subject:"\[computer\-go\] Suicide question"

Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ? 
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes



Michael Williams wrote:

It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.


You and me both!

Just a couple of other comments:

The graph was smoothed with gnuplot's smooth bezier function - but  
the

raw graph looks very similar - just a little more jagged.


Don, the data was derived from self-play, wasn't it?

Chrisotph

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Masahiro Okasaki

Hi, Mr.Song

-Original Message-
Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it
? 

The suicide rule was tested in the Mainland Chinese rules in
1984, and abandoned in 1986 Rules.
It is used in Ying's rules now.
Ying's Rules is one of the area rules.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Nick Wedd

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?


Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
rules.


An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.


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] Suicide question



On Jan 17, 2008, at 3:44 AM, Song wrote:


Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?


Yes, it is also illegeal under AGA and CGOS rules.

Christoph


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I had someone complain several months ago that CGOS doesn't understand
superko and has a bug.   It turned out that their program fell on a
superko that was really deep.It was rather interesting to see this
particular game.I think it's fairly likely with 2 deterministic
programs but probably not very likely with Monte Carlo programs since
they are very likely to vary their moves.

- Don


Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 Michael Wing wrote:

 In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
 for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
 would lose 1.5 ELO points.

 In programs that somehow maintain lists of legal moves
 or even probability distribution functions over the legal moves,
 avoiding suicide is free. I fact, adding the suicide move to the list
 would cost.

 On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
 6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
 of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
 the cost.

 I guess you mean a bullet proof test from the beginning
 of the game. I only test the last 7 moves (if enabled, it can also be
 disabled) and that does not cost much.

 The reasons why I use 7 moves are 2:

 * I have never found among strong players a need for
 repetition other that triple ko and double ko on a group with no eyes.
 (Both are 6 moves long.) My point
 is: If the program is so weak that it does silly repetitions, improve
 something else. If it is so strong
 that it has the same problems as strong humans, detect
 superko.

 * My hash system can use only half of the hash (32 bits)
 and detect the collision with probability 1. (Because of
 the properties of the keys, you need at least 8 keys for a combination
 of keys giving zero.)

 A reason I can figure for ignoring repetition in the playouts is: If
 the playouts are random, it won't happen much anyway. The probability
 of a repetition of 6 random moves is too small to care about. But in
 real play it is
 frequently a fight for the game. The player forced to
 avoid the repetition will resign if it is about the life of a big group.


 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] Suicide question

Hi, All. Thank you very much.

So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,

I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 

Song



Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
 Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
 
 Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
 rules.
 
 An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
 under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
 its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
 suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
 one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.
 
 Nick
 -- 
 Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ___
 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] Suicide question



Song wrote:
 Hi, All. Thank you very much.

 So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
 but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,

 I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
 world.
 Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 
   
I think there are many variations of each ruleset.   I would love to see
the whole world standardize on one ruleset but this could never happen
because the world would never agree on what that should be! 

For instance I believe it should be CGOS rules :-)CGOS but with
allowance for early passing and agreement for human play.   

- Don



 Song


   
 Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
 
 Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
   
 Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
 rules.

 An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
 under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
 its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
 suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
 one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.

 Nick
 -- 
 Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ___
 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] Suicide question



On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an anchor,  
but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated from  
CGOS

for one of the version.


I remember the graph beeing uncalibrated.

Christoph

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question



Christoph Birk wrote:

 On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
 However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
 arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an anchor, but I
 don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated from CGOS
 for one of the version.

 I remember the graph beeing uncalibrated.
For the purpose of this study  it doesn't matter  whether you calibrate
the ratings or not.   They are all relative and they are linear  (to
calibrate, just add or subtract a constant from each rating.) The
study was designed to show the value of a doubling.   The study shows
that  with 11 doublings you gain approximately 1700 ELO points.   

- Don
  


 Christoph

 ___
 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] Suicide question


 Don, the data was derived from self-play, wasn't it?

Yes, it was derived from self play.

I also did a study at one time where I tried these doublings against a
stable gnugo version and got very similar results -  the program went
from being crushed by gnugo (rarely winning a game) to the point where
gnugo could not win a single game. The ratings differences were very
similar at the 3 or 4 levels near gnugo,  but at the extreme ranges they
were inflated (you can't accurately rate a program that always wins.)

To get the most accurate ratings you want to play a good percentage of
opponents that are near your own strength.

- Don



 Chrisotph

 ___
 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] Suicide question


If you look at the rating table on the cgos web page you will see that
600 ELO difference corresponds to about 97% winning percentage.At
the levels I tested against gnugo a single game per 100 could swing it
50 ELO.   Since it did not lose a single game you could assume that it
was either lucky,  or that it's self-play rating was pretty accurate.   
It seems like I played 100-200 games or so.  

I think the version of gnugo I used tests around 1800 on CGOS.   The
graph implies about 1000 ELO difference which is consistent with winning
every game.  

However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an anchor, but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated from CGOS
for one of the version.  

  http://cgos.boardspace.net/index.html

- Don



Don Dailey wrote:
 Don, the data was derived from self-play, wasn't it?
 

 Yes, it was derived from self play.

 I also did a study at one time where I tried these doublings against a
 stable gnugo version and got very similar results -  the program went
 from being crushed by gnugo (rarely winning a game) to the point where
 gnugo could not win a single game. The ratings differences were very
 similar at the 3 or 4 levels near gnugo,  but at the extreme ranges they
 were inflated (you can't accurately rate a program that always wins.)

 To get the most accurate ratings you want to play a good percentage of
 opponents that are near your own strength.

 - Don


   
 Chrisotph

 ___
 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] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread compgo123

Suicide issue is discussed here in the context of game evaluation, not game 
playing. For the purpose of game evaluation, one can do the simualtion anyway 
one want?to as long as it gives a good evaluation value. 

DL

-Original Message-
From: Song [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

Hi, All. Thank you very much.

So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,

I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 

Song

Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
 Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?

 Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
 rules.

 An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
 under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
 its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
 suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
 one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.

 Nick
 -- 
 Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ___
 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/

More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Jacques Basaldúa,

 I say that adding superko adds 6% or so for 2 reasons.
 About 2% is adding it to the hash table. About 4% is
 computing the zobrist hash, which is mainly used for
 superko.
   
But I suggest you should use superko in the tree portion - just not in
the play-outs.The play-outs are mostly random and cannot make sense
of sophisticated move sequences such as superko and their repercussions. 

I actually have 2 routines to make moves - one of them is fast  and the
other is slow. 

The only difference between the slow and the fast is that the slow
incrementally computes a zobrist hash and tests for superko. But for
play-outs it makes a difference in the speed.

 Another cost is undo. Superko requires undo, unless
 you want store a hash value with each chain of stones.
 I am not sure exactly what undo costs, but lets say
 5% to 10%.
   
When I need undo,  I just copy state - my position is in a tight C
struct.When I don't need undo such as in the fast play-outs I don't
copy state  (except at the start of the play-outs, in which case I do
the play-outs with a single separate copy of the state.)

I don't know the cost of undo in my program - it costs one state copy
per move to have the ability. 

I have places in my program where I need undo but avoid a state copy by
doing fixups. 

- Don
 


 I do local analysis, so I pay for undo anyways.
 But, if you were doing MC only, then you could go 5%
 to 15% faster if you remove superko checking and undo.

 Michael Wing

   
 Michael Wing wrote:

 
 In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
 for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
 would lose 1.5 ELO points.
   
 In programs that somehow maintain lists of legal moves
 or even probability distribution functions over the legal 
 moves, avoiding suicide is free. I fact, adding the 
 suicide move to the list would cost.

 
 On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
 6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
 of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
 the cost.
   
 I guess you mean a bullet proof test from the beginning
 of the game. I only test the last 7 moves (if enabled, 
 it can also be disabled) and that does not cost much.

 The reasons why I use 7 moves are 2:

 * I have never found among strong players a need for
 repetition other that triple ko and double ko on a 
 group with no eyes. (Both are 6 moves long.) My point
 is: If the program is so weak that it does silly 
 repetitions, improve something else. If it is so strong
 that it has the same problems as strong humans, detect
 superko.

 * My hash system can use only half of the hash (32 bits)
 and detect the collision with probability 1. (Because of
 the properties of the keys, you need at least 8 keys 
 for a combination of keys giving zero.)

 A reason I can figure for ignoring repetition in the 
 playouts is: If the playouts are random, it won't happen 
 much anyway. The probability of a repetition of 6 random 
 moves is too small to care about. But in real play it is
 frequently a fight for the game. The player forced to
 avoid the repetition will resign if it is about the 
 life of a big group.


 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] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Jasiek


Song wrote:

I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 


If you ask only because of suicide, then discussing it is interesting 
because other rulesets might still be used on some occasions and because 
allowing suicide might reveal some insights (let's say about lookahead 
in case of under the stones play) you might not get so easily otherwise.


If you ask because of every rules aspect, let me first point out that 
most important does not equal most reasonable, most applicable, 
nor the easiest to implement. If you really want to discuss this, tell 
us, so that we can refer to the results of earlier discussion / research...


--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I found a draft of what I believe was one of the computer-go
postings.I'll summarize again for anyone who missed it  (and I'm not
sure I posted it.) :

I did do a 7x7 test against gnugo.   I used a komi of 8.5 which I
believe is a win for black with perfect play. I base this on the
fact that when I used komi 9.5 everything reversed dramatically in
white's favor.

 Boardsize: 7x7
 Komi: 8.5
 Opponent: gg-3.7.9

K-nodes   Score when Black   Score when WhiteCombined score
---         
1024   19/19  =100.00 17/20  = 85.00 36/39  = 92.31
0512   24/24  =100.00 17/25  = 68.00 41/49  = 83.67
0256   19/19  =100.00  8/19  = 42.11 27/38  = 71.05
0128   22/22  =100.00  7/22  = 31.82 29/44  = 65.91
0064   21/21  =100.00  5/21  = 23.81 26/42  = 61.90
0032   23/23  =100.00  4/24  = 16.67 27/47  = 57.45
0016   19/21  = 90.48  4/22  = 18.18 23/43  = 53.49
0008   15/24  = 62.50 10/25  = 40.00 25/49  = 51.02
00048/23  = 34.78  3/24  = 12.50 11/47  = 23.40
00024/17  = 23.53  2/18  = 11.11  6/35  = 17.14
00012/15  = 13.33  0/16  =  0.00  2/31  =  6.45

Lazarus never loses as black when doing at least 32k play-outs. 
Even with white,  Lazarus manages to win most of the games at the
highest level - which shows enormous scalability - being able to win in
a lost position.   

At the lowest levels Lazarus rarely wins with either color.

Not a lot of games but enough to show that there is not much point
continuing with 7x7.

- Don






Michael Williams wrote:
 Don Dailey wrote:
 Mark,

 I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100
 ELO.But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100
 ELO for a
 doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
 more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus program and the
 strength improvement per doubling was very  clear and impressive.

 Don, what komi did you use when you did that study?  Looking in the
 archives, all I can find is you saying that komi=9 is correct.  So
 does that mean 8.5 or 9.5?  Or did you allow draws?

 ___
 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] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread wing

Jacques Basaldúa,

I say that adding superko adds 6% or so for 2 reasons.
About 2% is adding it to the hash table. About 4% is
computing the zobrist hash, which is mainly used for
superko.

Another cost is undo. Superko requires undo, unless
you want store a hash value with each chain of stones.
I am not sure exactly what undo costs, but lets say
5% to 10%.

I do local analysis, so I pay for undo anyways.
But, if you were doing MC only, then you could go 5%
to 15% faster if you remove superko checking and undo.

Michael Wing

 Michael Wing wrote:
 
  In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
  for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
  would lose 1.5 ELO points.
 
 In programs that somehow maintain lists of legal moves
 or even probability distribution functions over the legal 
 moves, avoiding suicide is free. I fact, adding the 
 suicide move to the list would cost.
 
  On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
  6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
  of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
  the cost.
 
 I guess you mean a bullet proof test from the beginning
 of the game. I only test the last 7 moves (if enabled, 
 it can also be disabled) and that does not cost much.
 
 The reasons why I use 7 moves are 2:
 
 * I have never found among strong players a need for
 repetition other that triple ko and double ko on a 
 group with no eyes. (Both are 6 moves long.) My point
 is: If the program is so weak that it does silly 
 repetitions, improve something else. If it is so strong
 that it has the same problems as strong humans, detect
 superko.
 
 * My hash system can use only half of the hash (32 bits)
 and detect the collision with probability 1. (Because of
 the properties of the keys, you need at least 8 keys 
 for a combination of keys giving zero.)
 
 A reason I can figure for ignoring repetition in the 
 playouts is: If the playouts are random, it won't happen 
 much anyway. The probability of a repetition of 6 random 
 moves is too small to care about. But in real play it is
 frequently a fight for the game. The player forced to
 avoid the repetition will resign if it is about the 
 life of a big group.
 
 
 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] Suicide question


On Jan 17, 2008, at 6:11 AM, Don Dailey wrote:


On Jan 17, 2008, at 5:44 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

However, I don't remember if I calibrated the graph or whether it's
arbitrary.It seems like I had a version of gnugo as an  
anchor, but I
don't see it in the graph.I could have simply extrapolated  
from CGOS

for one of the version.


I remember the graph beeing uncalibrated.
For the purpose of this study  it doesn't matter  whether you  
calibrate

the ratings or not.   They are all relative and they are linear  (to
calibrate, just add or subtract a constant from each rating.) The
study was designed to show the value of a doubling.   The study shows
that  with 11 doublings you gain approximately 1700 ELO points.


I agree.

Christoph

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I have two linux desktops, a dual AMD with 1 or 2 gigs and a quad Intel 6600 
with 3 gigs RAM; both sit idle much of the time. Can you sketch the 
requirements for this test? Will it be using time controls or fixed numbers of 
playouts? In the latter case, I can nice the process(es) when need be.

I've also been considering Amazon's EC2 -- one server-month costs about $72. 
 
Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
 
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

- Original Message 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




Michael Williams wrote:
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
test on CGOS.

I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
sample in less than a few months.  

Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
the large tree size I would have to set up.

- Don




___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question



Michael Williams wrote:
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
test on CGOS.

I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
sample in less than a few months.  

Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
the large tree size I would have to set up.

- Don




___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I assume you are on a unix based system since you are talking aboing
nicing a job.  Good.  I can easily deal with Mac's or Linux for this.

What I would do is bundle up everything into a tarball and have it all
set up and ready to go, so that it would not be much work on your part.
   The tarball would consist of:

   1.  FatMan binary modifed to support LONG levels.
   2.  autotest binary (or if you have a tclkit just the kit.)
   3.  copy of mogo.
   4.  a sqlite database that already has the registry set up for you.
   5.  A script that starts the tester for you.
   6.  A script that extracts the results so they can be mailed. 

You could mail the results periodically,  whenever it was convenient for
you. 

I would probably also include a copy of mogo and gnugo just so that
every test is running the exact same binaries.

I increased the memory usage of FatMan so that these tests could run and
the main pool of nodes required for the in memory tree takes only 134
megs of memory.However, each copy of FatMan would require this much
memory.It's not clear to me how much this was effect your system or
step on your cache.

I have no idea of the memory requirements of Mogo.We would want to
set a copy of Mogo (or perhaps someone already has) on CGOS to get a
reference point and we would want to run it exactly the same.

On a fast machine, such as my core 2 duo,   at the highest level we
would test it would take about 20 minutes per move in the opening
position. If we turn ON the resign feature of all the programs and
considering that it speeds up as the game progresses,we might get in
3 or 4 games per day per machine on the highest 2 levels - of course
other game will go faster.In fact, with resign turned on we may get
in a lot more games than that,  even if the highest level was one of the
players because many games are resignable fairly early.

I'm still looking at the memory usage,  we might get away with cutting
the memory usage in half from the values I previously gave you.

If you could set up a script to periodically scp the result files to
me,   I would set up a web page that continuously updates a web page
with a graph and crosstable similar to CGOS all-time list.

This would be fun - should I start setting this up?

- Don







terry mcintyre wrote:
 I have two linux desktops, a dual AMD with 1 or 2 gigs and a quad Intel 6600 
 with 3 gigs RAM; both sit idle much of the time. Can you sketch the 
 requirements for this test? Will it be using time controls or fixed numbers 
 of playouts? In the latter case, I can nice the process(es) when need be.

 I've also been considering Amazon's EC2 -- one server-month costs about $72. 
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
 education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
 obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




 Michael Williams wrote:
   
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
 
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

1 or 2 more levels.
A version of gnugo with known strength.
and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would have to set up.

 - Don




 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







   
 
 Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
 http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
   
 

 ___
 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] Suicide question

 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




 Michael Williams wrote:
   
 
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
 
   
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

1 or 2 more levels.
A version of gnugo with known strength.
and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would have to set up.

 - Don




 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







  
 
  
 
   
 Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
 
   http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
   
   

 
  
   
 ___
 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/







   
 
 Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
 http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
   
 

 ___
 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] Suicide question

Don,

All sounds good. Yes, I forgot to mention that I am using linux.

If possible, I'd suggest that the process be as automatic as possible - rather 
than the user emailing results, periodically ssh or scp outbound to your 
computer. 

The copies of gnugo/mogo/fatman and any other programs would need to be local 
copies, in order to prevent conflict with existing versions. I'd suggest a 
current version of Gnugo - they are at 3.7.11 now, I think. Gunnar, any 
interesting updates in the pipeline?

An automatic status page on the central www server would provide excellent 
feedback.

I'd also love to see the games themselves, the better to capture blunders and 
convert them to test cases which can be used to test subsequent go programs. A 
few good test cases might encourage fixes for the current weaknesses with 
respect to nakade plays, for instance.

Will there be a method at the top level to weed out duplicate games?

How confident are we that resignation works properly? There were some odd 
results in the latest KGS tournament, if I recall correctly; programs were 
resigning won games.


Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]


I assume you are on a unix based system since you are talking aboing
nicing a job.  Good.  I can easily deal with Mac's or Linux for this.

What I would do is bundle up everything into a tarball and have it all
set up and ready to go, so that it would not be much work on your part.
   The tarball would consist of:

   1.  FatMan binary modifed to support LONG levels.
   2.  autotest binary (or if you have a tclkit just the kit.)
   3.  copy of mogo.
   4.  a sqlite database that already has the registry set up for you.
   5.  A script that starts the tester for you.
   6.  A script that extracts the results so they can be mailed. 

You could mail the results periodically,  whenever it was convenient
 for
you. 

I would probably also include a copy of mogo and gnugo just so that
every test is running the exact same binaries.

I increased the memory usage of FatMan so that these tests could run
 and
the main pool of nodes required for the in memory tree takes only 134
megs of memory.However, each copy of FatMan would require this much
memory.It's not clear to me how much this was effect your system or
step on your cache.

I have no idea of the memory requirements of Mogo.We would want to
set a copy of Mogo (or perhaps someone already has) on CGOS to get a
reference point and we would want to run it exactly the same.

On a fast machine, such as my core 2 duo,   at the highest level we
would test it would take about 20 minutes per move in the opening
position. If we turn ON the resign feature of all the programs and
considering that it speeds up as the game progresses,we might get
 in
3 or 4 games per day per machine on the highest 2 levels - of course
other game will go faster.In fact, with resign turned on we may get
in a lot more games than that,  even if the highest level was one of
 the
players because many games are resignable fairly early.

I'm still looking at the memory usage,  we might get away with cutting
the memory usage in half from the values I previously gave you.

If you could set up a script to periodically scp the result files to
me,   I would set up a web page that continuously updates a web page
with a graph and crosstable similar to CGOS all-time list.

This would be fun - should I start setting this up?

- Don







terry mcintyre wrote:
 I have two linux desktops, a dual AMD with 1 or 2 gigs and a quad
 Intel 6600 with 3 gigs RAM; both sit idle much of the time. Can you sketch
 the requirements for this test? Will it be using time controls or
 fixed numbers of playouts? In the latter case, I can nice the process(es)
 when need be.

 I've also been considering Amazon's EC2 -- one server-month costs
 about $72. 
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is
 found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to
 insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




 Michael Williams wrote:
   
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
 
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

1 or 2 more levels.
A version of gnugo with known strength.
and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I seriously doubt there will be repeat games with FatMan or Mogo.   
Maybe with Gnugo but their only opponent will be Monte Carlo type programs.

Nevertheless, as a sanity check we can look for repeat games.   I've
always want to make a program to test for repeat games - taking
symmetries into account - so I will make one for this later unless such
a thing already exists.

- Don


terry mcintyre wrote:
 Don,

 All sounds good. Yes, I forgot to mention that I am using linux.

 If possible, I'd suggest that the process be as automatic as possible - 
 rather than the user emailing results, periodically ssh or scp outbound to 
 your computer. 

 The copies of gnugo/mogo/fatman and any other programs would need to be local 
 copies, in order to prevent conflict with existing versions. I'd suggest a 
 current version of Gnugo - they are at 3.7.11 now, I think. Gunnar, any 
 interesting updates in the pipeline?

 An automatic status page on the central www server would provide excellent 
 feedback.

 I'd also love to see the games themselves, the better to capture blunders and 
 convert them to test cases which can be used to test subsequent go programs. 
 A few good test cases might encourage fixes for the current weaknesses with 
 respect to nakade plays, for instance.

 Will there be a method at the top level to weed out duplicate games?

 How confident are we that resignation works properly? There were some odd 
 results in the latest KGS tournament, if I recall correctly; programs were 
 resigning won games.


 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]


 I assume you are on a unix based system since you are talking aboing
 nicing a job.  Good.  I can easily deal with Mac's or Linux for this.

 What I would do is bundle up everything into a tarball and have it all
 set up and ready to go, so that it would not be much work on your part.
The tarball would consist of:

1.  FatMan binary modifed to support LONG levels.
2.  autotest binary (or if you have a tclkit just the kit.)
3.  copy of mogo.
4.  a sqlite database that already has the registry set up for you.
5.  A script that starts the tester for you.
6.  A script that extracts the results so they can be mailed. 

 You could mail the results periodically,  whenever it was convenient
  for
 you. 

 I would probably also include a copy of mogo and gnugo just so that
 every test is running the exact same binaries.

 I increased the memory usage of FatMan so that these tests could run
  and
 the main pool of nodes required for the in memory tree takes only 134
 megs of memory.However, each copy of FatMan would require this much
 memory.It's not clear to me how much this was effect your system or
 step on your cache.

 I have no idea of the memory requirements of Mogo.We would want to
 set a copy of Mogo (or perhaps someone already has) on CGOS to get a
 reference point and we would want to run it exactly the same.

 On a fast machine, such as my core 2 duo,   at the highest level we
 would test it would take about 20 minutes per move in the opening
 position. If we turn ON the resign feature of all the programs and
 considering that it speeds up as the game progresses,we might get
  in
 3 or 4 games per day per machine on the highest 2 levels - of course
 other game will go faster.In fact, with resign turned on we may get
 in a lot more games than that,  even if the highest level was one of
  the
 players because many games are resignable fairly early.

 I'm still looking at the memory usage,  we might get away with cutting
 the memory usage in half from the values I previously gave you.

 If you could set up a script to periodically scp the result files to
 me,   I would set up a web page that continuously updates a web page
 with a graph and crosstable similar to CGOS all-time list.

 This would be fun - should I start setting this up?

 - Don







 terry mcintyre wrote:
   
 I have two linux desktops, a dual AMD with 1 or 2 gigs and a quad
 
  Intel 6600 with 3 gigs RAM; both sit idle much of the time. Can you sketch
  the requirements for this test? Will it be using time controls or
  fixed numbers of playouts? In the latter case, I can nice the process(es)
  when need be.
   
 I've also been considering Amazon's EC2 -- one server-month costs
 
  about $72. 
   
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is
 
  found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to
  insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
   
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




 Michael Williams wrote:
   
 
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important one
because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.


--nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course much 
stronger but requires more time) instead of --time


no pondering, as you want fixed level

therefore

mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

should be fine.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I'm also trying to find the magic for running gnugo.There was an
issue with it adjusting it's level dynamically and a way to turn that
off.   What I use now is:

  gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules

There was also a superko switch.I will figure this out myself,  but
if anyone knows off the top of their head please help me out!

- Don

 

terry mcintyre wrote:
 Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield the same 
 results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11, presumably in 
 approximately 1/4 the time?
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
 education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
 obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


   
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
 
  one
   
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.
 

 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
  much 
 stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







   
 
 Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
 http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
   
 

 ___
 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] Suicide question

I want to run it exactly the same on all machines - so I would prefer
not to take a chance with this.

I have a core 2 duo,  but I don't want to push the load too high for
this experiment.

- Don



terry mcintyre wrote:
 Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield the same 
 results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11, presumably in 
 approximately 1/4 the time?
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
 education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
 obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


   
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
 
  one
   
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.
 

 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
  much 
 stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







   
 
 Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
 http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
   
 

 ___
 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] Suicide question

Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield the same 
results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11, presumably in 
approximately 1/4 the time?
 
Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
 
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

- Original Message 
From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
 one
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.

--nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
 much 
stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

no pondering, as you want fixed level

therefore

mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

should be fine.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







  

Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

Olivier,

How much memory does mogo require if I crank up the number of
simulations pretty high?   Does it allocate dynamically or work from a
fixed pool? What happens if there is not enough memory?

I could include Mogo in the study too, not just as a single data point
if I can get 13 doublings.   I might scale mogo down so that it is
roughly equivalent with my program,  by starting it at much few
simulations.

- Don


Olivier Teytaud wrote:
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important one
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.

 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
 much stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 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] Suicide question

Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield the 
same results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11, 
presumably in approximately 1/4 the time?


--nbTotalSimulations gives the number of simulations for the first thread;
the others are stopped by time. As threads are not necessarily scheduled 
in a fair manner, the number of simulations, if you do 
not have 4 cores fully available, might be very unstable.


By the way, the efficiency in mogoRelease
is not linear in the number of threads,
whenever the cores are completly available; this linear speed-up
is almost true for 2 cores, but not completly for 4 cores, and absolutely
not for 8 cores.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

Thank you for your response,however I want to test mogo at a FIXED
level - we will be testing on different hardware and we don't want to
use time-contol.

Is there a way to properly set it for a fixed number of play-outs?
Also, we will NOT be using multiple processors. 

Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important one
because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.

- Don


Olivier Teytaud wrote:
 Now I need to know where Mogo is for linux,   and how to run it under
 cgos-like conditions.

 mogo download: http://www.lri.fr/~gelly

 Below how to use mogo for that; ask us if you need something for this
 nice
 experiment.

 Options should probably be mogo --9 and --playsAgainstHuman 0 if
 scoring is similar to the scoring of cgos,
 i.e.:

 mogo --9 --time TIMEPERMOVE --pondering 1 --nbThreads 4
 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 for a 4-threads machine, where TIMEPERMOVE is in secondes
 and --pondering 1 only if you want pondering.

 MoGoRelease_3 does not resign if the number of simulations is too small;
 but with TIMEPERMOVE=1 there's no problem.

 MoGo has not been tested widely in 7x7, I hope everything will be fine.
 Tell us in case of trouble, we'll try to solve that.

 ___
 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] Suicide question

Perfect! I will adjust the level so that it plays as strong as
possible on CGOS without taking a risk of getting into time trouble on
modest hardware. Then I can make Mogo the anchor player.

- Don



Olivier Teytaud wrote:
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important one
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.

 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
 much stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 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] Suicide question

Never mind,  I found what I want:

gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
--min-level 8 --max-level 8 --positional-superko

- Don




Don Dailey wrote:
 I'm also trying to find the magic for running gnugo.There was an
 issue with it adjusting it's level dynamically and a way to turn that
 off.   What I use now is:

   gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules

 There was also a superko switch.I will figure this out myself,  but
 if anyone knows off the top of their head please help me out!

 - Don

  

 terry mcintyre wrote:
   
 Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield the same 
 results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11, presumably in 
 approximately 1/4 the time?
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found 
 state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
 obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


   
 
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important
 
   
  one
   
 
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.
 
   
 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
  much 
 stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







   
 
 Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.  
 http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
   
 

 ___
 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] Suicide question


How much memory does mogo require if I crank up the number of
simulations pretty high?   Does it allocate dynamically or work from a
fixed pool? What happens if there is not enough memory?


I think you won't have any troubles with that, unless the
hardware is very old.

There is a pruning strategy, which is quite conservative for modern 
hardware (too much conservative for most computers, but the conservative
parametrization is seemingly not very harmful for performance - 
however, we have not tested that intensively, because it is very 
expensive to test as it is precisely for large computation times...).


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I'm experimenting with the number of simulations at fairly low levels to
find a point of equilibrium for FatMan vs Mogo.In other words,  I
want 13 versions of each program and I want to find a level where the
playing strength is roughly comparable.   

I will try doing 1/2, 1/4, 1/8 and 1/16 the number of simulations for
Mogo to see what matches up the best.  

This is so at the highest levels both players will have competition
other than versions of themselves.



- Don




Olivier Teytaud wrote:
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an important one
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.

 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
 much stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 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] Suicide question

Any estimates of when this problem is likely to surface? Is a version 
available which is more suitable for greater numbers of simulations?


We can compile that easily, but
I don't know if I can distribute it
(administrativly). To be checked...
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

You should probably test gnugo at level 10?
 
Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
 
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

- Original Message 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 1:24:22 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


Never mind,  I found what I want:

gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
--min-level 8 --max-level 8 --positional-superko

- Don




Don Dailey wrote:
 I'm also trying to find the magic for running gnugo.There was an
 issue with it adjusting it's level dynamically and a way to turn that
 off.   What I use now is:

   gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead
 --chinese-rules

 There was also a superko switch.I will figure this out myself,
  but
 if anyone knows off the top of their head please help me out!

 - Don

  

 terry mcintyre wrote:
   
 Will Mogo with nbThreads=4 and --nbTotalSimulations 11 yield
 the same results as nbThreads=1 and --nbTotalSimulations 11,
 presumably in approximately 1/4 the time?
  
 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is
 found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to
 insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
  
 Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

 - Original Message 
 From: Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 12:48:24 PM
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


   
 
 Mogo will just be one data point in the experiment, but an
 important
 
   
  one
   
 
 because we will benchmark the same exact version on CGOS.
 
   
 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 (not high level -- 20 is of course
  much 
 stronger but requires more time) instead of --time

 no pondering, as you want fixed level

 therefore

 mogo --9 --nbTotalSimulations 11000 --playsAgainstHuman 0

 should be fine.

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







  
 

 Looking for last minute shopping deals?  
 Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
   

 

 ___
 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/







  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Gunnar Farnebäck


Don Dailey wrote:
 Never mind,  I found what I want:

 gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
 --min-level 8 --max-level 8 --positional-superko

Forget about --score aftermath. It does absolutely nothing when
combined with --mode gtp.

/Gunnar
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I believe that certain GnuGo features are turned off at level 8. In any case, 
it's still pretty quick at level 10 on modern hardware.
 
Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
 
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

- Original Message 
From: Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 3:14:46 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


Don Dailey wrote:
  Thanks,  will do that!
 
  Someone once told me that level 8 is faster and plays just as well.
   Is
  there any truth to that?   I am planning to  run this study at level
 10.

Level 8 is certainly faster and it ought to be weaker but I can't say
anything about how much.

/Gunnar
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/







  

Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  
http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Hideki Kato

Hi Don,

I'm now running mogo-pr-1cpu on my quad core box, Intel Q6600 3GHz 
with 4GB RAM and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and FatMan-1 
on an AMD athlon64 2GHz with 1GB RAM, as reference programs on cgos 
9x9.  I can provide these two boxes for your experiment.  Then, how 
long will it take?

Hideki

Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:


Michael Williams wrote:
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
test on CGOS.

I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
sample in less than a few months.  

Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
the large tree size I would have to set up.

- Don




___
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] Suicide question

Do you run linux? 

I already have a tarball which has almost everything you need - and it
includes the binaries and has each player set up in the registry.   

The only thing missing is an automated scheme to get the result files to
me.   I'm looking to see if I can get an ftp server working.

It will be flexible enough that you can run multiple instances if you
want - and stop them when you want and restart without hassle.   
However,   if one of the long players is playing,  you might lose
several hours if you kill it!   

Of course you can use nice to run these at low priority.

Are you willing?I can send you a test package now which will
determine if it will run without hassle.

- Don




Hideki Kato wrote:
 Hi Don,

 I'm now running mogo-pr-1cpu on my quad core box, Intel Q6600 3GHz 
 with 4GB RAM and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and FatMan-1 
 on an AMD athlon64 2GHz with 1GB RAM, as reference programs on cgos 
 9x9.  I can provide these two boxes for your experiment.  Then, how 
 long will it take?

 Hideki

 Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   
 Michael Williams wrote:
 
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
   
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would have to set up.

 - Don




 ___
 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/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Gunnar Farnebäck


Don Dailey wrote:
 Thanks,  will do that!

 Someone once told me that level 8 is faster and plays just as well.   Is
 there any truth to that?   I am planning to  run this study at level 10.

Level 8 is certainly faster and it ought to be weaker but I can't say
anything about how much.

/Gunnar
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

Thanks,  will do that!

Someone once told me that level 8 is faster and plays just as well.   Is
there any truth to that?   I am planning to  run this study at level 10.


- Don


Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
 Don Dailey wrote:
  Never mind,  I found what I want:
 
  gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
  --min-level 8 --max-level 8 --positional-superko

 Forget about --score aftermath. It does absolutely nothing when
 combined with --mode gtp.

 /Gunnar
 ___
 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] Suicide question

I learned many things, thank you very much.

I want to know one more thing. 
If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,
At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?

Song



 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Suicide issue is discussed here in the context of game evaluation, not game 
 playing. For the purpose of game evaluation, one can do the simualtion anyway 
 one want?to as long as it gives a good evaluation value. 
 
 DL
 
 
 -Original Message-
 From: Song [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
 Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
 
 
 
 Hi, All. Thank you very much.
 
 So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
 but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
 
 I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
 world.
 Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 
 
 Song
 
 
 
 Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
  Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
  
  Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
  rules.
  
  An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
  under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
  its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
  suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
  one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.
  
  Nick
  -- 
  Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ___
  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/
 
 
 
 More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
 http://webmail.aol.com

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


Yes.  Please reread compgo123's message.

Song wrote:

I learned many things, thank you very much.

I want to know one more thing. 
If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,

At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?

Song



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Suicide issue is discussed here in the context of game evaluation, not game playing. For the purpose of game evaluation, one can do the simualtion anyway one want?to as long as it gives a good evaluation value. 


DL


-Original Message-
From: Song [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question



Hi, All. Thank you very much.

So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,


I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 


Song



Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
rules.


An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.


Nick
--
Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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/



More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com


___
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] Suicide question

I was doing a small scalability test own my own with mogo on 7x7 with 8.5 komi and so far the most interesting game is mogo losing as back given 64 seconds per
move against a white player using 32 seconds per move. With this komi, black is currently winning 72% of the games (with player strengths varying from 1 second
per move to 64 seconds per move). Everything is on 2 threads per mogo instance. So even at 64 seconds/move on dual threads, mogo is not playing perfectly on 7x7.

Olivier Teytaud wrote:

Now I need to know where Mogo is for linux, and how to run it under
cgos-like conditions.

mogo download: http://www.lri.fr/~gelly

Below how to use mogo for that; ask us if you need something for this nice
experiment.

Options should probably be mogo --9 and --playsAgainstHuman 0 if
scoring is similar to the scoring of cgos,

i.e.:

mogo --9 --time TIMEPERMOVE --pondering 1 --nbThreads 4
--playsAgainstHuman 0

for a 4-threads machine, where TIMEPERMOVE is in secondes
and --pondering 1 only if you want pondering.

MoGoRelease_3 does not resign if the number of simulations is too small;
but with TIMEPERMOVE=1 there's no problem.

MoGo has not been tested widely in 7x7, I hope everything will be fine.
Tell us in case of trouble, we'll try to solve that.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


Sorry, I meant 4 fast cores and 15GB of RAM (each core is twice as fast as what 
you get with the low-end instance).


terry mcintyre wrote:
I have two linux desktops, a dual AMD with 1 or 2 gigs and a quad Intel 
6600 with 3 gigs RAM; both sit idle much of the time. Can you sketch the 
requirements for this test? Will it be using time controls or fixed 
numbers of playouts? In the latter case, I can nice the process(es) when 
need be.


I've also been considering Amazon's EC2 -- one server-month costs about 
$72.
 
Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found 
state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure 
implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
 
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]



- Original Message 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2008 10:11:14 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question



Michael Williams wrote:
  It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

  1 or 2 more levels.
  A version of gnugo with known strength.
  and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
test on CGOS.

I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
sample in less than a few months. 


Anybody have any linux machines lying around?They need to be
relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
the large tree size I would have to set up.

- Don




___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/



Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
it now. 
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
 





___
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] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Hideki Kato

Yes, Fedora Core 5-64bit for AMD and Ubuntu 7.10-64bit for Intel.

Which is better do you think, however, to stop current running bots on 
cgos and run your clients instead OR to keep current bots runnig?  
As Terry already answered to you.

-Hideki

Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you run linux? 

I already have a tarball which has almost everything you need - and it
includes the binaries and has each player set up in the registry.   

The only thing missing is an automated scheme to get the result files to
me.   I'm looking to see if I can get an ftp server working.

It will be flexible enough that you can run multiple instances if you
want - and stop them when you want and restart without hassle.   
However,   if one of the long players is playing,  you might lose
several hours if you kill it!   

Of course you can use nice to run these at low priority.

Are you willing?I can send you a test package now which will
determine if it will run without hassle.

- Don




Hideki Kato wrote:
 Hi Don,

 I'm now running mogo-pr-1cpu on my quad core box, Intel Q6600 3GHz 
 with 4GB RAM and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and FatMan-1 
 on an AMD athlon64 2GHz with 1GB RAM, as reference programs on cgos 
 9x9.  I can provide these two boxes for your experiment.  Then, how 
 long will it take?

 Hideki

 Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   
 Michael Williams wrote:
 
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
   
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would have to set up.

 - Don




 ___
 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/

   
___
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] Suicide question

I know it won't work - Terry has tried.   But we are going to try to fix
it up.

- Don


Don Dailey wrote:
 I don't think my prepared files will run on 64 bit linux but you can try.

 - Don


 Hideki Kato wrote:
   
 Yes, Fedora Core 5-64bit for AMD and Ubuntu 7.10-64bit for Intel.

 Which is better do you think, however, to stop current running bots on 
 cgos and run your clients instead OR to keep current bots runnig?  
 As Terry already answered to you.

 -Hideki

 Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   
 
 Do you run linux? 

 I already have a tarball which has almost everything you need - and it
 includes the binaries and has each player set up in the registry.   

 The only thing missing is an automated scheme to get the result files to
 me.   I'm looking to see if I can get an ftp server working.

 It will be flexible enough that you can run multiple instances if you
 want - and stop them when you want and restart without hassle.   
 However,   if one of the long players is playing,  you might lose
 several hours if you kill it!   

 Of course you can use nice to run these at low priority.

 Are you willing?I can send you a test package now which will
 determine if it will run without hassle.

 - Don




 Hideki Kato wrote:
 
   
 Hi Don,

 I'm now running mogo-pr-1cpu on my quad core box, Intel Q6600 3GHz 
 with 4GB RAM and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and FatMan-1 
 on an AMD athlon64 2GHz with 1GB RAM, as reference programs on cgos 
 9x9.  I can provide these two boxes for your experiment.  Then, how 
 long will it take?

 Hideki

 Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   
   
 
 Michael Williams wrote:
 
 
   
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
   
   
 
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would have to set up.

 - Don




 ___
 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/

   
   
 
 ___
 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/

   
 
 ___
 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] Suicide question

 Yes.  Please reread compgo123's message.

OK, I can understand it now. Thanks.

So do we also can consider of ignore KO's rule when doing game evaluation 
(play-out simulation) ?



 Michael Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Yes.  Please reread compgo123's message.
 
 Song wrote:
  I learned many things, thank you very much.
  
  I want to know one more thing. 
  If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,
  At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?
  
  Song
  
  
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  
  Suicide issue is discussed here in the context of game evaluation, not 
  game playing. For the purpose of game evaluation, one can do the 
  simualtion anyway one want?to as long as it gives a good evaluation value. 
 
  DL
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: Song [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
  Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
  Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question
 
 
 
  Hi, All. Thank you very much.
 
  So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
  but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,
 
  I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in 
  GO 
  world.
  Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 
 
  Song
 
 
  Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
  Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
  Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
  rules.
 
  An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
  under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
  its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
  suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
  one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.
 
  Nick
  -- 
  Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
  ___
  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/
 
 
  
  More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
  http://webmail.aol.com
  
  ___
  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] Suicide question

Sure, give it a try.  I have not tried it myself, but I'm guessing it will not improve your engine.  The cost of testing for simple ko is negligible and 
allowing it will probably prolong the playouts.



Song wrote:

Yes.  Please reread compgo123's message.


OK, I can understand it now. Thanks.

So do we also can consider of ignore KO's rule when doing game evaluation 
(play-out simulation) ?



Michael Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:



Yes.  Please reread compgo123's message.

Song wrote:

I learned many things, thank you very much.

I want to know one more thing. 
If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,

At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?

Song



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Suicide issue is discussed here in the context of game evaluation, not game playing. For the purpose of game evaluation, one can do the simualtion anyway one want?to as long as it gives a good evaluation value. 


DL


-Original Message-
From: Song [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thu, 17 Jan 2008 7:21 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question



Hi, All. Thank you very much.

So Suicide is legal in Ying and New Zealand rules, 
but is illegal in Chinese and Japanese and AGA and CGOS rules,


I have heard Chinese and Japanese rules are the most important rulesets in GO 
world.
Then why we are discussing it so seriously ? 


Song



Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Song 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

Suicide is illegal in Chinese rules and Japanese rules, isn't it ?
Yes.  But suicide is legal under Ing (SST) rules, and under New Zealand 
rules.


An unscrupulous program, finding itself in a poor position while playing 
under Ing or NZ rules, may try to play a suicide move in the hope that 
its opponent will refuse to play on.  It's generally easy to find a 
suicide move: find your opponent's smallest solid eye having more than 
one point in it, and on successive moves fill this eye until it is full.


Nick
--
Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
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/



More new features than ever.  Check out the new AOL Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aol.com

___
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] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Heikki Levanto

On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 10:36:09PM -0500, Michael Williams wrote:
 I have not tried it myself, but I'm guessing it will not improve your
 engine.  The cost of testing for simple ko is negligible and allowing it
 will probably prolong the playouts.

I am not far enough with my engine to test yet, but my guess is that allowing
a simple ko can lead to pretty long endgames, if the ko has the only playable
moves left. It sounds that some sort of way to detect that would be good.

If we only test for a simple ko, it is possible to get into an endgame with
two kos on board, repeating for ever.

It might make sense to test for (super)ko only in the endgame, when there are 
not so
many possible moves left. As long as there are many choices, a random playout
will not get stuck in a loop anyway. Then again, testing for the game state
may be as expensive as testing for ko... 

I guess it is early for me to speculate on that, as my engine isn't even
playing legal moves yet... Premature optimizing, and all that.

  - Heikki

-- 
Heikki Levanto   In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question (Repost)

2008-01-17 Thread Hideki Kato

Yes, Fedora Core 5-64bit for AMD and Ubuntu 7.10-64bit for Intel.

Which is better do you think, however, to stop current running bots on 
cgos and run your clients instead OR to keep current bots runnig?  
As Terry already answered to you.

-Hideki

Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Do you run linux? 

I already have a tarball which has almost everything you need - and it
includes the binaries and has each player set up in the registry.   

The only thing missing is an automated scheme to get the result files to
me.   I'm looking to see if I can get an ftp server working.

It will be flexible enough that you can run multiple instances if you
want - and stop them when you want and restart without hassle.   
However,   if one of the long players is playing,  you might lose
several hours if you kill it!   

Of course you can use nice to run these at low priority.

Are you willing?I can send you a test package now which will
determine if it will run without hassle.

- Don




Hideki Kato wrote:
 Hi Don,

 I'm now running mogo-pr-1cpu on my quad core box, Intel Q6600 3GHz 
 with 4GB RAM and gnugo-3.7.11-l10F, gnugo-3.7.10-l10F and FatMan-1 
 on an AMD athlon64 2GHz with 1GB RAM, as reference programs on cgos 
 9x9.  I can provide these two boxes for your experiment.  Then, how 
 long will it take?

 Hideki

 Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
   
 Michael Williams wrote:
 
 It is a very nice graph.  I wish we could see the next 11 doublings.
   
 With some help,  I could redo this experiment and add:

   1 or 2 more levels.
   A version of gnugo with known strength.
   and/or some fixed version of mogo - which we could simultaneously
 test on CGOS.

 I would need an enormous amount of power to complete this with a good
 sample in less than a few months.  

 Anybody have any linux machines lying around? They need to be
 relatively powerful and probably need at least 1 gig of memory due to
 the large tree size I would have to set up.

 - Don




 ___
 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/

   
___
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] Suicide question

2008-01-17 Thread Robert Jasiek


Song wrote:

If the GO rules standardized on one ruleset that forbid suicide,
At that time, do you still disscuss suicide and use it in game evaluation ?


Research is free; it does not need to impose itself unnecessary 
restrictions. So - yes.


--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

[computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Jacques Basaldúa


Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

 Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.

I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)

The question is Why do you do it?

a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to support suicide go

or

b. Because that has some advantage as a random playout.

If it was b, can anyone explain why suicide is a better evaluation for
a normal (non suicide) game.

Jacques.


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Gian-Carlo Pascutto

 Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

   Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.

 I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
 as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)

 The question is Why do you do it?

 a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to support suicide go

 or

 b. Because that has some advantage as a random playout.

 If it was b, can anyone explain why suicide is a better evaluation for
 a normal (non suicide) game.

None of the above!

There are no advantages to allowing suicide, it is simply expensive for me
in terms of speed to forbid it in playouts. If this is not the case for
your board structure then you will probably want to forbid suicide.

Leela does not allow suicide in the GUI and the engine itself will also
never suicide in games.

-- 
GCP
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Heikki Levanto

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 01:30:59PM +0100, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
 There are no advantages to allowing suicide, it is simply expensive for me
 in terms of speed to forbid it in playouts. If this is not the case for
 your board structure then you will probably want to forbid suicide.

I do not see how that can be! You need to check if the move was a suicide,
and if so, remove it from the board anyway. That must be the expensive part,
calling the move illegal if that happens ought not to be very expensive. But
then again, I do not know the internals of your program...

Regards

   Heikki

-- 
Heikki Levanto   In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question



David Doshay wrote:
 There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..

 1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
 be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.

 2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
 under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
 see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.
But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
without putting these moves in the play-outs. 

The play-outs are imperfect by nature - they try to take a statistical
sample of many possible ways the game might proceed.The path to
improve the quality of this statistical sample is to not play moves that
represent very UNLIKELY continuations.Adding these moves randomly to
the play-outs doesn't improve it's ability to statically measure the
likely outcome.  

For instance since is legal to resign,  we could randomly include this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the play-outs. 

Moving into 1 point eyes is also legal, but virtually all Monte Carlo
programs forbid this as it's well known to be incredibly stupid in the
vast majority of cases.But in some rare cases it is actually good -
but we still would not want to add it to our play-outs.   

Because of the 1 point eye rule, suicide in the play-outs probably isn't
THAT bad.You are probably only suiciding a group that is already
dead - but you are weakening the play-outs.   It may be  worth it if you
get enough speed in return.  

In my program I am always looking for an excuse to veto moves that are
obviously bad.   If I had such an obvious class of position like
suicide, I would jump on the opportunity to remove them from the play-outs!

- Don




 Cheers,
 David



 On 16, Jan 2008, at 5:52 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

 I think suicide is insane myself.   But I think the reason programs
 might use it is only for a speedup - it's faster with some
 implementations to allow suicide even though it makes the games longer.

 Of course you are right about point B.If suicide is illegal in the
 actual game,  there can be no point in allowing it in the play-outs.
 It's almost certainly wrong to allow it in the play-outs even if you are
 playing by suicide rules - a lot of work has gone into finding good
 moves in the play-outs and this would be one of the prime candidates for
 removal!

 - Don


 Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

 Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.

 I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
 as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)

 The question is Why do you do it?

 a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to support suicide go

 or

 b. Because that has some advantage as a random playout.

 If it was b, can anyone explain why suicide is a better evaluation for
 a normal (non suicide) game.

 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/

 ___
 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] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread wing

We can use math to shed some light on the topic:

* Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
  increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
  as Don has previously concluded.

* Then we have the following table of approximate
  costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
  cost - lost ELO
  
   1%  -  1.5 ELO
   2%  -  3.0 ELO
   3%  -  4.5 ELO
   4%  -  6.0 ELO
   5%  -  7.5 ELO
   6%  -  9.0 ELO
  10%  - 15.0 ELO

* In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
  for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
  would lose 1.5 ELO points.

* If I wanted to know whether it was worth it, I would
  want to measure the ELO benefit by making better
  decisions concerning suicide. It is a small but
  real amount, probably at least 1 ELO (using my
  finger in the breeze).

* Thus the issue of whether you detect suicide may
  be a complete wash.

* On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
  6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
  of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
  the cost.

Conclusions

* The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
  the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
  arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
  worth a tiny amount of effort.

* Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
  suicide and ko decisions would be useful.

* I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
  confident that it doesn't make much difference.

Michael Wing

Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

  There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..
 
  1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
  be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.
 
  2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
  under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
  see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.
 But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
 You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
 without putting these moves in the play-outs. 
 
 The play-outs are imperfect by nature - they try to take a statistical
 sample of many possible ways the game might proceed.The path to
 improve the quality of this statistical sample is to not play moves that
 represent very UNLIKELY continuations.Adding these moves randomly to
 the play-outs doesn't improve it's ability to statically measure the
 likely outcome.  
 
 For instance since is legal to resign,  we could randomly include this
 possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
 power of the play-outs. 

 Moving into 1 point eyes is also legal, but virtually all Monte Carlo
 programs forbid this as it's well known to be incredibly stupid in the
 vast majority of cases.But in some rare cases it is actually good -
 but we still would not want to add it to our play-outs.   
 
 Because of the 1 point eye rule, suicide in the play-outs probably isn't
 THAT bad.You are probably only suiciding a group that is already
 dead - but you are weakening the play-outs.   It may be  worth it if you
 get enough speed in return.  
 
 In my program I am always looking for an excuse to veto moves that are
 obviously bad.   If I had such an obvious class of position like
 suicide, I would jump on the opportunity to remove them from the play-outs!
 
 - Don
 
 
 
 
  Cheers,
  David
 
 
 
  On 16, Jan 2008, at 5:52 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
 
  I think suicide is insane myself.   But I think the reason programs
  might use it is only for a speedup - it's faster with some
  implementations to allow suicide even though it makes the games longer.
 
  Of course you are right about point B.If suicide is illegal in the
  actual game,  there can be no point in allowing it in the play-outs.
  It's almost certainly wrong to allow it in the play-outs even if you are
  playing by suicide rules - a lot of work has gone into finding good
  moves in the play-outs and this would be one of the prime candidates for
  removal!
 
  - Don
 
 
  Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
  Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
 
  Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.
 
  I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for me,
  as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)
 
  The question is Why do you do it?
 
  a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to support suicide go
 
  or
 
  b. Because that has some advantage as a random playout.
 
  If it was b, can anyone explain why suicide is a better evaluation for
  a normal (non suicide) game.
 
  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] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Mark Boon



On 16-jan-08, at 17:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


We can use math to shed some light on the topic:

* Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
  increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
  as Don has previously concluded.

* Then we have the following table of approximate
  costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
  cost - lost ELO
  
   1%  -  1.5 ELO
   2%  -  3.0 ELO
   3%  -  4.5 ELO
   4%  -  6.0 ELO
   5%  -  7.5 ELO
   6%  -  9.0 ELO
  10%  - 15.0 ELO

* In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
  for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
  would lose 1.5 ELO points.

* If I wanted to know whether it was worth it, I would
  want to measure the ELO benefit by making better
  decisions concerning suicide. It is a small but
  real amount, probably at least 1 ELO (using my
  finger in the breeze).

* Thus the issue of whether you detect suicide may
  be a complete wash.

* On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
  6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
  of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
  the cost.

Conclusions

* The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
  the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
  arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
  worth a tiny amount of effort.

* Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
  suicide and ko decisions would be useful.

* I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
  confident that it doesn't make much difference.

Michael Wing



I have a few question-marks here.

First, did Don really say that a doubling of the speed gains 100 ELO?  
Or did he say adding a ply would add 100 ELO? There's a big difference.


Secondly, you say the ELO benefit for not playing suicide is 1.  
Admittedly you say you used your wet finger in the breeze. Thinking  
more about it I'd say Don is right, not playing suicide should be a  
considerable gain. I'd say that (putting my wet finger up) a random  
player that doesn't play suicide beats a random player that does 2:1.  
What's that in ELO? 100 points? Should be easy to verify.


Mark


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

I think you are off on the relative importance of superko and suicide
and it seems that your values are rather arbitrary - just made up.  

First of all, we are only talking about detection in the play-outs, not
in the tree search portion.

In the play-outs,   it is very important to avoid moves that are nearly
always horrible.  This clearly includes suicide. I don't know why
you estimate that  it is worth only 1 elo weakness. 

If you implement a program that doesn't understand superko,  you will 
occasionally lose a game due to this - but most of the time it won't be
an issue.   Nevertheless, it happens often enough that it is probably
worth a few ELO points because your program will LOSE on CGOS if it
fails to realize that it is about to play superko.I am guessing that
this would amount to perhaps 20 ELO,  I'm just guessing. 

HOWEVER,  if your program simply avoids superko moves, without
understanding them,  it probably subtracts almost nothing from your
rating.  In monte carlo UCT you can STILL include positional superko
in the tree search and get 99% of the benefit and simply leave this out
of the random play-outs.Including PSK in the play-outs will have no
measurable impact on the quality of the play-outs.  

My conclusion is different than yours.   If you leave PSK out of the
play-outs you lose NOTHING that is likely to be measurable.  If you
let your program play suicide moves in the play-outs,   I'm quite you
lose many ELO rating points (if speed isn't a consideration.)   

Of course speed IS a consideration too and that can change the
formula.   In your program there is not question that you should detect
suicide and not play it, because this is only 1.5 percent for you.  But
evidently some program benefit substantially (in speed) by accepting
suicide.

- Don



  

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 We can use math to shed some light on the topic:

 * Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
   increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
   as Don has previously concluded.

 * Then we have the following table of approximate
   costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
   cost - lost ELO
   
1%  -  1.5 ELO
2%  -  3.0 ELO
3%  -  4.5 ELO
4%  -  6.0 ELO
5%  -  7.5 ELO
6%  -  9.0 ELO
   10%  - 15.0 ELO

 * In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
   for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
   would lose 1.5 ELO points.

 * If I wanted to know whether it was worth it, I would
   want to measure the ELO benefit by making better
   decisions concerning suicide. It is a small but
   real amount, probably at least 1 ELO (using my
   finger in the breeze).

 * Thus the issue of whether you detect suicide may
   be a complete wash.

 * On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
   6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
   of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
   the cost.

 Conclusions

 * The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
   the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
   arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
   worth a tiny amount of effort.

 * Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
   suicide and ko decisions would be useful.

 * I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
   confident that it doesn't make much difference.

 Michael Wing

 Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

   
 There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..

 1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
 be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.

 2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
 under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
 see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.
   
 But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
 You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
 without putting these moves in the play-outs. 

 The play-outs are imperfect by nature - they try to take a statistical
 sample of many possible ways the game might proceed.The path to
 improve the quality of this statistical sample is to not play moves that
 represent very UNLIKELY continuations.Adding these moves randomly to
 the play-outs doesn't improve it's ability to statically measure the
 likely outcome.  

 For instance since is legal to resign,  we could randomly include this
 possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
 power of the play-outs. 

 Moving into 1 point eyes is also legal, but virtually all Monte Carlo
 programs forbid this as it's well known to be incredibly stupid in the
 vast majority of cases.But in some rare cases it is actually good -
 but we still would not want to add it to our play-outs.   

 Because of the 1 point eye rule, suicide in the play-outs probably isn't
 THAT bad.You are probably only suiciding a group that is already
 dead - but you are weakening the

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread wing

Mark,

Don did say that doubling the speed of a machine is
100 ELO. See the thread at
http://www.mail-archive.com/computer-go@computer-go.org/msg05358.html

I believe that beating someone 2:1 is 100 ELO.
So, if ignoring suicide is at most 1 ELO, then it doesn't matter.

Michael Wing

P.S. I should have used the equation y = 100 * log2(x)

 I have a few question-marks here.

 First, did Don really say that a doubling of the speed gains 100 ELO?  
 Or did he say adding a ply would add 100 ELO? There's a big difference.
 
 Secondly, you say the ELO benefit for not playing suicide is 1.  
 Admittedly you say you used your wet finger in the breeze. Thinking  
 more about it I'd say Don is right, not playing suicide should be a  
 considerable gain. I'd say that (putting my wet finger up) a random  
 player that doesn't play suicide beats a random player that does 2:1.  
 What's that in ELO? 100 points? Should be easy to verify.

  Conclusions
  * The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
worth a tiny amount of effort.
 
  * Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
suicide and ko decisions would be useful.
 
  * I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
confident that it doesn't make much difference.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread dhillismail


-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
 
 For instance since is legal to resign,? we could randomly include this
 possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
 power of the play-outs. 


Hmm... It would speed things up, though. And if you made the probability of 
resigning a function of the difference in stone count, you would have a 
stochastic mercy rule. In case this turns out to help, I name it Don's escape 
rule.

- Dave Hillis







More new features than ever.  Check out the new AIM(R) Mail ! - 
http://webmail.aim.com
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread wing

Don,

I forgot to mention one additional consideration.
My top-level driver does check rules for suicide
and superko, even though the engine may or may not.
At the top-level, if the engine chooses a bad move,
then the driver will use the next best move instead.
(Repeat as necessary) So it will not lose by rules
and (hopefully) the second best move move is still
reasonable.

However, I am talking about the actual performance
of my engine when doing random playouts for MC.

I do know the ELO cost of detection, using a valid
heuristic. The real ELO benefit of knowing the
validity of moves is just a wild guess. Yet, I
stand by my analysis.

Michael Wing

 I think you are off on the relative importance of superko and suicide
 and it seems that your values are rather arbitrary - just made up.  
 
 First of all, we are only talking about detection in the play-outs, not
 in the tree search portion.
 
 In the play-outs,   it is very important to avoid moves that are nearly
 always horrible.  This clearly includes suicide. I don't know why
 you estimate that  it is worth only 1 elo weakness. 
 
 If you implement a program that doesn't understand superko,  you will 
 occasionally lose a game due to this - but most of the time it won't be
 an issue.   Nevertheless, it happens often enough that it is probably
 worth a few ELO points because your program will LOSE on CGOS if it
 fails to realize that it is about to play superko.I am guessing that
 this would amount to perhaps 20 ELO,  I'm just guessing. 
 
 HOWEVER,  if your program simply avoids superko moves, without
 understanding them,  it probably subtracts almost nothing from your
 rating.  In monte carlo UCT you can STILL include positional superko
 in the tree search and get 99% of the benefit and simply leave this out
 of the random play-outs.Including PSK in the play-outs will have no
 measurable impact on the quality of the play-outs.  
 
 My conclusion is different than yours.   If you leave PSK out of the
 play-outs you lose NOTHING that is likely to be measurable.  If you
 let your program play suicide moves in the play-outs,   I'm quite you
 lose many ELO rating points (if speed isn't a consideration.)   
 
 Of course speed IS a consideration too and that can change the
 formula.   In your program there is not question that you should detect
 suicide and not play it, because this is only 1.5 percent for you.  But
 evidently some program benefit substantially (in speed) by accepting
 suicide.
 
 - Don
 
 
 
   
 
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  We can use math to shed some light on the topic:
 
  * Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
as Don has previously concluded.
 
  * Then we have the following table of approximate
costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
cost - lost ELO

 1%  -  1.5 ELO
 2%  -  3.0 ELO
 3%  -  4.5 ELO
 4%  -  6.0 ELO
 5%  -  7.5 ELO
 6%  -  9.0 ELO
10%  - 15.0 ELO
 
  * In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
would lose 1.5 ELO points.
 
  * If I wanted to know whether it was worth it, I would
want to measure the ELO benefit by making better
decisions concerning suicide. It is a small but
real amount, probably at least 1 ELO (using my
finger in the breeze).
 
  * Thus the issue of whether you detect suicide may
be a complete wash.
 
  * On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
the cost.
 
  Conclusions
 
  * The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
worth a tiny amount of effort.
 
  * Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
suicide and ko decisions would be useful.
 
  * I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
confident that it doesn't make much difference.
 
  Michael Wing
 
  Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
 

  There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..
 
  1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
  be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.
 
  2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
  under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
  see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.

  But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
  You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
  without putting these moves in the play-outs. 
 
  The play-outs are imperfect by nature - they try to take a statistical
  sample of many possible ways the game might proceed.The path to
  improve the quality of this statistical sample is to not play moves that
  represent very

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

Mark,

I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 ELO.
But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 ELO for a
doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus program and the
strength improvement per doubling was very  clear and impressive.

You can usually see that the 2 or 4 processor versions of Mogo or
CrazyStone jumps way up in strength - so it's very clear that speed is
really quite important for any program that is search based as UCT is
and is properly scalable.  

You will also notice that Mogo and Crazy Stone rarely test their  strong
versions on CGOS,  they often have versions that play super fast or do
tiny numbers of play-outs such as 3k etc presumably because there is
no competition.You can see that these versions are generally several
hundred ELO weaker - so in every case it is pretty clear that doubling
the number of simulations (or speed) is very important.

I have often wondered if UCT and Monte Carlo play-outs would have even
been discovered a few years ago.It could very well be that this
technology HAD to wait for today. Mogo and CrazyStone would not be
impressive on a 386.

- Don




Mark Boon wrote:

 On 16-jan-08, at 17:22, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 We can use math to shed some light on the topic:

 * Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
   increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
   as Don has previously concluded.

 * Then we have the following table of approximate
   costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
   cost - lost ELO
   
1%  -  1.5 ELO
2%  -  3.0 ELO
3%  -  4.5 ELO
4%  -  6.0 ELO
5%  -  7.5 ELO
6%  -  9.0 ELO
   10%  - 15.0 ELO

 * In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
   for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
   would lose 1.5 ELO points.

 * If I wanted to know whether it was worth it, I would
   want to measure the ELO benefit by making better
   decisions concerning suicide. It is a small but
   real amount, probably at least 1 ELO (using my
   finger in the breeze).

 * Thus the issue of whether you detect suicide may
   be a complete wash.

 * On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
   6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
   of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
   the cost.

 Conclusions

 * The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
   the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
   arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
   worth a tiny amount of effort.

 * Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
   suicide and ko decisions would be useful.

 * I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
   confident that it doesn't make much difference.

 Michael Wing


 I have a few question-marks here.

 First, did Don really say that a doubling of the speed gains 100 ELO?
 Or did he say adding a ply would add 100 ELO? There's a big difference.

 Secondly, you say the ELO benefit for not playing suicide is 1.
 Admittedly you say you used your wet finger in the breeze. Thinking
 more about it I'd say Don is right, not playing suicide should be a
 considerable gain. I'd say that (putting my wet finger up) a random
 player that doesn't play suicide beats a random player that does 2:1.
 What's that in ELO? 100 points? Should be easy to verify.

 Mark


 ___
 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] Suicide question

Now that is thinking outside the box :-)


[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 -Original Message-
 From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 ...
   
 For instance since is legal to resign,? we could randomly include this
 possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
 power of the play-outs. 

 

 Hmm... It would speed things up, though. And if you made the probability of 
 resigning a function of the difference in stone count, you would have a 
 stochastic mercy rule. In case this turns out to help, I name it Don's 
 escape rule.

 - Dave Hillis






 
 More new features than ever.  Check out the new AIM(R) Mail ! - 
 http://webmail.aim.com

   
 

 ___
 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] Suicide question



[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Don,

 I forgot to mention one additional consideration.
 My top-level driver does check rules for suicide
 and superko, even though the engine may or may not.
 At the top-level, if the engine chooses a bad move,
 then the driver will use the next best move instead.
 (Repeat as necessary) So it will not lose by rules
 and (hopefully) the second best move move is still
 reasonable.

 However, I am talking about the actual performance
 of my engine when doing random playouts for MC.

 I do know the ELO cost of detection, using a valid
 heuristic. The real ELO benefit of knowing the
 validity of moves is just a wild guess. Yet, I
 stand by my analysis.
   
You analysis seems to be that it's more important to detect superko in
the play-outs than to eliminate suicide in the play-outs.   

If you want to stand by that,   ok,  but I strongly disagree.

- Don


 Michael Wing

   
 I think you are off on the relative importance of superko and suicide
 and it seems that your values are rather arbitrary - just made up.  

 First of all, we are only talking about detection in the play-outs, not
 in the tree search portion.

 In the play-outs,   it is very important to avoid moves that are nearly
 always horrible.  This clearly includes suicide. I don't know why
 you estimate that  it is worth only 1 elo weakness. 

 If you implement a program that doesn't understand superko,  you will 
 occasionally lose a game due to this - but most of the time it won't be
 an issue.   Nevertheless, it happens often enough that it is probably
 worth a few ELO points because your program will LOSE on CGOS if it
 fails to realize that it is about to play superko.I am guessing that
 this would amount to perhaps 20 ELO,  I'm just guessing. 

 HOWEVER,  if your program simply avoids superko moves, without
 understanding them,  it probably subtracts almost nothing from your
 rating.  In monte carlo UCT you can STILL include positional superko
 in the tree search and get 99% of the benefit and simply leave this out
 of the random play-outs.Including PSK in the play-outs will have no
 measurable impact on the quality of the play-outs.  

 My conclusion is different than yours.   If you leave PSK out of the
 play-outs you lose NOTHING that is likely to be measurable.  If you
 let your program play suicide moves in the play-outs,   I'm quite you
 lose many ELO rating points (if speed isn't a consideration.)   

 Of course speed IS a consideration too and that can change the
 formula.   In your program there is not question that you should detect
 suicide and not play it, because this is only 1.5 percent for you.  But
 evidently some program benefit substantially (in speed) by accepting
 suicide.

 - Don



   

 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 
 We can use math to shed some light on the topic:

 * Assume that doubling the speed of a machine
   increases the rank of a program by 100 ELO,
   as Don has previously concluded.

 * Then we have the following table of approximate
   costs, which comes from the equation y = 100 * 2^x
   cost - lost ELO
   
1%  -  1.5 ELO
2%  -  3.0 ELO
3%  -  4.5 ELO
4%  -  6.0 ELO
5%  -  7.5 ELO
6%  -  9.0 ELO
   10%  - 15.0 ELO

 * In my program (which implements undo), the cost of
   for suicide detection is around 1%, which means it
   would lose 1.5 ELO points.

 * If I wanted to know whether it was worth it, I would
   want to measure the ELO benefit by making better
   decisions concerning suicide. It is a small but
   real amount, probably at least 1 ELO (using my
   finger in the breeze).

 * Thus the issue of whether you detect suicide may
   be a complete wash.

 * On the other hand detecting superko costs more like
   6% or so, which costs 9 or more ELO. So a benefit
   of 1 ELO for doing superko right may not be worth
   the cost.

 Conclusions

 * The effect of suicide detection is *very* small in
   the scheme of things, and is probably not worth
   arguing over. Superko is also small, but might be
   worth a tiny amount of effort.

 * Some kind of study to measuring the ELO cost of bad
   suicide and ko decisions would be useful.

 * I plan to detect both suicide and superko on principle,
   confident that it doesn't make much difference.

 Michael Wing

 Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

   
   
 There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..

 1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
 be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.

 2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
 under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
 see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.
   
   
 But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
 You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
 without putting these moves in the play-outs. 

 The play-outs are imperfect

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Christoph Birk


On Jan 16, 2008, at 12:07 PM, Don Dailey wrote:

I have often wondered if UCT and Monte Carlo play-outs would have even
been discovered a few years ago.It could very well be that this
technology HAD to wait for today. Mogo and CrazyStone would not be
impressive on a 386.


I heard about MonteCarlo go in the late-90s when I read a paper
by Bernd Bruegmann (Monte Carlo Go, 1993). This paper is quoted
by most authors as (one of) the earliest.
'Gobble' did of course not play very well for the reason you mention
above.

Christoph

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread steve uurtamo

maybe this doesn't sound right to everyone,
but i thought that suicide and filling one-point
eyes were both things that could be highly
useful in many corner positions where you either
want to create a nakade (fill the eye), or threaten
one (with suicide).

s.


- Original Message 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:54:30 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




David Doshay wrote:
 There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..

 1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
 be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.

 2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
 under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
 see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.
But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
without putting these moves in the play-outs. 

The play-outs are imperfect by nature - they try to take a statistical
sample of many possible ways the game might proceed.The path to
improve the quality of this statistical sample is to not play moves
 that
represent very UNLIKELY continuations.Adding these moves randomly
 to
the play-outs doesn't improve it's ability to statically measure the
likely outcome.  

For instance since is legal to resign,  we could randomly include
 this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the play-outs. 

Moving into 1 point eyes is also legal, but virtually all Monte Carlo
programs forbid this as it's well known to be incredibly stupid in the
vast majority of cases.But in some rare cases it is actually good -
but we still would not want to add it to our play-outs.   

Because of the 1 point eye rule, suicide in the play-outs probably
 isn't
THAT bad.You are probably only suiciding a group that is already
dead - but you are weakening the play-outs.   It may be  worth it if
 you
get enough speed in return.  

In my program I am always looking for an excuse to veto moves that are
obviously bad.   If I had such an obvious class of position like
suicide, I would jump on the opportunity to remove them from the
 play-outs!

- Don




 Cheers,
 David



 On 16, Jan 2008, at 5:52 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

 I think suicide is insane myself.   But I think the reason programs
 might use it is only for a speedup - it's faster with some
 implementations to allow suicide even though it makes the games
 longer.

 Of course you are right about point B.If suicide is illegal in
 the
 actual game,  there can be no point in allowing it in the play-outs.
 It's almost certainly wrong to allow it in the play-outs even if you
 are
 playing by suicide rules - a lot of work has gone into finding good
 moves in the play-outs and this would be one of the prime candidates
 for
 removal!

 - Don


 Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

 Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.

 I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for
 me,
 as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)

 The question is Why do you do it?

 a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to support suicide go

 or

 b. Because that has some advantage as a random playout.

 If it was b, can anyone explain why suicide is a better evaluation
 for
 a normal (non suicide) game.

 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/

 ___
 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/





  

Never miss a thing.  Make Yahoo your home page. 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Heikki Levanto

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
 There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
 filling are correct.

I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
positions where it would be a correct move?

If not, then it makes sense to forbid that in a random playout, since it is
just a forcing move, and the (equally) random opponent is quite unlikely to
answer the right way anyway. So the suicide move may look like a better move
than it really is.


I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).


Can anyone come with concrete examples?

 - Heikki

-- 
Heikki Levanto   In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread terry mcintyre

Yesterday, I played a 9x9 game with Mogo, and a seki developed in the corner. 
Mogo tried to capture my stones; 
I gleefully aided Mogo in this assisted suicide by creating a square four 
shape, which Mogo captured.

Subsequent plays suggested that Mogo believed its group to be alive. When all 
neutral points were played, I passed;
Mogo made some sort of meaningless move; I tossed another stone into that 
single square-four eye. Mogo resigned immediately.

This suggests to me that random playouts  were not discovering that any attempt 
to divide a square-four shape into two eyes would be automatically defeated.
I conjecture that the automatic play the center of three liberties response 
was given no greater probability than any of the remaining empty points on the 
board.
That key play might even have been discouraged by some pattern. But once I 
tossed in a stone, Mogo realized that the probability of winning was 
effectively zero.

Are my conjectures in the ballpark? 

How feasible is it to repair such blind spots?

How feasible is it to dynamically boost the probability of such vital points 
when they become crucial to the game? 

Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
“Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state 
education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit 
obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.”
 
Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]

- Original Message 
From: steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:06:09 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question


maybe this doesn't sound right to everyone,
but i thought that suicide and filling one-point
eyes were both things that could be highly
useful in many corner positions where you either
want to create a nakade (fill the eye), or threaten
one (with suicide).

s.


- Original Message 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2008 1:54:30 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Suicide question




David Doshay wrote:
 There are two reasons to consider suicide and its detection..

 1) Some rule sets allow suicide. In such a rule set a suicide can
 be the best move because it can be a huge ko threat.

 2) As David Fotland has pointed out many times, when competing
 under rules that allow suicide, some programs will do one just to
 see if your program refuses to play when you detect its suicide.
But there are very few arguments for putting suicide in the play-outs. 
You can still design your program to accept and even play suicide
without putting these moves in the play-outs. 

The play-outs are imperfect by nature - they try to take a statistical
sample of many possible ways the game might proceed.The path to
improve the quality of this statistical sample is to not play moves
 that
represent very UNLIKELY continuations.Adding these moves randomly
 to
the play-outs doesn't improve it's ability to statically measure the
likely outcome.  

For instance since is legal to resign,  we could randomly include
 this
possibility in the play-outs, but it would not increase the resolving
power of the play-outs. 

Moving into 1 point eyes is also legal, but virtually all Monte Carlo
programs forbid this as it's well known to be incredibly stupid in the
vast majority of cases.But in some rare cases it is actually good -
but we still would not want to add it to our play-outs.   

Because of the 1 point eye rule, suicide in the play-outs probably
 isn't
THAT bad.You are probably only suiciding a group that is already
dead - but you are weakening the play-outs.   It may be  worth it if
 you
get enough speed in return.  

In my program I am always looking for an excuse to veto moves that are
obviously bad.   If I had such an obvious class of position like
suicide, I would jump on the opportunity to remove them from the
 play-outs!

- Don




 Cheers,
 David



 On 16, Jan 2008, at 5:52 AM, Don Dailey wrote:

 I think suicide is insane myself.   But I think the reason programs
 might use it is only for a speedup - it's faster with some
 implementations to allow suicide even though it makes the games
 longer.

 Of course you are right about point B.If suicide is illegal in
 the
 actual game,  there can be no point in allowing it in the play-outs.
 It's almost certainly wrong to allow it in the play-outs even if you
 are
 playing by suicide rules - a lot of work has gone into finding good
 moves in the play-outs and this would be one of the prime candidates
 for
 removal!

 - Don


 Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:

 Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not.

 I hadn't even considered suicide.(It would be a major change for
 me,
 as neither my Gui nor my board system allow such moves.)

 The question is Why do you do it?

 a. Just in case you wanted the entire program to support suicide go

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Gian-Carlo Pascutto


terry mcintyre wrote:


That key play might even have been discouraged by some pattern.


MoGo probably does not allow self-ataris. If you do not allow self-atari 
you cannot see such a shape is dead.


--
GCP
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Gunnar Farnebäck


Heikki Levanto wrote:
 On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
 There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
 filling are correct.

 I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
 positions where it would be a correct move?

Yes, but as far as I know only in obscure positions.
http://www.goban.demon.co.uk/go/bestiary/rule_challenge.html is
mandatory reading.

 If not, then it makes sense to forbid that in a random playout, since 
it is
 just a forcing move, and the (equally) random opponent is quite 
unlikely to
 answer the right way anyway. So the suicide move may look like a 
better move

 than it really is.


 I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
 correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).


 Can anyone come with concrete examples?

This has been discussed before on this list. See e.g.

http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-August/006180.html
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-August/006203.html

/Gunnar
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Erik van der Werf

On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
 correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).


 Can anyone come with concrete examples?

Sure, for example with the following shape filling the eye makes a bulky
five nakade in the corner
_
|. # #
|# #


Under cgos rules you may in rare cases even have to fill eyes of pass-alive
groups.

E.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Gunnar Farnebäck


Erik van der Werf wrote:
 On Jan 16, 2008 10:42 PM, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye 
would be a

   correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).
  
  
   Can anyone come with concrete examples?

 Sure, for example with the following shape filling the eye makes a bulky
 five nakade in the corner
 _
 |. # #
 |# #


 Under cgos rules you may in rare cases even have to fill eyes of
 pass-alive groups.

This reminds me that one of the games in the January KGS tournament
featured a case of moon-shine life because GNU Go by principle doesn't
play inside unconditional territory unless it needs to remove all dead
opponent stones, but even then only if there are dead stones in the
same eye. The game record can be found at

http://files.gokgs.com/games/2008/1/6/MonteGNU-break.sgf

This is the final position, in cleanup mode after disagreement:

   A B C D E F G H J
 9 . O . O O . . O . 9
 8 . O O . O O . O O 8
 7 O O + . O . + O O 7
 6 O . O O O O . O O 6
 5 . O O . + O . O . 5
 4 O . O . . O O O O 4
 3 O . + O . O X O X 3
 2 O O . O O O X X . 2
 1 . O O O X X X . X 1
   A B C D E F G H J

Black has just captured ko at J3, white passed since it refused to
play inside any of its empty eyes, black of course passed too and the
game was counted as it stood with the black stones considered alive.

/Gunnar
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Nick Wedd

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Heikki Levanto 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes

On Wed, Jan 16, 2008 at 04:12:26PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:

There is no question that there are positions where suicide or eye
filling are correct.


I know suicide can be used as a ko-threat, but are there *any* other
positions where it would be a correct move?

If not, then it makes sense to forbid that in a random playout, since it is
just a forcing move, and the (equally) random opponent is quite unlikely to
answer the right way anyway. So the suicide move may look like a better move
than it really is.


I can not think of any situation where filling a one-point eye would be a
correct move (provided that it is a real eye and not a false one).


Can anyone come with concrete examples?


There's a bunch of them at
http://www.goban.demon.co.uk/go/bestiary/rule_challenge.html

None is at all likely in a real game.  There's also the more plausible 
suicide of three stones as a minus one point in sente ko threat.


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] Suicide question

2008-01-16 Thread Michael Williams


Don Dailey wrote:

Mark,

I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 ELO.
But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 ELO for a

doubling.I did a massive study of this at one point a year or
more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus program and the
strength improvement per doubling was very  clear and impressive.


Don, what komi did you use when you did that study?  Looking in the archives, all I can find is you saying that komi=9 is correct.  So does that mean 8.5 or 
9.5?  Or did you allow draws?


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Suicide question