Jonas Kahn wrote:
out, kos can go on for long. I don't know what depth is attained in the
tree (by the way, I would really like to know), but I doubt it is that
MoGo displays the depth of the principle variation in the stderr stream.
___
computer-go
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 02:33:03AM -0400, Michael Williams wrote:
Jonas Kahn wrote:
out, kos can go on for long. I don't know what depth is attained in the
tree (by the way, I would really like to know), but I doubt it is that
MoGo displays the depth of the principle variation in the stderr
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 02:33:03AM -0400, Michael Williams wrote:
Jonas Kahn wrote:
out, kos can go on for long. I don't know what depth is attained in the
tree (by the way, I would really like to know), but I doubt it is that
MoGo displays the depth of the principle variation in the stderr
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
On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 01:03:02PM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
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
Don Dailey wrote:
I want to make sure I understand the nakade problem, please correct me
if I am wrong:
My understanding of this is that many program do not allow self-atari
moves in the play-outs because in general the overwhelming majority are
stupid moves. Is that what is causing the
Petr Baudis wrote:
MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights;
unfortunately, I couldn't find any quickly, so here is at least an
example of a shorter one.
I see you made the following comment in that game record, which seems
relevant to recent discussions here.
|
You won't find that in computer vs computer games, because tricking the
strong programs requires some go skill and it only works if you wait long
enough before you solve the position. But if you search KGS (LeelaBot,
CrazyStone, CzechBot) for even games where the bot lost against a kyu
--- Jacques Basaldúa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Petr Baudis wrote:
You won't find that in computer vs computer games,
because tricking the
strong programs requires some go skill and it only
works if you wait long
enough before you solve the position. But if you
search KGS (LeelaBot,
steve uurtamo wrote:
yes, and the fact that turning a dumpling into a dead
group can take more than a few moves, since you may
have to fill up the eyespace several times, meaning
going fairly deeply down branches with several self-ataris
along the way.
Ok, it's pretty much as I
I think the general outline is that you pre-test groups first to see if
a self-atari move is interesting.It's worthy of additional
consideration if the stones it is touching have limited liberties and
the group you self-atari is relatively small.Then you could go on to
other tests
Thanks for an excellent description of the nakade
problem. I've found that it is easy for a 5kyu KGS
player - myself - to exploit such situations. I can't
escape observing that endgame moves where a bot
permits me to take a yose point here, another there,
all the while drawing closer to a
Your idea is more in the spirit of MC, I like it.
Another idea is borrowed from my first reasonable MC player. I looked
at the futures of interesting move points and discouraged self-atari
moves unless the future belonged to the player executing the move. (A
future is the expected percentage
Because the trick can only be played by similar strength players (much
weaker players can't build something like that, much stronger don't
need it)
it affects the rating of the bots. I guess CrazyStone could be near
KGS 1dan
with that solved. It is 2k now. But, of course, the solution may not
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:55:53PM +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
A 4-6 kyu human is behind by 10-15 points in the midgame (at that stage the
probability of winning is correlated with territory, so the MC bot is
building fine.) He creates a 12-16 point worth nakade trick in a corner
and does
You have to have a nakade pattern on the
board somewhere, the score has to be close and in your favor
considering the nakade, and the program has to believe that it is more
advantageous to give away stones that not.
eh, or it can't see the capture until it's only a few moves away,
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
Don Dailey wrote:
Although it's easy to see that nakade is a problem, I agree with
someone who said it takes a lot of skill to produce this. In fact, I
believe that it cannot be done reliably by any player unless he is
already much stronger than the program, in which case he doesn't
need to
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.
On 3/6/08, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
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
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Petr Baudis
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:01:02PM -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
MoGo can
On 4-mrt-08, at 14:34, terry mcintyre wrote:
Knowing that most current programs have a weakness
with regard to nakade, then any program which believes
it is behind ought to try and exploit such weaknesses,
no?
That assumes creating a situation where the nakade is misevaluated
once you're
That assumes creating a situation where the nakade is misevaluated once
you're behind is easy. Writing code that exploits this weakness may be harder
than improving your program through other means. And the 'gain' could be
short-lived when MC programs fix the weakness.
By the way,
--- Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4-mrt-08, at 14:34, terry mcintyre wrote:
Knowing that most current programs have a weakness
with regard to nakade, then any program which
believes
it is behind ought to try and exploit such
weaknesses,
no?
That assumes creating a
Petr Baudis wrote:
MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights;
unfortunately, I couldn't find any quickly, so here is at least an
example of a shorter one.
I see you made the following comment in that game record, which seems
relevant to recent discussions here.
| mogo excels
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 08:02:10PM +, Matthew Woodcraft wrote:
Petr Baudis wrote:
MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights;
unfortunately, I couldn't find any quickly, so here is at least an
example of a shorter one.
I see you made the following comment in that game
Thanks Heikki, this is what I'm trying to write in English right
now :).
-Hideki
Heikki Levanto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:36PM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 3 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
What you are trying to do is more in the category of opponent
modeling.
Attached is an sgf-game of a long kofight on 9x9 between Valkyria and
Gnugo. Valkyria of course wins with 0.5 otherwise it would probably
not have been such a nice example of a long kofight.
-Magnus
kofight318392.sgf
Description: application/go-sgf
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below
10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a
game
once the score goes below even 20%.
In which case I could argue that attempts at winning by playing
Mark Boon wrote:
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below 10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a game
once the score goes below even 20%.
In which case I could argue that attempts at
Quoting Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below 10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a game
once the score goes below even 20%.
In which case I could argue
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
thanks,
s.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 9:35 AM, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Attached is an sgf-game of a long kofight on 9x9 between
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so for a couple of moves in a row which is
probably just a superstition on my part to
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 3-mrt-08, at 18:43, Don Dailey wrote:
I base that logic on my observations that once the score goes below
10%
for Lazarus, it is losing. It's extremely rare that it salvages a
game
once the score goes below even 20%.
Quoting steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
Valkyria is unfortunately way to weak for 19x19. My argument is more
that in principle MC programs
Quoting Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
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
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
Knowing that most current programs have a weakness
with regard to nakade, then any program which believes
it is behind ought to try and exploit such weaknesses,
no?
--- Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Quoting Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 4 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Christoph Birk wrote:
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
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
Quoting Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
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
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
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so for a couple of moves in a row which is
probably just a
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so for a couple of moves in a row
--- Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just to make it clear, the case we want to fix
is the case where many
bots are programmed to resign. Lazarus will
resign when the score is
below 1% (and has remained so
Whether human or computer, if one's opponent is in
time trouble, play on. I have won more than one game
in this manner, and it's just as good a win as any
other; both of us knew the time constraints.
I completely agree with that, but some view this as bad manners.I
take it a step
--- Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Whether human or computer, if one's opponent is in
time trouble, play on. I have won more than one
game
in this manner, and it's just as good a win as any
other; both of us knew the time constraints.
I completely agree with that, but
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
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:01:52AM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
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
On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:01:02PM -0500, steve uurtamo wrote:
cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what
i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player
play out a ko fight.
MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights;
unfortunately, I
Jonas Kahn wrote:
But correct ko threats playing has nothing to do with the playout part :
Since it is a strategic concept that involves global understanting, It is
handled by the UCT tree part.
Yes and no.
Theoretically, that's the work of the UCT part. But, as Steve pointed
out,
recapture.
Ivan
- Message d'origine
De : Jonas Kahn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 2 Mars 2008, 21h32mn 43s
Objet : Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])
But correct ko threats playing has nothing to do
So I don't think
sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really
quantify this.
It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS
will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights and their
resolution. or even the threat of a ko
steve uurtamo wrote:
So I don't think
sophisticated ko fights are resolved but I not strong enough to really
quantify this.
It's very often the case that games between, say, two 7d players on KGS
will come down, in large part, to one or two or three ko fights and their
Quoting steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the thing that got me thinking about this is that i've never seen an MC
player really play out a ko fight. (or perhaps they are in their own cryptic
MC way that i can't see).
It takes two to dance a Tango! For example ko fights on 9x9 occur late
in
the thing that got me thinking about this is that i've never seen an MC
player really play out a ko fight. (or perhaps they are in their own cryptic
MC way that i can't see).
Well this could easily be solved by *always* investigating
moves that take (or create) a ko.
This of course will
Stronger players often initiate sequences where the
life of a group depends on ko. I don't know if this
sort of thing happens in MC games, or if MC players
can deal with it effectively.
Terry McIntyre lt;[EMAIL PROTECTED]gt;
Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is
the general idea is that if the ko represents something of value X,
then making threats of value X will force your opponent to answer,
and if he does not have as many threats of value X as you do, then
you can eventually win the ko fight (by filling the ko) and gain X-(value of
sente) points, or
ah, sorry to respond to my own post, but of course if the
game is close, the threat doesn't even need to be of value X,
if it is large enough to threaten to win the game, which can
happen in near-endgame situations.
the idea is that you start a ko for something that your opponent
is absolutely
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,
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
Christoph Birk wrote:
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
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
Don Dailey wrote:
If the opponent is beating you, he is probably relatively near your
strength level. If your program KNOWS it is losing by 0.5 points, then
it's reasonable to expect that your opponent does too, especially given
the fact that he just outplayed you.
Don't forget handicap
Christoph Birk wrote:
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.
I think you are too much of chess player :-)
The fact that he is 0.5 point in the lead does not imply he is
(much) stronger.
I didn't say that. My point is that if he is beating you then he is
not likely to be a lot weaker than you, and so he is probably just as
aware as you are
] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar Farnebäck
Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 11:34 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: Re : endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0
?])
Don Dailey wrote:
How do the classic programs handle these sequences of ko threats
On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 12:15:36PM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote:
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
# One question: where _aya_ comes from or stands for? If my guess is
correct, you are confusing Hiroshi, author of Aya, and I, Hideki,
author of GGMC :). I'm sorry if I'm wrong.
I did. Sorry for the confusion. :(
Jonas
___
computer-go mailing
From my observaion, mc chooses good moves if and only if the winning
rate is near 50%. Once it gets loosing, it plays bad moves. Surely
it's an illusion but it helps to prevent them.
If it's more important to avoid being too pessimistic (ie low estimated
winning rates), there are two ways
Hideki Kato wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is between 45% and 65%, Komi is unmodified.
There's one thing I don't like at all,
I don't see that, but then again I am not a very strong player
myself. What I notice is that it plays very normal until it's
pretty obvious that it's losing, not just when it varies slightly from
50% but when it doesn't vary much from zero. However, it does play
more desperately once
I don't like using the words good and bad when describing the
quality of the moves because I try to use terminology that's more
descriptive (although I fail miserably many times.)In a lost
position how do you distinguish one move from another when they all
lose? It sounds funny to
David Fotland wrote:
I don't like using the words good and bad when describing the
quality of the moves because I try to use terminology that's more
descriptive (although I fail miserably many times.)In a lost
position how do you distinguish one move from another when they all
lose?
Actually, I think the solution to all of this is relatively simple.
When the programs go into the state where the moves are no longer
cosmetically appealing it's because all the moves lead to the same
result, whether it be wins or losses.
That being so, one solution is to impose a different
Jonas Kahn wrote:
I don't see that, but then again I am not a very strong player
myself. What I notice is that it plays very normal until it's
pretty obvious that it's losing, not just when it varies slightly from
50% but when it doesn't vary much from zero. However, it does play
understanting, It is handled by
the UCT tree part.
- Message d'origine
De : steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 2 Mars 2008, 20h25mn 33s
Objet : Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]
a few subtleties --
it's possible
by the UCT tree part.
- Message d'origine
De : steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
À : computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 2 Mars 2008, 20h25mn 33s
Objet : Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]
a few subtleties --
it's possible for a machine
But correct ko threats playing has nothing to do with the playout part :
Since it is a strategic concept that involves global understanting, It is
handled by the UCT tree part.
Yes and no.
Theoretically, that's the work of the UCT part. But, as Steve pointed
out, kos can go on for long. I
computer-go@computer-go.org
Envoyé le : Dimanche, 2 Mars 2008, 21h32mn 43s
Objet : Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])
But correct ko threats playing has nothing to do with the playout part :
Since it is a strategic concept that involves global understanting
2008, 21h32mn 43s
Objet : Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])
But correct ko threats playing has nothing to do with the playout part :
Since it is a strategic concept that involves global understanting, It is
handled by the UCT tree part.
Yes
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is between 45% and 65%, Komi is unmodified.
There's one thing I don't like at all, there: you could get positive
evaluation when losing, and hence play
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is between 45% and 65%, Komi is unmodified.
There's one thing I don't like at all, there: you could get positive
Welcome Jonas.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I experimented with something similar a while ago, using the
publicly available mogo and manipulating komi between moves.
If its win probability fell below a certain threshold (and the move
number wasn't too high), I told it to play on the
Hideki Kato wrote:
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is around 50%, Komi is unmodified.
I don't think the formula you posted is correct.
In the opening it gives delta_komi = 0.8 and in the
Gian-Carlo Pascutto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hideki Kato wrote:
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is around 50%, Komi is unmodified.
I don't think the formula you posted is correct.
It's just an
Hideki Kato wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hideki Kato wrote:
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is around 50%, Komi is unmodified.
I don't think the formula you posted is
Gian-Carlo Pascutto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hideki Kato wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hideki Kato wrote:
delta_komi = 10^(K * (number_of_empty_points / 400 - 1)),
where K is 1 if winnig and is 2 if loosing. Also, if expected
winning rate is around 50%, Komi is unmodified.
I
90 matches
Mail list logo
