I like the AGA rules much better.My own personal preference is that
the organizer should get full say over the conditions (within some
reasonable constraints) since they are doing all the work.And it
always seemed artificial that you could refuse to play certain "types"
of players.If I
>
> I don't know what the current status of computers are, but the USCF
> (United States Chess Federation) at one point set some rules concerning
> computers in tournaments. To summarize these rules, a tournament
> had to be announced as allowing computers and they would be allowed.
> But
I watched it go from humans loving to play computers in competitions to
humans hating to play computers in competitions.
There was a period of time where the use of opening books was debated.
The argument was that humans were not allowed to have "books" in front
of them, why should computers?
David Fotland wrote:
This is an odd idea. When computers started beating people in chess, humans
did not abandon the game and change to some other similar game. Why do you
think go players would stop playing go when computers get strong?
At some point human players playing computers started d
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> >Sure, 9x9 Go is still a very interesting game. One that can be a
> >challenge even for the strongest players in the world. But in my
> >opinion it's not nearly as interesting as 19x19 Go. Now if that's a
> >point you'd like to argue, fine. But no n
On Jan 22, 2008, at 2:08 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
MoGo plays unconventional moves only in the first 10 moves or so.
That is it plays an unconventional openning. An unconventional
opening in Go is actaully something that is celebrated for ...
DL
If this is a concern, someone should ad
.
Message d'origine
e : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
: computer-go
nvoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h22mn 42s
bjet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable against humans?
I agree that probably most players play as you say.But it's
ifficult for me t
atterns and reflexes.
- Message d'origine
De : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 22h22mn 42s
Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable against humans?
I agree that probably most players play as you say.But it's
moves, but it's
no reason to call it unconventional. It also make improper invasions, but they
are weak moves, not unconventional moves.
DL
-Original Message-
From: David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: 'computer-go'
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:51 am
Subject: RE: [c
s to find solutions which are robust
and monotonic improvements. Easy to guess wrong.
Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:22:42 PM
Subject: Re: Re : [computer-go] Is
Le mardi 22 janvier 2008, Mark Boon a écrit :
>
> On 22-jan-08, at 11:33, Magnus Persson wrote:
>
> > So feel free to argue that 19x19 has properties that are unique,
> > but in doing so please *specify* exactly what this means and why a
> > computer program has to deal with it to play really
d'origine ----
> De : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> À : computer-go
> Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 21h47mn 39s
> Objet : Re: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable against humans?
>
>
>
> David Fotland wrote:
>
>> I didn't say that :)
programs is a great strength they have. Its a specific strength of MC that
human, unfortunately for them, do not have.
- Message d'origine
De : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Mardi, 22 Janvier 2008, 21h47mn 39s
Objet : Re: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT
David Fotland wrote:
> I didn't say that :) Please read what I wrote.
>
No, I was thinking ahead, not quoting you. I was just covering my
bases, anticipating what I thought my be a likely response (and not
necessarily from you.)
> The UCT programs often find moves that are unconventional.
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:51 PM
Subject: RE: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable against humans?
I didn't say that :) Please read what I wrote.
The UCT programs often find moves that are unconventional. This makes
patterns that aren't in the database, so the traditio
From: Erik van der Werf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> I do not know what the long-term effects on the game of Go would be of
> an entity with super-human playing strength. Humans tend to have funny
> reactions when it comes to computers performing tasks formerly
> believed to have required intelligence...
I didn't say that :) Please read what I wrote.
The UCT programs often find moves that are unconventional. This makes
patterns that aren't in the database, so the traditional programs can't
cope. People are a little more flexible, especially strong players, and can
still find good responses to u
:-)
I do not know what the long-term effects on the game of Go would be of
an entity with super-human playing strength. Humans tend to have funny
reactions when it comes to computers performing tasks formerly
believed to have required intelligence...
In any case, I know some people already play o
On Jan 22, 2008 5:54 PM, David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll admit that I was skeptical that monte carlo would scale to 19x19, and
> clearly I was wrong. Maybe I misremember the early debates, but I think the
> argument from the UCT/MC side was that fast pure-random playouts were
> sca
Hi David,
I think the UCT programs are strong because they do a lot of really
obvious things really well and for free. I know huge amount of
research has gone into finding algorithms such as benson life, and more
difficult problems of determining when a group is dead or alive and yet
it turns ou
This is an odd idea. When computers started beating people in chess, humans
did not abandon the game and change to some other similar game. Why do you
think go players would stop playing go when computers get strong?
David
>
> In the future, when humans are consistently defeated by computers o
From: David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> In go it turned out that to be good at 19x19, some new algorithms were
> needed (patterns and heavy
> playouts). I think that to take the next step in 19x19 strength the
> programs will need to be stronger
> at life and death.
> The UCT-MC
Of course everyone will see this differently. For me the fundamental
difference between 9x9 and 19x19 is obvious. People play 19x19 seriously
and have for at least 2000 years. A commercial program has to play 19x19
well, and has to play by Japanese rules. It has to be enjoyable to play
against.
I share this opinion. 9x9 was a good simple test to get things started, but
go is a 19x19 game. 9x9 has limited interest. An analogy for chess
programmers would be if a group of people worked on programs to solve rook
and pawn endgames. This kind of chess endgame is a good test to try out
algor
On Jan 22, 2008 4:08 PM, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What irritated me was what I referred
> to as 'putting words in someone elses mouth'. It feels like Erik is
> purposefully trying to offend, both in his answer to Petri and in his later
> answer to me. I think there's no need to try t
On 22-jan-08, at 12:51, Don Dailey wrote:
In this discussion I observed someone like this, who just attacked 9x9
go, UCT, the feasibility of an interesting study and everyone with
time invested in exploring UCT and Monte Carlo. Someone naturally
tried to defend and the defense is the thin
Mark Boon wrote:
>
> On 22-jan-08, at 11:21, Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> Hi Mark,
>>
>> I think it's Petri who was the condescending one.
>>
>
> Well, you could see it as condescending if someone pooh-poohs 9x9 Go.
> But then one should argue that if you'd want to. But to pretend by
> deduction he als
Quoting Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On 22-jan-08, at 11:33, Magnus Persson wrote:
So feel free to argue that 19x19 has properties that are unique,
but in doing so please *specify* exactly what this means and why a
computer program has to deal with it to play really strong.
Would
On Jan 22, 2008 2:50 PM, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 22-jan-08, at 11:21, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> > Hi Mark,
> >
> > I think it's Petri who was the condescending one.
> >
>
> Well, you could see it as condescending if someone pooh-poohs 9x9 Go.
> But then one should argue that if you'
o: computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:43 am
Subject: [computer-go] Is MC-UCT really scalable against humans?
So far I played these MC programs at it seems they are doing well
gainst humans mostly because the moves they play are bizarre and some
imes throw unreasonable contact f
On 22-jan-08, at 11:33, Magnus Persson wrote:
So feel free to argue that 19x19 has properties that are unique,
but in doing so please *specify* exactly what this means and why a
computer program has to deal with it to play really strong.
Magnus,
Would you argue the same for 3x3 Go?
I thi
On 22-jan-08, at 11:21, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Mark,
I think it's Petri who was the condescending one.
Well, you could see it as condescending if someone pooh-poohs 9x9 Go.
But then one should argue that if you'd want to. But to pretend by
deduction he also claims 17x17 or 19x19 are not i
Quoting Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sure, 9x9 Go is still a very interesting game. One that can be a
challenge even for the strongest players in the world. But in my
opinion it's not nearly as interesting as 19x19 Go. Now if that's a
point you'd like to argue, fine. But no need to be so patro
Hi Mark,
I think it's Petri who was the condescending one.
- Don
Mark Boon wrote:
>
> On 22-jan-08, at 10:31, Erik van der Werf wrote:
>
>> On Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>> 9x9 is not Go
>>
>> At some point in history the common board size was 17x17.
>>
On 22-jan-08, at 10:31, Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM, Petri Pitkanen
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
9x9 is not Go
At some point in history the common board size was 17x17.
Are you suggesting that 17x17 wasn't Go either?
In the future, when humans are consistently defeated
2008/1/22, Erik van der Werf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> In the future, when humans are consistently defeated by computers on
> 19x19 and the remaining players move up to a more 'interesting' size,
> will you be claiming that 19x19 isn't Go either?
>
> E.
Maybe I will, but 17x17 is quite like 19x19, Wh
On Jan 22, 2008 11:14 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 9x9 is not Go
At some point in history the common board size was 17x17.
Are you suggesting that 17x17 wasn't Go either?
In the future, when humans are consistently defeated by computers on
19x19 and the remaining players move u
Hi all
This is a sample game against humans.
I am probably a weak Japanese amature 5 dan player.
(
;FF[3]GM[1]AP[PocketGoban Ver 0.999]
SZ[19]PB[MoGo 19(v3)]PW[Oka]
DT[2007-09-21]
RE[W+Resign]KM[6.5]
;B[dd];W[jj];B[dp];W[dj];B[pd];W[jd];B[pp];W[pj];B[qg];W[fc]
;B[fd];W[gd];B[gf];W[ed];B[nj];W[q
Petri Pitkanen: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>2008/1/22, Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> This is not a bug, its a feature of MC program.
>> It seems you really know very little about their logic and strenght.
>> Try on 9X9 and you will see they are very strong at tactics.
>I know their logic. Just
2008/1/22, Alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> This is not a bug, its a feature of MC program.
> It seems you really know very little about their logic and strenght.
> Try on 9X9 and you will see they are very strong at tactics.
I know their logic. Just it fails on 19x19 board on some little ca
Le mardi 22 janvier 2008, Petri Pitkanen a écrit :
> 2008/1/22, Eric Boesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > On Jan 22, 2008 1:43 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Even top MC programs fail to see that a group with 3 liberties with
> > > no eyes is dead.
> >
> > A 3-liberty group with no
2008/1/22, Eric Boesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Jan 22, 2008 1:43 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Even top MC programs fail to see that a group with 3 liberties with
> > no eyes is dead.
>
> A 3-liberty group with no eyes has a 100% chance to die during
> playouts unless a surro
On Jan 22, 2008 1:43 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Even top MC programs fail to see that a group with 3 liberties with
> no eyes is dead.
A 3-liberty group with no eyes has a 100% chance to die during
playouts unless a surrounding group dies first. 100% chance to die is
as good
So far I played these MC programs at it seems they are doing well
against humans mostly because the moves they play are bizarre and some
times throw unreasonable contact fight challenges. They win more often
than they deserve just because many weak players (like KGS 4k level
players are) quite ofte
44 matches
Mail list logo
