Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On 13-aug-08, at 00:18, David Fotland wrote: I don't know that joseki knowledge mad Many Faces stronger. Go Intellect always used to turn off the joseki libraries in tournaments against Many Faces, since it had a better win rate if it avoided joseki moves. I suppose that's some evidence that joseki knowledge helps. I think that's not exactly right. Joseki's may help. But another important feature of joseki is it makes the game a lot shorter. Since both sides potentially are going to agree on a long line of play, the whole joseki becomes as if it's one choice. If you play a weaker opponent, your chances improve as the game becomes longer. If I remember well this was exactly the reason Ken Chen sometimes turned joseki off, because he thought the contribution of strength of the joseki was smaller than the longer game-length against opponents he perceived weaker. Against Goliath he turned joseki on, for exactly the same reason. So if anything this is an argument against josekis, apparently it doesn't really add much strength. Against people they helped. But probably also because it helped make the game shorter against what was by then almost by defintition a stronger opponent. And it made people think better of the programs if they saw it play well-known joseki. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Here is my take on joseki and fuseki in computer programs. My older program Viking, had a quite nice patternmatching feature which matched the entire board or smaller parts of it towards a database of 50k games or so. It makes it play nice but as far as I could tell it had no impact on the strength of the program. With 9x9 I have used many systems learned or handmade, but it all boils down to that as been said earlier. It only works for a program that does not change, since it overfits its own strengths and weaknesses. -- Magnus Persson Berlin, Germany ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:38 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote: Here is my take on joseki and fuseki in computer programs. My older program Viking, had a quite nice patternmatching feature which matched the entire board or smaller parts of it towards a database of 50k games or so. It makes it play nice but as far as I could tell it had no impact on the strength of the program. With 9x9 I have used many systems learned or handmade, but it all boils down to that as been said earlier. It only works for a program that does not change, since it overfits its own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, even in chess it seems to be best if you match the book to the program.In go it is perhaps not good to even try with a rapidly changing program. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:38 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote: Here is my take on joseki and fuseki in computer programs. My older program Viking, had a quite nice patternmatching feature which matched the entire board or smaller parts of it towards a database of 50k games or so. It makes it play nice but as far as I could tell it had no impact on the strength of the program. With 9x9 I have used many systems learned or handmade, but it all boils down to that as been said earlier. It only works for a program that does not change, since it overfits its own strengths and weaknesses. Yes, even in chess it seems to be best if you match the book to the program. In go it is perhaps not good to even try with a rapidly changing program. So far, all experience with programs and joseki on 19x19 boards has been with kyu-level programs, since heretofore there have been no dan-level programs on the 19x19 board. The proverb learn joseki, lose three stones may apply to programs, for much the same reason - the program does not know how to exploit bad moves, nor how to preserve the advantages of playing good moves. An approach used for beginners is to learn simpler joseki which are easier to get right, and learn how to deal with common overplays. A common strategy by stronger players is to throw in an overplay which will baffle the beginner, causing him to make an inferior move. These overplays won't ever appear in professional game records, nor in most joseki books; they seem to be passed along by a secret fraternity. Many joseki depend upon an exact calculation of liberties and tesuji; in the recent demo game between Mogo and Myungwan Kim, Mogo won a capturing race by exactly one liberty. Any deviation from correct play would have cost Mogo a considerable number of points. It's hard to be sure with so few sample games, but I guess that Mogo with a ten-minute clock would have failed to find the correct line of play. Hence, any experiments with smaller resources available might have found knowledge of that joseki to be of little or negative value. With the current scarcity of supercomputers devoted to playing Go, it may be impossible to take proper advantage of a pro-level opening book - now. The takeaway for humans and computers seems to be to learn those joseki which you can understand and use well at your current level of skill. Can playouts as presently implemented efficiently exploit joseki knowledge? Can they be designed to do so? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
terry mcintyre wrote: Thank you! At present, computer go programs may be strong relative to each other, and they may actually beat some humans of moderate ability, especially at timescales too quick for amateur humans, but most programs also have high-kyu-sized gaps in their knowledge, including seki and nakade concepts. We won't see programs regularly beating pros until those gaps are filled. Maybe, but maybe it's not even needed. Each time Leela gets online after absence on KGS, it gets flooded with players who have observed the games and who think like you, i.e. the computer is only rated 2k because some amateur fools made huge mistakes in quick games, so let me use the fact that it's horribly overrated to improve my own rating. The net result is usually that Leela rating goes up more because those players end up face down in the mud. It's only when players who have played it before face it, that the correction sets in. I've said it before and I'll say it again: it is perfectly possible to have huge knowledge and ability gaps and still be an extremely strong player. There are ample examples. Computer chess programs still suck horribly in some blocked positions. Substituting billions of playouts for a life-or-death or seki analysis which 10 kyu players can manage in seconds is inefficient; computers could be doing something more effective with that time. Due to the nature of the problem no reasonable amount of playouts helps Leela, so I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. I understood for example MoGo is now better at this and still uses Monte Carlo. So I think the jury is not out yet whether this really needs another approach. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game, and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a stronger opponent... ... I did a bunch of experiments and ALWAYS got a reduced wins when I faked the komi. But there are a million ways to do this and I may not have stumbled on the right way. Hi Don, I thought about this some more and I assume you only tested against other programs that also had high error margin at the start of the game, and low error margin in the endgame (i.e. other MCTS programs)? A human player's errors are perhaps more consistent: stronger in the opening due to learnt positions, stronger in the middle game due to pattern and shape knowledge, but the endgame is weaker. So, if you fiddle with komi against that sort of opponent what would happen I wonder? Unfortunately that is a much harder experiment to perform. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far ahead for the first few moves that is was playing arbitrarily. In fact, Leela thought itself ahead at 80% for most of the game. It's only in the last 15 moves or so that the score started dropping. In the ending position it starts out at 40% and drops to 30% eventually. but surely you need an opening book to allow for the fact that evaluations are going to have a high error margin in the early game? I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the program is still improving so quickly. From another angle: if a UCT computer program is being given a handicap against a stronger player it should lie to itself about the komi at the start. It could then gradually adjust komi so it is at the correct value by the early middle game (e.g. move 6 in 9x9 go, move 30 in 19x19 go). Or it could keep adjusting komi (until it reaches the actual komi) so that it thinks it is only just winning. There have been previous discussions about this. It may or may not work - I haven't tested it because there are annoying implementation side-effects. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Mr. Okasaki, a strong amatur, tested MoGo with a 9 stones handicap game at winning rate around 50% by adjusting komi on each move and reported it played clearly stronger than others, say, on KGS and the cluster version at Paris. Unfortunately it sounds rather like a subjective measurement. This is tricky because moves which optimize the winning percentage can look like blunders to humans, even though they clearly are not. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
I think most programs developed by people who did not write old scool programs has serious problems with seki. Valkyria detects some basic seki shapes, but has problems with nakade/seki. -Magnus Quoting Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]: You're right, my reply was sloppy (it seems I'm too much used to Japanese rules). Also I should have read GCP's email more carefully; I did not realize that his program, even with a large tree, would not be able to recognize the seki. I knew of course that the original Mogo playouts had this problem, but I thought all strong programs had solved it by now... ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the program is still improving so quickly. I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program improved substantially, so it was a program. I essentially deep-search each new position encountered. So each game played presented a new book position to learn which I did off-line. It even had variety - I didn't want it too predictable so I deep searched N times, and used the moves in the same ratio they were chosen. Usually only 1 or 2 moves get played. I stopped searching N times when the probability of an opponent being able to get you to some position on purpose went below 1%. Then I still deep searched but only 1 time. That worked quite well. It doesn't always play great moves, but it is like increasing the level substantially for a few moves and saving a lot of time. I'm not sure which helped the most. It's an unsatisfying way to build a book and so I agree with you. It is tied to the power of the computer you are running on (if you upgrade your computer the benefit of the book is reduced) and if you upgrade your program you must recompute the book. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the program is still improving so quickly. I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program improved substantially, so it was a program. I essentially deep- search each new position encountered. So each game played presented a new book position to learn which I did off-line. It even had variety - I didn't want it too predictable so I deep searched N times, and used the moves in the same ratio they were chosen. Usually only 1 or 2 moves get played. This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an opening book as codified theory and wisdom gained over the entire history of the game (semeais and joseki). How could adding established semeai and joseki patterns (probably for early move selection and bias) to a program make it weaker? If anything, the global view of full-board MCTS has the potential to make better use of semeai and joseki patterns than the classical shallow-search programs. Self-learned books were also abandoned in chess. Hand tuned books are labor intensive, often requiring a separate team member to create them, but the best chess programs all have them. Ian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
what happens when the opponent deviates from joseki? knowing how to punish joseki mistakes can be very, very tricky. also knowing which joseki to use where is very, very sophisticated. the wrong joseki can be worse globally than a non-joseki move. s. On 8/12/08, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the program is still improving so quickly. I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program improved substantially, so it was a program. I essentially deep-search each new position encountered. So each game played presented a new book position to learn which I did off-line. It even had variety - I didn't want it too predictable so I deep searched N times, and used the moves in the same ratio they were chosen. Usually only 1 or 2 moves get played. This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an opening book as codified theory and wisdom gained over the entire history of the game (semeais and joseki). How could adding established semeai and joseki patterns (probably for early move selection and bias) to a program make it weaker? If anything, the global view of full-board MCTS has the potential to make better use of semeai and joseki patterns than the classical shallow-search programs. Self-learned books were also abandoned in chess. Hand tuned books are labor intensive, often requiring a separate team member to create them, but the best chess programs all have them. Ian ___ 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] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:18 AM, steve uurtamo wrote: On 8/12/08, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the program is still improving so quickly. I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program improved substantially, so it was a program. I essentially deep- search each new position encountered. So each game played presented a new book position to learn which I did off-line. It even had variety - I didn't want it too predictable so I deep searched N times, and used the moves in the same ratio they were chosen. Usually only 1 or 2 moves get played. This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an opening book as codified theory and wisdom gained over the entire history of the game (semeais and joseki). How could adding established semeai and joseki patterns (probably for early move selection and bias) to a program make it weaker? If anything, the global view of full-board MCTS has the potential to make better use of semeai and joseki patterns than the classical shallow-search programs. Self-learned books were also abandoned in chess. Hand tuned books are labor intensive, often requiring a separate team member to create them, but the best chess programs all have them. Ian what happens when the opponent deviates from joseki? knowing how to punish joseki mistakes can be very, very tricky. also knowing which joseki to use where is very, very sophisticated. the wrong joseki can be worse globally than a non-joseki move. s. The punishing moves, if tricky, would naturally be added to the library. I was hoping that the global search would take care of choosing the appropriate semeais/josekis for the overall board situation. I realize that this is not as easy to implement as the canned opening moves of a chess program, but the value of the system is the same: better opening play and more thinking time for the remaining moves. I hope that David Fotland can chime in here on value of joseki libraries on program strength. Also, which existing classical program is considered the best semeai player? Ian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
From: steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] what happens when the opponent deviates from joseki? knowing how to punish joseki mistakes can be very, very tricky. From my observations at the mogo-vs-pro game, given lots of time and CPU cores, Mogo is able to discover how to punish such deviations. In any case, it is possible to add such punishing moves to the joseki database -- joseki databases such as Kogo often include refutations of bad plays. It is also possible to pre-compute possible refutations. Joseki plays, properly used, lead to an even result; non-joseki, properly refuted, quickly lead to a disparity in the likely score, and hence to the predicted winrate. also knowing which joseki to use where is very, very sophisticated. the wrong joseki can be worse globally than a non-joseki move. One hopes that the global search capability of UCT programs will discover which joseki lead to higher winrates. The proper refutation of a bad choice of joseki will lead to a lower predicted score and should therefore dominate the winrate. Joseki should not be treated as mandatory, but as higher-probability branches of the tree, as a form of move ordering to increase the effectiveness of the search. When pros play, they are likely to consider joseki first in their much more selective search trees, and will select something off the beaten path when surrounding circumstances differ. Joseki often provide three or four valid continuations, each of which is likely to lead to a different direction of play. Many joseki texts include such circumstances. Play A works only if the ladder favors Black; play B involves a ko; play C may be chosen if there is a stone along the side; the pincer at D emphasizes outside influence. These could provide hints to a smart global search. Fuseki databases help decide which joseki are most appropriate. I recommend Kiseido's A Dictionary of Modern Fuseki / The Korean Style, which seems to be very thorough and accessible to a kyu-level player such as myself. For non Go players, Fuseki are tested whole-board opening sequences; Joseki are local sequences, usually played out the corners - but some, such as the avalanche joseki, can quickly cover a large section of the board; and some have dependencies on distant parts of the board, such as ladder-breakers and stones near one side or the other. There's a subtle point in handicap joseki -- if you want to win against an inferior opponent who has a large handicap, you must make deliberate overplays which would be non-optimal against a strong player. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 10:41 -0700, Ian Osgood wrote: On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the program is still improving so quickly. I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program improved substantially, so it was a program. I essentially deep- search each new position encountered. So each game played presented a new book position to learn which I did off-line. It even had variety - I didn't want it too predictable so I deep searched N times, and used the moves in the same ratio they were chosen. Usually only 1 or 2 moves get played. This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an opening book as codified theory and wisdom gained over the entire history of the game (semeais and joseki). Yes, my implementation is nothing like established theory, but I'm such a weak go player that I have no other way. This was used on 9x9, I don't think it would be very useful on the big board. Some day, in the distant future, we will be very careful about using compiled human knowledge. As in chess, it is important to double check the analysis, a lot of move played by humans in the opening have been busted or show weak. Chess programs are now active participants in creating opening theory. - Don How could adding established semeai and joseki patterns (probably for early move selection and bias) to a program make it weaker? If anything, the global view of full-board MCTS has the potential to make better use of semeai and joseki patterns than the classical shallow-search programs. Self-learned books were also abandoned in chess. Hand tuned books are labor intensive, often requiring a separate team member to create them, but the best chess programs all have them. Ian ___ 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] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Osgood This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an opening book as codified theory and wisdom gained over the entire history of the game (semeais and joseki). How could adding established semeai and joseki patterns (probably for early move selection and bias) to a program make it weaker? If anything, the global view of full-board MCTS has the potential to make better use of semeai and joseki patterns than the classical shallow-search programs. Many Faces has a large opening book, and the UCT version uses all of Many Faces' knowledge. It has a full board book built from about 50K professional and another 50K strong amateur games. It has a joseki book built from every move in every book of joseki published in English before 2002, and a few joseki from a huge Japanese language joseki dictionary. For 9x9 it has a fuseki book from pro and CGOS strong program games. I think the books help, but I didn't test it yet. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
I hope that David Fotland can chime in here on value of joseki libraries on program strength. Also, which existing classical program is considered the best semeai player? Ian I don't know that joseki knowledge mad Many Faces stronger. Go Intellect always used to turn off the joseki libraries in tournaments against Many Faces, since it had a better win rate if it avoided joseki moves. I suppose that's some evidence that joseki knowledge helps. I added joseki primarily so the program would play better openings against people. For a long time Many Faces was the strongest tactical and semeai program. I had fewer patterns than other strong programs and depended more on catching groups to win. I'm not sure if that is still true. Gnugo has gotten much stronger tactically in the last few years. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Hello all the European Go Congress was a little short of organizers, it seems, as Sweden is a small country, so some of us who had planned to work on the web site were shifted to work with registration, info-desk and other vital tasks. This has led to some delays in reporting the results. I apologize. The results from 19x19: http://www.gokgs.com/tournEntrants.jsp? sort=sid=407 and from 9x9: http://www.gokgs.com/tournEntrants.jsp?sort=sid=408 It should come up on our website too, but I guess the KGS-pages will do fine until our webmasters have grabbed a 48-hour nap. :) Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen as a warm-up before MoGo's game. I will be back with the review as an SGF-file, that is what I managed to note from her review. Best Basti Weidemyr In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Hi all, there doesn't seem to be any news from the European Go Congress. Nevertheless, I see that partial results were posted: 19 x 19 Results 1stCrazy Stone 6/6 2ndLeela 5/6 3rdMany Faces of Go4/6 9 x 9 Results 1stLeela 4/5, SoDOS=13 2ndCrazy Stone 4/5, SoDOS=12 Also I see: Thursday August 7th about 19:00 (17:00 GMT)Demonstration 9×9 game between winning 9x9 program (Leela) and professional. This game should be played via KGS. What happened in this game?? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen as a warm-up before MoGo's game. I will be back with the review as an SGF-file, that is what I managed to note from her review. Thanks. I tried to analyze with Leela, but it thinks for a long time black still has chances and only starts dropping a bit after a long think. It would not have resigned in this position. Looking at the SGF I see white was about to lose on time. I have the nagging feeling Leela's operator resigned on behalf of the program to prevent the computer from winning on time in what was probably an objectively a lost position. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen as a warm-up before MoGo's game. I will be back with the review as an SGF-file, that is what I managed to note from her review. Thanks. I tried to analyze with Leela, but it thinks for a long time black still has chances and only starts dropping a bit after a long think. It would not have resigned in this position. Looking at the SGF I see white was about to lose on time. I have the nagging feeling Leela's operator resigned on behalf of the program to prevent the computer from winning on time in what was probably an objectively a lost position. When I look at the game record, I see that at the end, the pro has 7:59 left, Leela 4:25. And Black is totally lost: White will capture the d4 group which only has two liberties, connecting her three groups which already have at least four liberties each, and leaving Black's b2 and b7 groups dead. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], When I look at the game record, I see that at the end, the pro has 7:59 left, Leela 4:25. And Black is totally lost: White will capture the d4 group which only has two liberties, connecting her three groups which already have at least four liberties each, and leaving Black's b2 and b7 groups dead. Hi, this is another game! The game you posted and the one on KGS are totally different. In the one on KGS, black played with reduced komi and (as far as I can tell) held out a long time until white was about to forfeit on time. In the one you posted, the opponent doesn't appear to be a pro (sestir 2d instead of egc1p), no handicap/modified komi was used, and black lost quickly. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], When I look at the game record, I see that at the end, the pro has 7:59 left, Leela 4:25. And Black is totally lost: White will capture the d4 group which only has two liberties, connecting her three groups which already have at least four liberties each, and leaving Black's b2 and b7 groups dead. Hi, this is another game! The game you posted and the one on KGS are totally different. In the one on KGS, black played with reduced komi and (as far as I can tell) held out a long time until white was about to forfeit on time. In the one you posted, the opponent doesn't appear to be a pro (sestir 2d instead of egc1p), no handicap/modified komi was used, and black lost quickly. sestir is Basti Weidemyr, who was in charge of arranging the challenge game. He has just posted to this list, so I hope he will explain what happened. Looking at LeelaBot's games on KGS since the tournament, I see only two: the one I posted, against sestir, and one against egc1p with 0.5 komi, which I cannot open, as it was not finished by the players and KGS is treating it as escaped. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Nick Wedd wrote: Looking at LeelaBot's games on KGS since the tournament, I see only two: the one I posted, against sestir, and one against egc1p with 0.5 komi, which I cannot open, as it was not finished by the players and KGS is treating it as escaped. Nick The link I sent yesterday works for me: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2008/8/7/egc1p-LeelaBot.sgf Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:40 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen as a warm-up before MoGo's game. I will be back with the review as an SGF-file, that is what I managed to note from her review. Thanks. I tried to analyze with Leela, but it thinks for a long time black still has chances and only starts dropping a bit after a long think. It would not have resigned in this position. Looking at the SGF I see white was about to lose on time. I have the nagging feeling Leela's operator resigned on behalf of the program to prevent the computer from winning on time in what was probably an objectively a lost position. I hope that didn't happen. Otherwise, should have not played with clocks. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:26 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes this is another game! The game you posted and the one on KGS are totally different. In the one on KGS, black played with reduced komi and (as far as I can tell) held out a long time until white was about to forfeit on time. In the one you posted, the opponent doesn't appear to be a pro (sestir 2d instead of egc1p), no handicap/modified komi was used, and black lost quickly. In my curiousity to see the right game (which KGS would not let me do because it was treating it as escaped), I have done something foolish. I am admitting this here to get the record straight. I logged in to KGS using LeelaBot's account, and opened (and saved) the game. The game was still running, so there can have been no resignation. LeelaBot had over a minute left, I think less than 80 seconds but I don't remember exactly. The pro had three seconds left. This was foolish of me because I had resumed the game, and was allowing LeelaBot's time to pass. I have carelessly destroyed the evidence of LeelaBot's remaining time. There is now only my word (and perhaps the operator's) for my claim that LeelaBot had more than a minute left. I think you will be forgiven. To err is human. Nick ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], This was foolish of me because I had resumed the game, and was allowing LeelaBot's time to pass. I have carelessly destroyed the evidence of LeelaBot's remaining time. There is now only my word (and perhaps the operator's) for my claim that LeelaBot had more than a minute left. No worries :) I saved the game earlier today after Remi posted the link and before you resumed it. It is included in attachement. Leela scores this at about 30% winning chances for itself after a long think. I have no idea whether that's a reasonable assesement. -- GCP(;GM[1]FF[4]CA[UTF-8]AP[CGoban:3]ST[2] RU[Chinese]SZ[9]KM[0.50]TM[900] PW[egc1p]PB[LeelaBot]BR[2k]DT[2008-08-07]PC[The KGS Go Server at http://www.gokgs.com/]C[LeelaBot [2k\]: GTP Engine for LeelaBot (black): Leela version 0.3.14 ] ;B[ee]BL[863.668] ;W[ge]WL[876.158] ;B[ff]BL[799.072] ;W[ed]WL[819.939] ;B[dd]BL[739.277] ;W[ec]WL[786.111] ;B[cc]BL[683.916]C[sestir [2d\]: This game is with reduced komi - a handicap to the robot. ] ;W[cf]WL[617.097] ;B[ce]BL[632.695] ;W[df]WL[613.487] ;B[de]BL[585.351] ;W[fe]WL[562.183]C[sestir [2d\]: white: Xiao Ai Lin, 1p sestir [2d\]: black: Leela - the winner of yesterday's computer-go tournament on 9x9 ] ;B[ef]BL[541.529] ;W[dh]WL[554.55] ;B[gc]BL[518.749] ;W[fc]WL[535.634] ;B[hd]BL[499.271] ;W[gf]WL[399.993] ;B[gg]BL[461.913] ;W[hg]WL[389.159] ;B[eh]BL[427.467] ;W[be]WL[317.222] ;B[gh]BL[409.83] ;W[gb]WL[290.491] ;B[hb]BL[394.384] ;W[gd]WL[269.866] ;B[hc]BL[379.504] ;W[fb]WL[265.178] ;B[he]BL[365.168] ;W[hf]WL[262.259] ;B[bg]BL[351.413] ;W[bf]WL[229.446] ;B[ch]BL[325.177] ;W[di]WL[224.616] ;B[bh]BL[300.836] ;W[dg]WL[212.215] ;B[bd]BL[278.386] ;W[ag]WL[153.546] ;B[hh]BL[264.237] ;W[ha]WL[121.016] ;B[ie]BL[244.544] ;W[ih]WL[93.559] ;B[ah]BL[226.347] ;W[ae]WL[81.18] ;B[ga]BL[217.757] ;W[fa]WL[75.826] ;B[ib]BL[201.546] ;W[db]WL[63.589] ;B[cb]BL[186.553] ;W[ga]WL[50.871] ;B[da]BL[172.73] ;W[if]WL[44.983] ;B[ca]BL[159.825] ;W[eg]WL[41.384] ;B[fg]BL[153.781] ;W[ei]WL[38.3] ;B[gi]BL[142.393] ;W[fh]WL[34.496] ;B[bi]BL[131.84] ;W[fi]WL[29.929] ;B[eb]BL[126.443] ;W[ia]WL[25.454] ;B[ad]BL[119.513] ;W[ea]WL[22.432] ;B[dc]BL[111.198] ;W[ic]WL[19.499] ;B[af]BL[102.975] ;W[id]WL[15.899] ;B[hb]BL[99.063] ;W[ag]WL[11.939] ;B[bc]BL[91.754] ;W[af]WL[9.6] ;B[hd]BL[88.284] ;W[ii]WL[7.438] ;B[eb]BL[81.849] ;W[ig]WL[5.826] ;B[db]BL[75.919] ;W[hi]WL[3.82]C[sestir [2d\]: starts review RemiCoulom [5k\]: Well done, human player ! sestir [2d\]: indeed sestir [2d\]: review in demo ])___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], This was foolish of me because I had resumed the game, and was allowing LeelaBot's time to pass. I have carelessly destroyed the evidence of LeelaBot's remaining time. There is now only my word (and perhaps the operator's) for my claim that LeelaBot had more than a minute left. No worries :) I saved the game earlier today after Remi posted the link and before you resumed it. It is included in attachement. Leela scores this at about 30% winning chances for itself after a long think. I have no idea whether that's a reasonable assesement. If I am not mistaken, bottom left is seki. This is probably what Leela misunderstood. And it may also be what you don't understand. The game look like an obvious win for W, starting from move 62. So it looks very fair that Leela did not win on time. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Leela had 1 minute, 15 seconds and 919/1000 of a second left, according to the game-record. egc1p had 3.82 seconds left. What happened is still unclear and I do not know. It seems the professional had never played go on a computer before, at least not on KGS, so yes, we should probably have used longer time- settings, and explained that the robot would play plenty of unnecessary moves after filling dame. As time was running out and the robot played obstinate moves, I told the operator to kill it. However, it looked to me like he never touched the keyboard, so when a dialog appeared, stating that LeelaBot had resigned, I asked him if he had killed the robot, and he replied he did not. I assumed that it had resigned and we started the review. What would you have done in a case like this? :) - I recieved a correction from Gian-Carlo for the review ... I had guessed that Leela used an opening book, but it does not. /Basti ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Basti Weidemyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What would you have done in a case like this? :) Inspect the log file. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:54 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: As long as we're not there, these matches are a great promotion for the game of go. Just watch how much publicity the MoGo match got. And there's still lots of possibilities for the humans to take revenge, and for the computers to take counter-revenge... And I think we still have plenty of time before it gets to the point where computers are so clearly superior that it's pointless to play them. And well past that point in time computers can then be the one giving stones in handicap play. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Basti Weidemyr wrote: What would you have done in a case like this? :) You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) If Basti is correct that Leela resigned that would suggest that 'she' actually did understand. For the final position in the game record any strong human player will tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be gained and the result is obvious. If Leela had persisted in attempting to push the opponent through the clock, then I guess any EGC referee would have considered that 'unsportsmanlike' behavior (but it would of course be nice to know for sure). As time was running out and the robot played obstinate moves, I told the operator to kill it. However, it looked to me like he never touched the keyboard, so when a dialog appeared, stating that LeelaBot had resigned, I asked him if he had killed the robot, and he replied he did not. The KGS server should have recorded the resignation instantly, but there is no sign of it in the game record. Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then keeps pondering when the game is already over). It's a long shot but maybe this behavior somehow also goes the other way around? Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then keeps pondering when the game is already over). KgsGtp should send kgs-game_over in such cases. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then keeps pondering when the game is already over). KgsGtp should send kgs-game_over in such cases. Hmm, guess I missed that command. I had solved the issue by setting an upper bound on the ponder time, which also works well for playing manually. Thanks, Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Erik van der Werf wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) If Basti is correct that Leela resigned that would suggest that 'she' actually did understand. Why you are arguing with me about this? I am the author, I have the binary. It does not understand the seki at any level. Now, if the Leela binary would somehow have gained a better understanding of seki on the trip to Leksand, that would just be _scary_ :) Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then keeps pondering when the game is already over). It's a long shot but maybe this behavior somehow also goes the other way around? I hope not. This would mean the opponents in those games would have to sit out the remaining time. It cannot have happened anyway - in your case either Leela or kgsGtp would have to have popped up the mysterious window, and neither has that ability as far as I know. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Erik van der Werf wrote: For the final position in the game record any strong human player will tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be gained and the result is obvious. Actually there's one point left to gain in the seki, since the game is played with Chinese rules. ;-) /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote: Basti Weidemyr wrote: What would you have done in a case like this? :) You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive. Yes, and I really hate this. You have a situation where the actual winner has to resign the game in order to not be ridiculed as being petty. And is the human player supposed to feel good about his victory? - Don Rémi ___ 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] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Aug 11, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote: Basti Weidemyr wrote: What would you have done in a case like this? :) You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive. Yes, and I really hate this. You have a situation where the actual winner has to resign the game in order to not be ridiculed as being petty. I hate absolute time limits for this reason. Even a small byo yomi prevents wins for such a stupid reason. Certainly, humans can't have 10 millisecond response times like a computer. And is the human player supposed to feel good about his victory? Nobody should be happy with a game decided by time in late yose. Of course, rules are rules. I just don't play games with absolute time - Don Rémi ___ 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 mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:02 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) If Basti is correct that Leela resigned that would suggest that 'she' actually did understand. For the final position in the game record any strong human player will tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be gained and the result is obvious. If Leela had persisted in attempting to push the opponent through the clock, then I guess any EGC referee would have considered that 'unsportsmanlike' behavior (but it would of course be nice to know for sure). But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter the domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized. How clear does it have to be there is a win? Who decides where the gray area is? In chess it's been an important part of the game. You can get great positions if you spend a lot of time thinking and it's clear that is true in GO too.The longer I think, the better on average my position will be. But if I am less honest than my opponent about managing my time, why should I be given a free pass? I think the best thing is to use a Fischer clock with 1 or 2 seconds added per move and be religiously strict about honoring the rules. The rules I'm talking about, by the way, are the rules that you agreed to play by, before starting the game. The Fischer clock will protect you from unexpectedly long end games. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want my games judged. I don't want anybody saying that you lose even though my opponent used too much time. If you want to grant wins to the time loser, then instead of requiring someone to judge the result spell out the kinds of positions where the game should be stopped. If you cannot spell it out, then you have to judge it. - Don As time was running out and the robot played obstinate moves, I told the operator to kill it. However, it looked to me like he never touched the keyboard, so when a dialog appeared, stating that LeelaBot had resigned, I asked him if he had killed the robot, and he replied he did not. The KGS server should have recorded the resignation instantly, but there is no sign of it in the game record. Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then keeps pondering when the game is already over). It's a long shot but maybe this behavior somehow also goes the other way around? Erik ___ 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] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
I agree with you Jason. I advocate the more modern Fisher clock, where some fixed amount of time is added to each move and remains yours to keep. Even 1 or 2 seconds per move is enough since you can build up time. - Don On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:18 -0400, Jason House wrote: On Aug 11, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote: Basti Weidemyr wrote: What would you have done in a case like this? :) You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive. Yes, and I really hate this. You have a situation where the actual winner has to resign the game in order to not be ridiculed as being petty. I hate absolute time limits for this reason. Even a small byo yomi prevents wins for such a stupid reason. Certainly, humans can't have 10 millisecond response times like a computer. And is the human player supposed to feel good about his victory? Nobody should be happy with a game decided by time in late yose. Of course, rules are rules. I just don't play games with absolute time - Don Rémi ___ 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 mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:02 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) If Basti is correct that Leela resigned that would suggest that 'she' actually did understand. For the final position in the game record any strong human player will tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be gained and the result is obvious. If Leela had persisted in attempting to push the opponent through the clock, then I guess any EGC referee would have considered that 'unsportsmanlike' behavior (but it would of course be nice to know for sure). But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter the domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized. How clear does it have to be there is a win? Who decides where the gray area is? In chess it's been an important part of the game. You can get great positions if you spend a lot of time thinking and it's clear that is true in GO too.The longer I think, the better on average my position will be. But if I am less honest than my opponent about managing my time, why should I be given a free pass? I think the best thing is to use a Fischer clock with 1 or 2 seconds added per move and be religiously strict about honoring the rules. The rules I'm talking about, by the way, are the rules that you agreed to play by, before starting the game. The Fischer clock will protect you from unexpectedly long end games. Maybe it's just me, but I don't want my games judged. No sane tournament director wants to have to use his judgement (though it may be necessary). I think Fischer time would be an excellent solution. Nick I don't want anybody saying that you lose even though my opponent used too much time. If you want to grant wins to the time loser, then instead of requiring someone to judge the result spell out the kinds of positions where the game should be stopped. If you cannot spell it out, then you have to judge it. - Don As time was running out and the robot played obstinate moves, I told the operator to kill it. However, it looked to me like he never touched the keyboard, so when a dialog appeared, stating that LeelaBot had resigned, I asked him if he had killed the robot, and he replied he did not. The KGS server should have recorded the resignation instantly, but there is no sign of it in the game record. Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then keeps pondering when the game is already over). It's a long shot but maybe this behavior somehow also goes the other way around? Erik ___ 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/ -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On 11-aug-08, at 15:23, Don Dailey wrote: But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter the domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized. I don't agree with such an unforgiving attitude at all. It works for tournaments but not for demonstration games. You don't want to give fuel to those who argue yeah, but the computer can respond in a millisecond where the human has a physical response time of at least half a second. In demonstration games what is important is the spirit. And it doesn't do the computer-Go community any good for a program to persist in an absolutely lost position, play one for a hundred more moves that the human is physically unable to play in time. It will have to give one way or another. I also don't like the fixed time-limit very much because Go has such an unpredictable game- length. So Fisher time could be a solution. On the other hand, once the level of the programs becomes well established, programmers could also make it resign a lot sooner. In a 1,000 ELO game a 99% win-rate might occasionally still turn around. But they'll probably find out that as the level gets higher, say 3,000 ELO, you end up never turning around a 90% win-rate. Or maybe even 80%. If programmers want humans to play their software then they have to be also a little accomodating in that respect, even if that means giving up a game where you might still win once in a thousand times. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:16 -0300, Mark Boon wrote: On 11-aug-08, at 15:23, Don Dailey wrote: But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter the domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized. I don't agree with such an unforgiving attitude at all. It works for tournaments but not for demonstration games. You don't want to give fuel to those who argue yeah, but the computer can respond in a millisecond where the human has a physical response time of at least half a second. This is not an unforgiving attitude as you cast it. It is just the opposite. How is it you view taking a game away from the rightful winner as being forgiving? It shows no respect for the human being behind the program. It's real easy when you don't see anything but an unfeeling robot, but if it had been another person sitting behind that chair he would likely feel that someone had been heavy handed. It's easy to be gracious when you are not the victim. I would be angry if I worked hard to control my time usage, only for my opponent to be forgiven at my expense, despite the rules. And if this really is just a fun little demonstration game, then do not use clocks, that was certainly not in the spirit of things. - Don In demonstration games what is important is the spirit. And it doesn't do the computer-Go community any good for a program to persist in an absolutely lost position, play one for a hundred more moves that the human is physically unable to play in time. It will have to give one way or another. I also don't like the fixed time-limit very much because Go has such an unpredictable game-length. So Fisher time could be a solution. On the other hand, once the level of the programs becomes well established, programmers could also make it resign a lot sooner. In a 1,000 ELO game a 99% win-rate might occasionally still turn around. But they'll probably find out that as the level gets higher, say 3,000 ELO, you end up never turning around a 90% win-rate. Or maybe even 80%. If programmers want humans to play their software then they have to be also a little accomodating in that respect, even if that means giving up a game where you might still win once in a thousand times. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
I think the result computer in hopelessly lost position resigns. is much more satisfactory than computer in hopelessly lost position wins by playing 100 additional pointless moves I think a human who used this tactic in a tournament situation might win the trophy, but would be unable to show his face again. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
I think the result computer in hopelessly lost position resigns. is much more satisfactory than computer in hopelessly lost position wins by playing 100 additional pointless moves I think a human who used this tactic in a tournament situation might win the trophy, but would be unable to show his face again. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Sent from my iPhone On Aug 11, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be angry if I worked hard to control my time usage, only for my opponent to be forgiven at my expense, despite the rules. Hmmm... This sounds very familiar... ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
But let's not exaggerate. This was not just a simple matter of filling empty points. 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. At the very least the game should not be stopped until both players understand the position. - Don On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 13:16 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote: I think the result computer in hopelessly lost position resigns. is much more satisfactory than computer in hopelessly lost position wins by playing 100 additional pointless moves I think a human who used this tactic in a tournament situation might win the trophy, but would be unable to show his face again. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
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. That's because it involves a Seki that Leela does not handle properly, but any 10 kyu should recognize. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Jason House wrote: On Aug 11, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would be angry if I worked hard to control my time usage, only for my opponent to be forgiven at my expense, despite the rules. Hmmm... This sounds very familiar... Yes. Notice how there is a clear discrimination on this list in favor of 19-year old females. This is an unexplicable attitude for a group of 16 to 70 year old male computer freaks. Leela now plays faster in some situations as a result of the loss on time against HouseBot. It might have been a factor in this game. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Erik van der Werf wrote: For the final position in the game record any strong human player will tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be gained and the result is obvious. Actually there's one point left to gain in the seki, since the game is played with Chinese rules. ;-) You're right, my reply was sloppy (it seems I'm too much used to Japanese rules). Also I should have read GCP's email more carefully; I did not realize that his program, even with a large tree, would not be able to recognize the seki. I knew of course that the original Mogo playouts had this problem, but I thought all strong programs had solved it by now... Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
- Original Message From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Don Dailey wrote: 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. That's because it involves a Seki that Leela does not handle properly, but any 10 kyu should recognize. Thank you! At present, computer go programs may be strong relative to each other, and they may actually beat some humans of moderate ability, especially at timescales too quick for amateur humans, but most programs also have high-kyu-sized gaps in their knowledge, including seki and nakade concepts. We won't see programs regularly beating pros until those gaps are filled. Substituting billions of playouts for a life-or-death or seki analysis which 10 kyu players can manage in seconds is inefficient; computers could be doing something more effective with that time. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
[The pro] was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far ahead for the first few moves that is was playing arbitrarily. This is a direct consequence of the UCT algorithm playing for the win, instead of trying to maximize the score. I'm fine with that (please see the archives for numerous passionate discussion on the subject), but surely you need an opening book to allow for the fact that evaluations are going to have a high error margin in the early game? (I'll go out on a limb and say black 3 was a mistake; I'm sure it is a win at 0.5pt komi, but I strongly suspect it is dubious at 5.5pt komi or higher.) From another angle: if a UCT computer program is being given a handicap against a stronger player it should lie to itself about the komi at the start. It could then gradually adjust komi so it is at the correct value by the early middle game (e.g. move 6 in 9x9 go, move 30 in 19x19 go). Or it could keep adjusting komi (until it reaches the actual komi) so that it thinks it is only just winning. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
For the final position in the game record any strong human player will tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be gained and the result is obvious. Actually there's one point left to gain in the seki, since the game is played with Chinese rules. ;-) You're right, my reply was sloppy (it seems I'm too much used to Japanese rules). Also I should have read GCP's email more carefully; I did not realize that his program, even with a large tree, would not be able to recognize the seki. I knew of course that the original Mogo playouts had this problem, but I thought all strong programs had solved it by now... Can someone confirm this one way or the other? Has Mogo started explicitly recognizing seki, and if so which release version did that start at? More generally, has anyone seen increases/decreases in overall strength from explicitly checking for seki at leaf nodes? I remember reading that when nakade support was adding to Mogo it made it slightly stronger at 9x9, but weaker at 19x19. Was this version released, and can nakade support be switched on and off at the commandline? Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: [The pro] was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far ahead for the first few moves that is was playing arbitrarily. I was blasted for making that observation many months ago concerning the possibility of handicap matches on CGOS. I thought it not a good idea for Monte Carlo players because each player starting with a dead won or dead lost game. The response was that it didn't matter, the programs would still fight. So I yielded to the opinion of others since I am not a go player. I now think they were probably right. MCTS still tries to maximize the chances of winning. If you are up 8 or 9 stones, that is STILL the right strategy isn't it? Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is still the right strategy, right? I'm trying to come up with some kind of analogy to real life. How about investing your money? Let's say you play a game where the goal is to turn 500 thousand into 1 million dollars in 10 years. Double your money in 10 years is not particularly difficult so if the only thing that matters is winning this game then you would use very conservative investments. This is like being up 9 stones because in theory you have a relatively simple task to perform, just double your money. The temptation is to be foolish by thinking if you are a lot more aggressive, you can get ahead of the game and get there faster. Surely, if you have a good year or two, you can coast the rest of the way! Have you ever been with someone who is about to run out of gas? They want to drive FASTER thinking that if they get there faster, they will use less fuel. Or maybe they just get anxious which causes you to drive a little faster. This is a direct consequence of the UCT algorithm playing for the win, instead of trying to maximize the score. I'm fine with that (please see the archives for numerous passionate discussion on the subject), but surely you need an opening book to allow for the fact that evaluations are going to have a high error margin in the early game? (I'll go out on a limb and say black 3 was a mistake; I'm sure it is a win at 0.5pt komi, but I strongly suspect it is dubious at 5.5pt komi or higher.) From another angle: if a UCT computer program is being given a handicap against a stronger player it should lie to itself about the komi at the start. It could then gradually adjust komi so it is at the correct value by the early middle game (e.g. move 6 in 9x9 go, move 30 in 19x19 go). Or it could keep adjusting komi (until it reaches the actual komi) so that it thinks it is only just winning. It could turn out that the best strategy is simply to let the opponent play desperately and not over-react, because to have any chance when giving 9 stones you must in some sense over-play it. - Don Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: [The pro] was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it was dead lost. I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have put up more of a fight :-) My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far ahead for the first few moves that is was playing arbitrarily. I was blasted for making that observation many months ago concerning the possibility of handicap matches on CGOS. I thought it not a good idea for Monte Carlo players because each player starting with a dead won or dead lost game. The response was that it didn't matter, the programs would still fight. So I yielded to the opinion of others since I am not a go player. I now think they were probably right. MCTS still tries to maximize the chances of winning. If you are up 8 or 9 stones, that is STILL the right strategy isn't it? Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is still the right strategy, right? I think NO because of the model of the opponent. MCTS uses itself for the model but it's obvously not correct in hadicapped games. Hideki I'm trying to come up with some kind of analogy to real life. How about investing your money? Let's say you play a game where the goal is to turn 500 thousand into 1 million dollars in 10 years. Double your money in 10 years is not particularly difficult so if the only thing that matters is winning this game then you would use very conservative investments. This is like being up 9 stones because in theory you have a relatively simple task to perform, just double your money. The temptation is to be foolish by thinking if you are a lot more aggressive, you can get ahead of the game and get there faster. Surely, if you have a good year or two, you can coast the rest of the way! Have you ever been with someone who is about to run out of gas? They want to drive FASTER thinking that if they get there faster, they will use less fuel. Or maybe they just get anxious which causes you to drive a little faster. This is a direct consequence of the UCT algorithm playing for the win, instead of trying to maximize the score. I'm fine with that (please see the archives for numerous passionate discussion on the subject), but surely you need an opening book to allow for the fact that evaluations are going to have a high error margin in the early game? (I'll go out on a limb and say black 3 was a mistake; I'm sure it is a win at 0.5pt komi, but I strongly suspect it is dubious at 5.5pt komi or higher.) From another angle: if a UCT computer program is being given a handicap against a stronger player it should lie to itself about the komi at the start. It could then gradually adjust komi so it is at the correct value by the early middle game (e.g. move 6 in 9x9 go, move 30 in 19x19 go). Or it could keep adjusting komi (until it reaches the actual komi) so that it thinks it is only just winning. It could turn out that the best strategy is simply to let the opponent play desperately and not over-react, because to have any chance when giving 9 stones you must in some sense over-play it. - Don Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On 11, Aug 2008, at 7:23 PM, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far ahead for the first few moves that is was playing arbitrarily. I was blasted for making that observation many months ago concerning the possibility of handicap matches on CGOS. I thought it not a good idea for Monte Carlo players because each player starting with a dead won or dead lost game. The response was that it didn't matter, the programs would still fight. I wonder if this was part of the beginning move selection of Mogo in the games against Mr Kim. Can anyone on that team check their logs and respond? It could turn out that the best strategy is simply to let the opponent play desperately and not over-react, because to have any chance when giving 9 stones you must in some sense over-play it. This exact point was made in the post game analysis by Mr Kim. He explained that he expected about 1 dan replies to his approach in the lower right, and thus played to live in the corner and have an extension across the bottom. An observer said Oh, so you made an overplay. Mr Kim replied I have to overplay (against 9 stones). He later showed how he would have played it had he expected mogo to find what he called 4 or 5 dan moves. He also said that he was impressed with Mogo's ability to avoid overreacting, that it could not be provoked like a human once it was ahead. Mr Kim also said that from his perspective his opponent in the last 2 games felt completely different than in the first 2 games. The difference, of course, was the additional search time. In the 2nd game mogo played the first half thinking it had 10 minutes, even though the KGS clock was set to 15, and mid-game the operator realized the mistake, took it offline and fixed the clock before reconnecting. But it was too late, so Mr Kim, other than being confused by the opponent abandoning and reappearing, did not get much chance to see the difference in play. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is still the right strategy, right? With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game, and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a stronger opponent the assumption is that the weaker player will make more mistakes (i.e. has a higher error margin overall). But MCTS programs don't see it that way - their opponent model is the same strength as they are. So they choose a move that gives them 95% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves) instead of the better move that they only gives them a 90% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves). (I.e. I'm saying their error margin in the opening is much greater than the difference in their estimate of move values.) Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:50 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is still the right strategy, right? With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game, and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a stronger opponent the assumption is that the weaker player will make more mistakes (i.e. has a higher error margin overall). But MCTS programs don't see it that way - their opponent model is the same strength as they are. So they choose a move that gives them 95% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves) instead of the better move that they only gives them a 90% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves). (I.e. I'm saying their error margin in the opening is much greater than the difference in their estimate of move values.) There could be something to that. Do you believe that they will play the 90% move if they are told they are not really down 9 stones? I did a bunch of experiments and ALWAYS got a reduced wins when I faked the komi. But there are a million ways to do this and I may not have stumbled on the right way. - Don Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
-Original Message- From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:09 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress? On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:50 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is still the right strategy, right? With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game, and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a stronger opponent the assumption is that the weaker player will make more mistakes (i.e. has a higher error margin overall). But MCTS programs don't see it that way - their opponent model is the same strength as they are. So they choose a move that gives them 95% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves) instead of the better move that they only gives them a 90% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves). (I.e. I'm saying their error margin in the opening is much greater than the difference in their estimate of move values.) There could be something to that. Do you believe that they will play the 90% move if they are told they are not really down 9 stones? I did a bunch of experiments and ALWAYS got a reduced wins when I faked the komi. But there are a million ways to do this and I may not have stumbled on the right way. If my engine plays in a high handicap game (and it has to be a pretty high handicap), for the first moves, it can't see a difference for any moves and plays randomly. I can fix this by making the playout asymetrical. I make the playout moves for black lighter (higher probability of being random). With this adjustment, it makes reasonable looking moves. I haven't tested this extensively because I don't have any need for an engine that plays better in high handicap games. - Dave Hillis ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Do you believe that they will play the 90% move if they are told they are not really down 9 stones? I just did a quick test of Mogo in that same position (black E5, white E3). (After switching off its opening book, which ironically instantly plays the same black 3 F4 move I just said was bad.) At komi 7.5 it starts off liking E4 at 100,000 playouts, then switches to F3 (the keima attach) at 260,000 playouts, and sticks with F3 until the end (1.3 million playouts) with 49% confidence at the end. (F3 is a good move.) At komi 3.5 it starts with F3 this time, then at 190,000 playouts switches to D3 (the symmetrical move!) and sticks with that (1.4 million playouts, 55% confidence). At komi 0.5 it choose C5 (the whole way, except for a period of preferring G5, the symmetrical move), 60% confidence. (C5 is also a strong move, but I'd personally prefer F3 or E7.) So, in that very small experiment, faking komi chooses different moves, but they are probably equally good. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:50 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is still the right strategy, right? With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game, and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a stronger opponent the assumption is that the weaker player will make more mistakes (i.e. has a higher error margin overall). But MCTS programs don't see it that way - their opponent model is the same strength as they are. So they choose a move that gives them 95% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves) instead of the better move that they only gives them a 90% (+/- 20%) win (against themselves). (I.e. I'm saying their error margin in the opening is much greater than the difference in their estimate of move values.) There could be something to that. Do you believe that they will play the 90% move if they are told they are not really down 9 stones? I did a bunch of experiments and ALWAYS got a reduced wins when I faked the komi. But there are a million ways to do this and I may not have stumbled on the right way. Mr. Okasaki, a strong amatur, tested MoGo with a 9 stones handicap game at winning rate around 50% by adjusting komi on each move and reported it played clearly stronger than others, say, on KGS and the cluster version at Paris. Hideki -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
Erik van der Werf wrote: You're right, my reply was sloppy (it seems I'm too much used to Japanese rules). Also I should have read GCP's email more carefully; I did not realize that his program, even with a large tree, would not be able to recognize the seki. I knew of course that the original Mogo playouts had this problem, but I thought all strong programs had solved it by now... No, far from it in fact. If anyone has found a clean solution that does not make the program worse in other LD situations, I'm all ears. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
