Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Actually in computerchess it happens just sometimes and just by 1 team it has been done very clearly and that team is not from Europe yet from Middle East / Asia. The odds of an Asian cheating, someone who hardly makes enough cash to even pay for some basic things, are quite bigger than that someone from Western Europe, with on average a salary (for example in Netherlands) of 52000 euro a year for an IT guy, is going to cheat. The Asian has nothing to lose and even a 1000 dollars worth of sales in total he's happy with (and they all will be overestimating what you can make with computer- go with a tiny product). So except for this non-european team, I'm rather convinced that all the other teams past years were pretty clean. As a good chessplayer it's easy to see when someone cheats, in go that's even going to be easier. Considering how little progress the go program authors have made, other than importing computer chess authors, and considering the Asian problem of people who have nothing to lose, cheating is going to be a much bigger issue. The huge difference between computer-go and computerchess is obviously not only the level of the software, but especially the time. It is 2009 now. There is a range of new possibilities now to cheat. Either with or without remote machines. Furthermore behind the public naked eye, they learn from the computerchess guys how one can cheat without getting detected. So the only manner to detect cheats is in the method i described. Biggest hidden issue in computer games, both chess and go is probably stolen source code that gets used by some teams, rewritten to their own datastructure. Note that statistical seen in computerchess, considering the money that was at stake for some, there have been very few cheats at events; in normal sports with normal people that are a tad less clever, the amount of dope that gets used is a lot bigger. In fact in a normal sport without ANY form of dope you don't even get in top1000. Vincent On Apr 4, 2009, at 2:07 PM, Don Dailey wrote: On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 06:14 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote: Moreover, this is a really complicated issue. Yes, and I think cheating will always be possible. It's like cryptography, nothing is ever unbreakable. I was quite appalled at how often it happened in computer chess when I was active in it, and there were also incidents of humans using computers and having the moves transmitted to them. And of course in correspondence chess I think they had to allow computers because the honest players were at a disadvantage. - Don There has been some extensive statistical work on human cheating in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo. However, this relies heavily upon the fact that computers dominate human play by a wide margin. The same is not the case in go. s. On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Vincent Diepeveen wrote: If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and that for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course. [...] Statistics prove everything here. No. Rather it proves that the program cheats OR that the methods of detecting cheating are improper. One always must have a logfile Good. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer- go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer- go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go 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] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Moreover, this is a really complicated issue. There has been some extensive statistical work on human cheating in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo. However, this relies heavily upon the fact that computers dominate human play by a wide margin. The same is not the case in go. s. On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Vincent Diepeveen wrote: If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and that for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course. [...] Statistics prove everything here. No. Rather it proves that the program cheats OR that the methods of detecting cheating are improper. One always must have a logfile Good. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
On Sat, 2009-04-04 at 06:14 -0400, steve uurtamo wrote: Moreover, this is a really complicated issue. Yes, and I think cheating will always be possible. It's like cryptography, nothing is ever unbreakable. I was quite appalled at how often it happened in computer chess when I was active in it, and there were also incidents of humans using computers and having the moves transmitted to them. And of course in correspondence chess I think they had to allow computers because the honest players were at a disadvantage. - Don There has been some extensive statistical work on human cheating in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo. However, this relies heavily upon the fact that computers dominate human play by a wide margin. The same is not the case in go. s. On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote: Vincent Diepeveen wrote: If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and that for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course. [...] Statistics prove everything here. No. Rather it proves that the program cheats OR that the methods of detecting cheating are improper. One always must have a logfile Good. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Hi, I see there has been some discussion in this list about cheating remote. In computerchess this toleration has grown out of hand. Setting the rules clear and sharp there in computer-go might avoid for the future a lot of problems. There is a very simple manner to avoid cheating in go. But let me adress a few points first. 1) neural nets forget about neural nets and cheating. A year or 12+ ago we had a lot of neural net guys in computerchess as well. ANN's are not even close to representing the human mind, as modern insights in how brains work shows clearly already for quite a while. Most important is that the automatic learning techniques of neural nets are so total inefficient that it is really difficult to use them well. Soon anything that is neural net will be beaten by the rest major league. The only case i remember that was a tad more stubborn was basically someone who tried to fool the rest; he bought source code from someone and sold that as the 'neural net optimized version' engine. Yet the original programmer of that code (Joost Buijs), he assured me that this program definitely used his parameters and not some neural net optimized parameters, as he could reproduce even every score of it. So in that case it was not the neural net that was there, it just was getting used as a sales reason. Yet the neural nets will get beaten major league. If not next year, then some years later. You can't forever improve a product without good debugging methods of what it actually is doing. A black box that is real clever and intelligent doesn't exist. 2) sure on paper it is really easy to cheat. IT IS ALSO REALLY EASY TO CHEAT WITHOUT REMOTE MACHINES IN FACT. Oh in computerchess we've seen it all. There is a certain species of persons on the planet, they are not in big numbers there, who are capable of fooling in a professional manner other persons, James Bond is nothing compared to the sneaky manners they get things done. For sure a bunch of them will also try it in computer-go. For these guys, considering how weak for the coming few years go computers will play, there is not a big difference between remote machines and local machines. It's too easy to cheat for them. Communication to and from a program is too difficult to 100% monitor. So to speak just keeping the mouse at a certain spot is already enough to cheat, or having someone a fewmeters away at his laptop signal something over blue tooth or whatever to the playing machine. All been done. The only real simple manner of catching crooks is by having a good tournament director who will enforce in case of suspected moves played, that an engine must reproduce the move it played, with some reasonable decent score. Now some of you will argue loud in one choir: parallel search doesn't reproduce moves. One move can make or break a game, yet those who cheat have the habit to cheat many moves a game and for several games. So there should be many datapoints one complains about. If a program basically cannot reproduce a move, at the discretion of the tournament leader who might want to see whether a move in question has a very similar score to other alternatives (in which case of course you don't know which of the equal scored moves or nearly equal scored moves can get played). But the principle thing is reproduction of great moves. If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and that for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course. That is a rule that should be introduced in computerchess also IMHO. Note there is also the time constraint. And search depth constraint. One always must have a logfile displaying which iterations or steps a program already has performed; if one searches in a very selective manner, a rather easy form of cheating that is 'near undetectable', is when a program plays moves that it normally spoken would not have found on that hardware, yet iterations deeper. As in selective search you can assume that in a move sequence m0..mN that the moves 0..N represent the line that one needs to see to find it, there will be of course selectively moves in that sequence that might have been reduced somehow. So if one takes care that in the 'hashtable' such sequence already gets searched deeper, by manually enforcing that sequence, then the program 'learns' itself from hashtable sooner that move. Now in chess this is easier than go currently, as the search method used is reductions, but it'll come in go also. Really effective is giving in the 'mainlines' of your opponent to be searched fully by a number of cores. Yet again the only way to really detect this is by forcing reproduction of the moves by the tournament director. If a system can't reproduce enough of the great moves played, for whatever reason, bad luck. For parallel systems that search total non-deterministic, there is also a simple lemma;
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Vincent Diepeveen wrote: If a program under no circumstance can reproduce a specific move and that for several occasions, then that's very clear proof of course. [...] Statistics prove everything here. No. Rather it proves that the program cheats OR that the methods of detecting cheating are improper. One always must have a logfile Good. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
A big multicore program cant repeat the move. Timing differences between nodes and communication delays can make it nondeterministic. For any program, keeping data from prior searches makes it hard to do a new search in isolation and get the same result. If random seeds are not kept for each move, the random search will be different. It's not unusual for some of the top few moves to be much better than others. David -Original Message- From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go- boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Jacques Basaldúa Sent: Monday, February 02, 2009 1:20 PM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad About the thinking process log. Enabling debugging options can result in serious performance loss. In my system only the admin thread can do such things as tree dumps and that makes all other pawn threads idle. I don't think such preventive measures are justified. In case of doubt, it should be enough if the author can show that the program can repeat any suspectful move (even if it does not always play the same move, the played move should at least be among the best). If the program is local that should be enough. Remote programs cannot be controlled anyway. I think adding constraints to local programs makes the unfairness vs remote programs even worse. In case something has to be implemented it must be announced in advance. Questions: 1. What are the time settings for 19x19? 2. What are the days for 19x19? 3. Is hardware available from the organizers? At least, monitors and keyboards to avoid flying with non-critical and voluminous equipment. Jacques. ___ 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] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Nick Wedd wrote: I would like to se the time measurement done in the client. I find it odd that cheat-proof client-side time is now standard for chess servers, but too difficult for any Go server to implement. In case of big network lag, client-side time may make the game too long. The best solution is to connect to a local server. It would have no time lag. The UEC Cup uses NNGS: http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/2008/eng/network.html I suppose they have an adapter for gtp programs. The advantage of playing on KGS is that it provides live relay of the tournament on the net, which may attract spectators. But having to rely on KGS for the tournament is much too dangerous, especially because of network lag, and the risk of network failure. From my point of view, the ideal solution would be a local official server, with a live relay of the games on the web. Live relay may be done automatically, with a little work to program relay bots. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
About the thinking process log. Enabling debugging options can result in serious performance loss. In my system only the admin thread can do such things as tree dumps and that makes all other pawn threads idle. I don't think such preventive measures are justified. In case of doubt, it should be enough if the author can show that the program can repeat any suspectful move (even if it does not always play the same move, the played move should at least be among the best). If the program is local that should be enough. Remote programs cannot be controlled anyway. I think adding constraints to local programs makes the unfairness vs remote programs even worse. In case something has to be implemented it must be announced in advance. Questions: 1. What are the time settings for 19x19? 2. What are the days for 19x19? 3. Is hardware available from the organizers? At least, monitors and keyboards to avoid flying with non-critical and voluminous equipment. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
In message 262b2f900902010529r2ddec4afq31705bd9ccfda...@mail.gmail.com, Erik van der Werf erikvanderw...@gmail.com writes snip Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to cheat. I understand the need to try to avoid cheating. But I am sceptical about the effectiveness of this method. 1.) A neural net cannot explain its thinking process because it does not have any. 2.) It would still be too easy to cheat. The cheater could run a program which looks at the position and generates a plausible display of its thinking process, while a professional player thinks and then tells it where to play. Then the program generates more display of thinking process tending to support the recommended move, before playing it. snip Nick -- Nick Weddn...@maproom.co.uk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
In message 4985a9b2.7090...@univ-lille3.fr, Rémi Coulom remi.cou...@univ-lille3.fr writes Erik van der Werf wrote: Hi Remi, There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all. I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rule, Jaap would probably not accept it, anyways. As for stricter time controls; in principle I'm in favor. However, if you really want to enforce it we should have a real clock on the table like they have in the WCCC games. This would of course constitute a significant change from the usual relaxed (sloppy?) playing conditions... I believe we can still trust participants to count time correctly. Having to use a real clock is too annoying. I don't believe it. I have come across a program that got this seriously wrong. When it received its opponent's move, it then (1) updated its board state, (2) started its clock running, (3) thought about where to play. For the first 30 moves or so of a game, step (1) was imperceptible. By move 200, step (1) was taking it over a minute per move. This was not cheating, it was just incompetent programming. I would like to se the time measurement done in the client. I find it odd that cheat-proof client-side time is now standard for chess servers, but too difficult for any Go server to implement. Nick The best solution regarding time control is probably what is done in the UEC Cup and EGC: connect programs to a server and let the server do time control. For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker. I am strongly against board-points as a tie-breaker. Most MC programs only optimize probability of winning. In any case, I think the 9x9-komi should go back to 6.5. I think it was moved to 7.5 to allow automated play on KGS. I believe allowing automated play on KGS with a strange komi is better than having no KGS play and a normal komi. Rémi -- Nick Weddn...@maproom.co.uk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote: 1.) A neural net cannot explain its thinking process because it does not have any. I have used artificial neural nets a lot in my go programs; it is trivial to display predictions, but understanding them is of course not always easy. Still I probably would not have a hard time to explain the Tournament Director how it arrives at those predictions. I do not agree with your statement that a neural net has no thinking process. 2.) It would still be too easy to cheat. The cheater could run a program which looks at the position and generates a plausible display of its thinking process, while a professional player thinks and then tells it where to play. Then the program generates more display of thinking process tending to support the recommended move, before playing it. True, but at least it requires some programming effort. I don't believe we can rule out all possible forms of cheating (this can even be done when playing locally using a simple wireless link) but we can at least try to make it a bit of a challenge. BTW, when there is a clear suspicion the author can already be forced to show his code to the TD or some trusted independent party. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Erik van der Werf wrote: Hi Remi, There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all. I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rule, Jaap would probably not accept it, anyways. As for stricter time controls; in principle I'm in favor. However, if you really want to enforce it we should have a real clock on the table like they have in the WCCC games. This would of course constitute a significant change from the usual relaxed (sloppy?) playing conditions... I believe we can still trust participants to count time correctly. Having to use a real clock is too annoying. The best solution regarding time control is probably what is done in the UEC Cup and EGC: connect programs to a server and let the server do time control. For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker. I am strongly against board-points as a tie-breaker. Most MC programs only optimize probability of winning. In any case, I think the 9x9-komi should go back to 6.5. I think it was moved to 7.5 to allow automated play on KGS. I believe allowing automated play on KGS with a strange komi is better than having no KGS play and a normal komi. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote: Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to cheat. Do you want this just for 'remote' programs, or any program? What if the 'thinking process' is nothing intelligible for anyone else? Do we want to restrict programs made according to certain specifications which include that the thinking process is understandable? I don't know what the situation currently is in computer-Go, but I don't think the stakes are high enough to go over the trouble of cheating through a remote program (it's quite a lot of work). I have been accused of cheating once, but it was a rare thing to happen. I think either you allow remote programs and trust them, or you don't allow them at all. Anywhere in the middle will only cause more trouble. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 2:54 PM, Rémi Coulom remi.cou...@univ-lille3.fr wrote: Erik van der Werf wrote: Hi Remi, There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all. I would be in favor of this solution. But this has no chance to make unanimity. Even with a strong majority in favor of that rule, Jaap would probably not accept it, anyways. Well, we could at least try to convince him. With a strong majority in favor and a list of all the things that went wrong in China we at least have a good case. As for stricter time controls; in principle I'm in favor. However, if you really want to enforce it we should have a real clock on the table like they have in the WCCC games. This would of course constitute a significant change from the usual relaxed (sloppy?) playing conditions... I believe we can still trust participants to count time correctly. Having to use a real clock is too annoying. The problem is that the time info may simply be inaccessible when the connection breaks. The best solution regarding time control is probably what is done in the UEC Cup and EGC: connect programs to a server and let the server do time control. That is indeed a nice solution. What software was used for the UEC cup? How did they deal with programs that could not connect to the server; did some play manually? For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker. I am strongly against board-points as a tie-breaker. Most MC programs only optimize probability of winning. I don't like it much either; any tie breaker is bad in some sense, but I still prefer board-points over a coin-toss. In any case, I think the 9x9-komi should go back to 6.5. I think it was moved to 7.5 to allow automated play on KGS. I believe allowing automated play on KGS with a strange komi is better than having no KGS play and a normal komi. No, I originally proposed it because the official Chinese rules had switched to 7.5 komi. However, this was for 19x19 games. Anyway, I don't think the KGS restrictions are a good argument. Ideally we could persuade wms to have free komi setup under kgs-chinese rules, but otherwise it is still easy enough to let you program ignore the gtp-komi setup from kgs. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Erik van der Werf wrote: For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker. I am strongly against board-points as a tie-breaker. Most MC programs only optimize probability of winning. I don't like it much either; any tie breaker is bad in some sense, but I still prefer board-points over a coin-toss. With a komi of 7.5, top programs still lose games as white rather frequently. It is really not the coin toss that decides the winner. If board-points are taken into consideration, then programs that maximize score have an advantage. I really don't want to have to implement that kind of strategy in my program, just for the sake of improving its chance to win a playoff. Also, not allowing programs to resign is ugly. With top programs playing so few games against each other, the result of the whole tournament is a coin toss, anyways. Also, I don't like bidding: opening book preparation depends a lot on komi. Programmers should not have to prepare more than one opening book. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Hi Remi, There is a simpler solution: do not allow remote play at all. Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to cheat. As for stricter time controls; in principle I'm in favor. However, if you really want to enforce it we should have a real clock on the table like they have in the WCCC games. This would of course constitute a significant change from the usual relaxed (sloppy?) playing conditions... For a 3-round playoff I would propose that the third game uses komi bidding (one operator is given the right to choose the komi, and the other then chooses whether to play Black or White). An alternative is to play 4 rounds and use board-points as a tie-breaker. In any case, I think the 9x9-komi should go back to 6.5. Erik On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Rémi Coulom remi.cou...@univ-lille3.fr wrote: Hi, During the Computer Olympiad in Beijing, some remote participants had problem connecting to their remote machines, which created many unpleasant incidents. In order to avoid these problems in the next Olympiad, I believe we need better rules for remote play. Here is what I suggest: - The start of a round must not be delayed until remote participants connect to their remote machine. In case of any technical problem with the connection, remote participants must either play locally or forfeit the game. If they take a lot of time to connect, that time must be substracted from their thinking time. - If, for any reason, we do not have time to play all the scheduled rounds, playing less rounds is better than delaying the last round to a date when some participants have to forfeit their game because they cannot attend. - It is less important, but I would also like to suggest that a 7-round playoff is much too long. 3 games are enough for 9x9. And the 9x9 playoff must be scheduled right at the end of the 9x9 tournament, so that participants in the 9x9 tournament do not have to wait for the end of the 19x19 tournament. These rules would avoid most of the incidents of the previous Olympiad. We could propose them to the tournament director if everybody agrees. 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] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
Hi, During the Computer Olympiad in Beijing, some remote participants had problem connecting to their remote machines, which created many unpleasant incidents. In order to avoid these problems in the next Olympiad, I believe we need better rules for remote play. Here is what I suggest: - The start of a round must not be delayed until remote participants connect to their remote machine. In case of any technical problem with the connection, remote participants must either play locally or forfeit the game. If they take a lot of time to connect, that time must be substracted from their thinking time. - If, for any reason, we do not have time to play all the scheduled rounds, playing less rounds is better than delaying the last round to a date when some participants have to forfeit their game because they cannot attend. - It is less important, but I would also like to suggest that a 7-round playoff is much too long. 3 games are enough for 9x9. And the 9x9 playoff must be scheduled right at the end of the 9x9 tournament, so that participants in the 9x9 tournament do not have to wait for the end of the 19x19 tournament. These rules would avoid most of the incidents of the previous Olympiad. We could propose them to the tournament director if everybody agrees. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote: Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to cheat. Do you want this just for 'remote' programs, or any program? Preferably any, but I'm naturally more suspicious of programs that play remotely :-) Currently the rule is that logs must be made available to the TD on request when there is a suspicion. However, it is hard to be precise when no information is displayed during the game. What if the 'thinking process' is nothing intelligible for anyone else? Do we want to restrict programs made according to certain specifications which include that the thinking process is understandable? Well, most programs can in principle display the move they are currently considering best, and usually also a principal variation, winning probability, etc. When a program is radically different from anything else, cannot show any intermediate results, and a conflict arises, then the author will probably have to try to convince the TD, for example by showing the source code. I don't know what the situation currently is in computer-Go, but I don't think the stakes are high enough to go over the trouble of cheating through a remote program (it's quite a lot of work). I have been accused of cheating once, but it was a rare thing to happen. With programs playing on KGS cheating is easy. Also, I think the stakes are increasing because we are now getting in the low amateur dan-levels. Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
I'm in favor of starting rounds on time, with remote machines either getting a time penalty or playing locally (their choice). The clock should run for the remote machine as soon as the round is scheduled to start. Once a round is started the remote program cannot switch. For example if it starts to play locally, then the connection comes up, it must continue locally. A similar rule must be in effect for local players. If there is a local hardware failure and the local machine needs to be replaced with a new one, the clock should start on time and should continue to run while the backup local machine is prepared. I'm also in favor of allowing restarts while the clock is running. If a local machine crashes, the program can be restarted (continuing from the position at the crash), while the clock is running. If a remote connection is lost during a game, the game can be continued after the connection is repaired, but the clock runs while the hardware problem is being fixed. One possible issue, if a remote connection goes down permanently, can the remote program continue on local hardware? I think this should be allowed (again with the clock running while hardware is switched). The only problem might be if we allow rounds to start early to make the tournament go faster, especially if there is a round robin. Both programs should agree to an early start and if one has connection issues it should be OK to delay to the scheduled start with no penalty. I agree that the tournament has to have a predefined completion time, and all rounds much be completed by that time. There might be fewer rounds, or some rounds might have faster time limits. People make travel plans and it can be expensive to change them. David -Original Message- From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go- boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 2:19 AM To: computer-go Subject: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad Hi, During the Computer Olympiad in Beijing, some remote participants had problem connecting to their remote machines, which created many unpleasant incidents. In order to avoid these problems in the next Olympiad, I believe we need better rules for remote play. Here is what I suggest: - The start of a round must not be delayed until remote participants connect to their remote machine. In case of any technical problem with the connection, remote participants must either play locally or forfeit the game. If they take a lot of time to connect, that time must be substracted from their thinking time. - If, for any reason, we do not have time to play all the scheduled rounds, playing less rounds is better than delaying the last round to a date when some participants have to forfeit their game because they cannot attend. - It is less important, but I would also like to suggest that a 7-round playoff is much too long. 3 games are enough for 9x9. And the 9x9 playoff must be scheduled right at the end of the 9x9 tournament, so that participants in the 9x9 tournament do not have to wait for the end of the 19x19 tournament. These rules would avoid most of the incidents of the previous Olympiad. We could propose them to the tournament director if everybody agrees. 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] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
I like having something mandatory, so we dont need to ask for it. Many Faces did not have this, because the backend and the GUI only communicated moves. But the backend was creating a log file and it would be easy to display the log with regular updates in a different window. To prevent cheating, the display needs to be real time. Log files created later or even once per move dont prevent cheating. For example, the cheater can choose a move, then ask a program to ponder on that move, and produce a log that shows a nice PV for the move the cheater played. If this rule is to be in effect, we need to know long before the contest, since it might not be easy to code and debug. David -Original Message- Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to cheat. Erik On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Rémi Coulom remi.cou...@univ-lille3.fr wrote: Hi, During the Computer Olympiad in Beijing, some remote participants had problem connecting to their remote machines, which created many unpleasant incidents. In order to avoid these problems in the next Olympiad, I believe we need better rules for remote play. Here is what I suggest: - The start of a round must not be delayed until remote participants connect to their remote machine. In case of any technical problem with the connection, remote participants must either play locally or forfeit the game. If they take a lot of time to connect, that time must be substracted from their thinking time. - If, for any reason, we do not have time to play all the scheduled rounds, playing less rounds is better than delaying the last round to a date when some participants have to forfeit their game because they cannot attend. - It is less important, but I would also like to suggest that a 7-round playoff is much too long. 3 games are enough for 9x9. And the 9x9 playoff must be scheduled right at the end of the 9x9 tournament, so that participants in the 9x9 tournament do not have to wait for the end of the 19x19 tournament. These rules would avoid most of the incidents of the previous Olympiad. We could propose them to the tournament director if everybody agrees. 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] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad
I think any requirement to show thinking in real time must apply to all programs equally. Otherwise some programs are at a disadvantage because they have to code a thinking display instead of making the program stronger. David -Original Message- From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go- boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Erik van der Werf Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2009 6:26 AM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Rules for remote play at the Computer Olympiad On Sun, Feb 1, 2009 at 3:03 PM, Mark Boon tesujisoftw...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 1, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Erik van der Werf wrote: Something else for the discussion. I would like to have a rule about mandatory displaying the thinking process of the program so that both operators have an idea of what is happening. Especially for remote play I think this is needed because now it is just too trivial to cheat. Do you want this just for 'remote' programs, or any program? Preferably any, but I'm naturally more suspicious of programs that play remotely :-) Currently the rule is that logs must be made available to the TD on request when there is a suspicion. However, it is hard to be precise when no information is displayed during the game. What if the 'thinking process' is nothing intelligible for anyone else? Do we want to restrict programs made according to certain specifications which include that the thinking process is understandable? Well, most programs can in principle display the move they are currently considering best, and usually also a principal variation, winning probability, etc. When a program is radically different from anything else, cannot show any intermediate results, and a conflict arises, then the author will probably have to try to convince the TD, for example by showing the source code. I don't know what the situation currently is in computer-Go, but I don't think the stakes are high enough to go over the trouble of cheating through a remote program (it's quite a lot of work). I have been accused of cheating once, but it was a rare thing to happen. With programs playing on KGS cheating is easy. Also, I think the stakes are increasing because we are now getting in the low amateur dan-levels. 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/
