Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
Don Dailey wrote: Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from Writing it down as if it were a formal definition was a joke, of course. I have made up the list myself but it has strong reasons: It is the essence of my study of theoretical informatics at university. Whichever good proof might have been made, it did apply all my points. Exception: it was a summary style explanation in some maths journal where the readers (mathematicians themselves) are expected to think 30 minutes per text line to verify and understand completely what they are just reading. and be more precise about what they are trying to define? a) the underlying theory is published, Privately stored text won't do. You need to publish it to everybody. Explain the underlying theory, unless it is standard knowledge for the typical readers. E.g., alpha-beta may be well known but if you make inventions that change your specific alpha-beta search, then explain your new theory. b) the underlying theory is proven mathematically, You are going to see endless lists of propositions and their formal mathematical proofs. c) the algorithm is published, Not the source code of your implementation is interesting here but the algorithm independent of programming language, software, and hardware. d) the algorithm is proven mathematically, Prove that it well-defined, complete, does what it is said to do, always does so, never does anything else, prove what the computational complexities of time and space are. e) the used computer environment is stated, Mainboard, processor, operating system, etc. f) there is a statement that the computation has been done successfully and Trivial, but you should add the running time taken. g) it is possible to repeat the computation independently. Anybody with a different computer / different set of computers must be able to take the algorithm, implement it on a different computer, and invariably produce the same result. For instance if I solve a Rubiks cube in private, is it sudenly not solved Nobody won't believe you until you publish your used algorithm, etc. it just means that I cannot credibly claim to have solved it. Indeed. Like claiming I have solved 19x19 Go yesterday.. It's extremely common in games research to have papers like this, where results are reported but completely unverifyable and it drives me nuts. Right. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
2009/5/22 Andrés Domínguez andres...@gmail.com: 2009/5/22 Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de: Don Dailey wrote: Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about? IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6. AFAIK the claimed solution is tengen the first move. Maybe you are remebering some interesting lines that starts with (3,2) and (2,2): Subject: computer-go: 5x5 Go is solved Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:27:04 -0100 From: Erik van der Werf To: COMPUTER GO MAILING LIST Yesterday my program solved 5x5 Go starting with the first move in the centre. As was expected it is a win for the first player with 25 points (the whole board belongs to black). My phd thesis also reports the values for other opening moves. (3,2): B+3, (2,2): W+1, (edge) W+25. For more info see: http://erikvanderwerf.tengen.nl/pubdown/thesis_erikvanderwerf.pdf If anyone believes he can refute these results I'd be interested to hear about it (especially if you are high dan level). In my experience it is often quite interesting to see where strong humans go astray. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Don Dailey wrote: 7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly well. When looking through sample game trees of small board computer play, my impression was that by far too many trivial moves were not analysed (properly): single passes or seemingly bad plays. When I studied J1989 manually, I had to learn that single passes or seemingly bad plays can be good moves much more often than one fears. Therefore I am extremely sceptical when some claim is made about NxN was solved by strong programs. Usual strength is not a good measure here. Proofs or proof play are appropriate. I haven't heard any claims yet by anyone that 7x7 has been solved. But 5x5 is claimed to have been solved by exhaustive search. And an admissible exhaustive search is a proof. Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about? Because I am not aware of any non-proof claims. In the case of 7x7 computer players, the practical play is very strong. I think you can construct positions that may be very difficult for computers to solve in 7x7, but from the opening position you are going to find it difficult to find a pathway that fools the computer - if you are on the wrong side of komi. When I did some experiments with Lazarus 2 or 3 years ago, I noticed that the overwhelming majority of games were one-sided when using any 1/2 point komi once you went beyond a reasonable level. As I cranked up the levels, the number of upset loses diminished and I found a level where there were no wins for the wrong side out of perhaps 200 games (don't remember the details.) I don't believe Lazaurs comes close to perfect play on 7x7 but I assume that the 7x7 opening position is relatively easy to win if you are on the correct side of komi.And it may be that the losing side also failed to take advantage of the mistakes of the winning side. So at 8.5 komi black always won, but this does not mean black always played the correct move. - Don -- robert jasiek ___ 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] 7x7 komi
Don Dailey wrote: Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about? IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6. But I do not recall more details. Maybe I have not read all 5x5 papers about claimed solutions. If there is something with mathematical proofs (about the made CG calculations), I would want to read it when I should have time. So far I have seen only Erik's preliminary draft, and that was not on the level of complete mathematical proofs about a solution. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
2009/5/22 Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de: Don Dailey wrote: Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about? IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6. AFAIK the claimed solution is tengen the first move. Maybe you are remebering some interesting lines that starts with (3,2) and (2,2): Subject: computer-go: 5x5 Go is solved Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:27:04 -0100 From: Erik van der Werf To: COMPUTER GO MAILING LIST Yesterday my program solved 5x5 Go starting with the first move in the centre. As was expected it is a win for the first player with 25 points (the whole board belongs to black). Andrés Domínguez ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
Robert, A proper search tree is a proof, but there is the issue of determining if there are any flaws in the search and that would require some kind of peer review including a code review. For instance the hash table implementation may not be admissible unless the positions themselves are properly stored which is not the usual technique in game search programs. There is additionally the issue of GHI (Graph History Interaction) which must be handled correctly to consider it a proof.My recollection is that they handled the GHI problem correctly. I'm not sure about hash table signatures. So the game tree searched used in this program (I don't remember who did it) may not be admissible as a proof and I think they actually gave their disclaimers if I remember correctly. Nevertheless, if the program is reporting a win with a very deep search, in my view it's probably correct although it cannot be trusted as an absolute proof. There is the issue of how much we can trust the result of that 5x5 brute force effort. A well engineered brute force alpha/beta search is almost always going to produce correct results - especially if it was designed for that purpose. So personally I'm not heavily skeptical of the conclusions reached although I know there is a some small chance it is wrong. - Don On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Don Dailey wrote: Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about? IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6. But I do not recall more details. Maybe I have not read all 5x5 papers about claimed solutions. If there is something with mathematical proofs (about the made CG calculations), I would want to read it when I should have time. So far I have seen only Erik's preliminary draft, and that was not on the level of complete mathematical proofs about a solution. -- robert jasiek ___ 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] 7x7 komi
Don Dailey wrote: in my view it's probably correct although it cannot be trusted as an absolute proof. A practical computational problem is solved iff a) the underlying theory is published, b) the underlying theory is proven mathematically, c) the algorithm is published, d) the algorithm is proven mathematically, e) the used computer environment is stated, f) there is a statement that the computation has been done successfully and g) it is possible to repeat the computation independently. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
Robert, Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from and be more precise about what they are trying to define?It's obvious that they are providing some kind of formal framework for establishing the CREDIBILITY of a claim of proof, not what a proof or solution really is. For instance if I solve a Rubiks cube in private, is it sudenly not solved because I did not follow certain arbitrary formalities?No, it just means that I cannot credibly claim to have solved it. The 5x5 guys, in my opinion, did not credibly solve the 5x5 board. But I don't think they made extravagant claims either. It's extremely common in games research to have papers like this, where results are reported but completely unverifyable and it drives me nuts. - Don On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Don Dailey wrote: in my view it's probably correct although it cannot be trusted as an absolute proof. A practical computational problem is solved iff a) the underlying theory is published, b) the underlying theory is proven mathematically, c) the algorithm is published, d) the algorithm is proven mathematically, e) the used computer environment is stated, f) there is a statement that the computation has been done successfully and g) it is possible to repeat the computation independently. -- robert jasiek ___ 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/
[computer-go] 7x7 komi
What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back during Don's scalability study, but I couldn't find the number itself. Was it 9.0? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0 I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is any dispute. - Don On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Williams michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote: What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back during Don's scalability study, but I couldn't find the number itself. Was it 9.0? ___ 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] 7x7 komi
Don Dailey wrote: 7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly well. Does anyone have any information on how well they play it? My guess is that with 9.5 komi, a strong computer playing white won't lose much to anyone (as it's starting from a dead won position.) - Don Crazy Stone played a few games on KGS with a komi of 9, against some very strong players, including guojuan[5p]. I am convinced that the right komi is 9. http://senseis.xmp.net/?7x7BestPlay http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=CrazyStoneyear=2006month=8 That was very long ago. I had to make a book in order to play the opening well. I expect the programs of today would not even need a book. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
