)
-Favoring influence vs. territory
-Preference for invasion vs. reduction
etc.

One would do better to analyze a given player over many games, vs. just
looking at one game (since there is such variability).

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 10:10 PM, Gonçalo Mendes Ferreira 
wrote:

> Hi, some time back I mentioned creating a program that evaluates the
> aesthetics of a game of Go. Has anyone given it some thought? I'd love to
> have a comparison between professional and amateur dan matches, or across
> time periods or players. There are a few papers on aesthetics for chess so
> I don't see why not Go. It shouldn't be terribly difficult to make, after
> deciding on the things to look for. I'd like to kickstart this discussion.
>
> For reference:
> Advanced Computer Recognition of Aesthetics in the Game of Chess by Azlan
> Iqbal and Mashkuri Yaacob
>
> ___
> 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