Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Stefan Mertin wrote: on 07.11.2007 07:35 Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: Stefan Mertin wrote: I am using GnuGo scoring in my tournaments. But GnuGo 3.7.10 mostly doesn´t score seki correctly, has this been revised for v3.7.11 ...?! What scoring mode are you using? /Gunnar SORRY - I was completely wrong here, I just realize that I was still using GnuGo 3.6 for scoring instead of 3.7.10! (for chinese : --score estimate --chinese-rules for japanese: --score estimate) In my actual computer Go tournament I just set up SmartGo2.7 to play GoIntellect10, and from 150 9x9games there are 7 with a seki in the final position. 5 of these were scored wrongly because I mistakingly had scored with GnuGo3.6 - I now have changed it to 3.7.11 and everything seams to be perfect! With GNU Go 3.6 you can try --score aftermath instead. It plays out the game until all stones except ones in seki are unconditionally settled, which usually gives a reliable seki detection. Also with current development versions --score aftermath is expected to be the most reliable scoring option, but the difference is much smaller nowadays. /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re[2]: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
I've been trying to think about what I really want and how it would be achieved. What I'm interested in is the ability for bots to assign an accurate final score to a game as early as possible. When trying to think how to make this into a competitive challenge, I tried to consider both bots submitting votes and then finishing the game to prove who was right. Let's say bot A says it won by at least 10 points and bot B says it lost by no more than 7 points. The bots could then finish the game and see who was more right by having each bot continue the game to a completely clear end position. This scheme seems flawed when the ranges for the outcomes overlap. I was able to create sandbagging strategies that makes that style of competition less interesting. Here's an alternate competition that could work reasonably well. For now, assume a reference game is given. Bot A can declare an outcome of the game (say black +6.5). Bot B can then challenge the outcome by declaring the side that can do better. Bot B then plays the side that can do better and Bot A plays the side that supposedly can not. Both bots then finish the game and a winner is declared. Let me give an example: Reference game is given Bot A concludes black + 6.5 Bot B concludes black + 7.5 Bot A declares the outcome as black + 6.5 Bot B challenges the outcome and must win by more than 6.5 Bot A takes white and can not lose by more than 6.5 The game is played until the end and the outcome is 6.5 Bot A is declared the winner. If such a competition existed, would others be interested in competing? On Nov 6, 2007 10:48 AM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Nov 6, 2007 10:30 AM, Lars Schäfers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;) It's not a bad dream. That kind of thing could help spur development of good ways to handle Japanese scoring. I fear that programs which are weak would have a really tough time with Japanese scoring. I personally put a lot of weight on making my bot playable with people. I have ignored this aspect of my bot since going MC since I've been doing a lot of rewriting and getting basic functionality. Now that my bot has achieved ~1400 ELO, however, I'm likely to start working on this human element again. If we put up a milestone like 9x9 Japanese CGOS starting 1 Jan 2008, I'd be very likely to upgrade my bot to handle it in prep for that. The delay is mostly so that I both have time to implement it and to work in a few other major features such as those used by MoGo, CrazyStone, and greenpeep. If I'm lucky, I'll be over 2000 ELO this time next month... Out of curiosity, how well do those strong bots do when limited to 10k playouts? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
steve uurtamo said: i wonder what is known about the set of unconditionally dead and unconditionally living groups. there must be something like a small and extremely fast mechanism for this. what is everyone using? i mean a mechanism that is independent of any fancy data structure that you would have incrementally been maintaining. the idea is: identify at least one stone from every unconditionally living and every unconditionally dead group on the board, and report them as dead or alive. Well... suppose you have a chain that might connect to the dead group on the left, making a larger group that lives... or might also connect to the dead group on the right, making a different larger group that lives? But not both. Forrest Curo - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
i literally mean the algorithm that would have nothing to say about any of those stones. (i.e. wouldn't declare any element of any of them to be in either of the two states that i had described). s. - Original Message From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Wednesday, November 7, 2007 3:26:29 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19? steve uurtamo said: i wonder what is known about the set of unconditionally dead and unconditionally living groups. there must be something like a small and extremely fast mechanism for this. what is everyone using? i mean a mechanism that is independent of any fancy data structure that you would have incrementally been maintaining. the idea is: identify at least one stone from every unconditionally living and every unconditionally dead group on the board, and report them as dead or alive. Well... suppose you have a chain that might connect to the dead group on the left, making a larger group that lives... or might also connect to the dead group on the right, making a different larger group that lives? But not both. Forrest Curo - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
on 07.11.2007 07:35 Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: Stefan Mertin wrote: I am using GnuGo scoring in my tournaments. But GnuGo 3.7.10 mostly doesn´t score seki correctly, has this been revised for v3.7.11 ...?! What scoring mode are you using? /Gunnar SORRY - I was completely wrong here, I just realize that I was still using GnuGo 3.6 for scoring instead of 3.7.10! (for chinese : --score estimate --chinese-rules for japanese: --score estimate) In my actual computer Go tournament I just set up SmartGo2.7 to play GoIntellect10, and from 150 9x9games there are 7 with a seki in the final position. 5 of these were scored wrongly because I mistakingly had scored with GnuGo3.6 - I now have changed it to 3.7.11 and everything seams to be perfect! Thanks, Stefan ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re[2]: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:30 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote: By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;) What formal and automatable Japanese ruleset are you proposing? A computer implementation would also lend credibility. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;) Lars Hi Lars, I don't want to get too philosophical here and start another rules debate so I'll start by saying that I'm not that interested in rules as such. It's way more interesting to me to focus on playing strength. Japanese rules is a fairly large diversion from this in my opinion. When I designed CGOS I didn't want to get involved with the complexities of Japanese scoring because the real motivation for CGOS was to encourage the development of strong playing Go programs.I wanted it to be as easy as possible to get started in this, not just for the program developers, but also for myself.How do you score Japanese games correctly in an automated way in the face of program disputes? There was a lot of discussion about this at one point - one of them being to let gnugo score the games. But of course it involves more protocol to the server such as dead stone agreement and such.Nothing that isn't possible, but it makes things way more complicated for everybody.For a server like CGOS it's a heavy price to pay. As Nick Wedd observed, it's very difficult to get all the program authors to get the software correct for any kind of protocol.Of course if I were to do it, I would simply set up the rules and the protocol and I would not be forgiving of program error (it would be up to the programmer to get it right or risk losing games.) It's already like that on CGOS. Some programs don't do positions super ko correctly and they sometimes lose games. I get a report every month or two about this, claiming CGOS doesn't know how to handle Ko properly but in every case the complainant was wrong.I can easily imagine what it would be like with Japanese rules. I would be getting hammered with sincere pleads to check the code because they are sure it's wrong. I chased down every case of the KO bug, I never ignored the complainant just because I knew they would be wrong but I wanted to give them the satisfaction that I checked it out with an open mind (ok, I admit my mind wasn't open - I knew they were wrong but I still always did the homework to set their mind at ease.) Since you have a dream - I will tell you my dream. I wish there was a single set of standardized rules that everyone in the world honored. These rules would promote the game by being as simple as possible so that beginners would understand it.Japanese rules have almost certainly hurt the game in Western cultures. I believe this because I almost didn't discover the game due to these rules - you simply cannot understand Japanese rules without already being good at the game. With Chinese rules, you can learn the rules quickly. Having said all of that, I'm very interested in Japanese scoring from an engineering point of view. I think it would interesting challenge and a lot of fun making my own program able to handle them properly. Of course this is a requirement for a serious commercial program. I have a un-serious commercial palm program that does not know Japanese and it's a requested feature, although not heavily requested. I acknowledge that Japanese rules are popular and here to stay.I would really get interested if I had a strong program and I was in the polishing phase of program development, where you provide a fancy GUI and lots of cool features. Even then, it's a lot of work because there is not such thing as one set of Japanese rules, there are many variations. In fact it would be interesting to enumerate those variations, such as ko, komi, handicap system (should there be compensation), suicide, time-control and so on. There is surely a sensei page on this. - Don DD AnchorMan uses that in KGS mode - it will pass quite early sometimes and DD mark dead stones based on the territory statistics you are talking DD about. DD So I assume the play-outs are chinese and the move selection is the same DD as our bots except you won't move into an intersection that is owned by DD either player? DD How reliable is that?I had to be pretty conservative in AnchorMan DD about using that, it would fail to defend territory unless I made the DD threshold for ownership pretty high. DD - Don DD Lars wrote: I had build an Monte-Carlo GO-Engine (GOMonCy) wich uses the Japanese scoring system. It reached a win rate against GnuGO 3.6 level 10 of stable 50%-52%. I used territorry-statistics about the Monte-Carlo outcomes. You get a probability for every field telling you who is the owner. It works quite good, but I thougt that nearly everyone is using such statistics, isnt't it? Using a threshold to decide that a field belongs to a player you can also handle seki situations. Of course, if it is losing, the engin will break the seki situation an continue losing.. Am Montag, den 05.11.2007, 16:54 -0800 schrieb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Re[4]: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Hello Jeff, as far as I know there don't exist any formal and automatable japanese ruleset. I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki. If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps be an advantage for GnuGO playing on CGOS but show me a 9x9 game where you wouldn't agree with the scoring, I think such cases are really rare. Lars Tuesday, November 6, 2007, 6:08:20 PM, you wrote: JN On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:30 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote: By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;) JN What formal and automatable Japanese ruleset are you proposing? A JN computer implementation would also lend credibility. JN -Jeff JN ___ JN computer-go mailing list JN computer-go@computer-go.org JN 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] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Lars, If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games. But I think your suggestion is sensible for Japanese scoring.GnuGo won't score perfectly every time, but I understand it is rarely incorrect. Does anyone have statistics on how well GnuGo scores professional 19x19 games? - Don Lars Schäfers wrote: Hello Jeff, as far as I know there don't exist any formal and automatable japanese ruleset. I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki. If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps be an advantage for GnuGO playing on CGOS but show me a 9x9 game where you wouldn't agree with the scoring, I think such cases are really rare. Lars Tuesday, November 6, 2007, 6:08:20 PM, you wrote: JN On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:30 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote: By the way: a 9x9 CGOS server using japanese rules... I have a dream.. ;) JN What formal and automatable Japanese ruleset are you proposing? A JN computer implementation would also lend credibility. JN -Jeff JN ___ JN computer-go mailing list JN computer-go@computer-go.org JN 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] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Don Dailey wrote: Lars, If I do anything to CGOS it would be handicap games. But I think your suggestion is sensible for Japanese scoring.GnuGo won't score perfectly every time, but I understand it is rarely incorrect. Does anyone have statistics on how well GnuGo scores professional 19x19 games? That depends on how difficult you make the problem. I have used Dave Dyer's test set of 623 scored professional 19x19 games, see http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/go/scoring-games.html for information. As can be seen in the example on that page, those game records generally leave out all dame moves and even some moves required to finalize territories when it's clear how many points will be obtained there. Worse still, final endgame kos are frequently left out since it's assumed to be obvious who will win them. With this in mind, the results for GNU Go 3.7.11 are 534 (85.7%) correctly scored, 79 (12.7%) off by one point, 5 off by 2 points, 2 off by 3 points, and 1 each off by 12, 34, and 38 points. But mind you, GNU Go is trained on those games. It would certainly do worse on unseen games of a similar difficulty. On the other hand, if the game records are complete up to and including dame filling, I would expect the error rate to be less than 1%, possibly much better. /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:55 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: Hi Jeff, Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing. I think when a bot should resign is a matter of personal preference. I myself prefer to see games played out if it's somewhat close or very near the end. If there's a handful of moves left what's the point of resigning? But against humans it should technically be the same, but isn't.When playing against humans a bot needs to be able to mark dead groups. I have the same feelings whether it's a bot vs bot game or bot vs human. As for marking dead stones, obviously a bot needs to be able to against humans, and I never suggested otherwise. My only point is that you don't need territory scoring rules for this. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
On Nov 6, 2007 4:34 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Territory scoring doesn't make the game end any sooner, it just penalizes you for not doing so. Right. In close games, the decision to pass is non-trivial. If protecting against an invasion causes a loss, then the invasion must be left open. This type of behavior is human-like. The only real exception is that weak humans like me don't count perfectly and exhibit this behavior in more cases than they should. If I'm ahead 40 points, I protect everything. But I refrained for 2 reasons: 1. It makes everything more confusing and complicated. 2. There is a better way. Actually, I agree with you that the better way is the better way for the community as a whole. Similar to an occasional slow/fast tournament on KGS, I think some experimentation with territory scoring has some benefit. This style of behavior is pleasing to people, and I think some testing of it could be helpful. Many people prefer to end games the human lost gracefully rather than be forced to resign through long endgame. I think having a way to generate a lot of games to test this style of behavior is helpful. I really care little about the rules, except that it provides a mechanism to encourage the human-like behavior that I want my bot to exhibit. I mostly consider this discussion to be theoretical. I doubt anyone would implement this and put up a temporary server to play around with this behavior. All I'm really trying to say is that if someone did do it, I'd be happy to participate. My ultimate goals are slightly different than create the strongest bot. I aim to make a bot that's fun to play and to add features to. Being the strongest would be a bonus ;) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Hi Jeff, Yes, I agree with your points.Well behaved on CGOS means that your bot will resign as soon as it knows it's losing. But against humans it should technically be the same, but isn't.When playing against humans a bot needs to be able to mark dead groups. In my opinion time control should be Fischer clock - so much time for the whole game plus some number of seconds per move. I like small increments and large main times - but it's a matter of taste and as you say, it's up to the player how quickly he plays no matter what the time control is.With Fischer time control you can express time controls very flexibly. Increment of zero is like sudden death. - Don Jeff Nowakowski wrote: I apologize in advance to list members that are sick of this topic, but if people keep on bringing up these fallacious arguments, I'm going to keep on responding to them. On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 16:09 -0500, Jason House wrote: Having run a dumb bot on KGS in the past, I became sensitive to user needs... 1. A bot that stubbornly plays 50 useless moves in endgame is highly annoying... especially with sudden death time limits. Resigning a lost game helps, but so would territory scoring with proper dead stone marking. You don't need territory scoring rules for this. I run a copy of MoGo on KGS. It uses Chinese rules and does a good job of passing once the opponent has passed. It also marks dead stones correctly. If you put your program on KGS then this is pretty much required if you want repeat players and want to avoid people escaping from games. 2. Byo yomi or canadian time are very popular, but a computer can't take full advantage of byo yomi or canadian time in endgame without frustrating the opponent. When a game is nearly over, the bot should not ponder for 19 out of 20 seconds of byo yomi to play an obvious move. Again, this has nothing to do with the rules, and I'll again use MoGo as an example. It plays a very fast endgame. How you code your bot to use time is up to you and not dependent on the rules. Your arguments are for well behaved bots on KGS against human players, which is not the point at all of CGOS. I encourage people to make their bots well behaved for KGS tournaments and for play against KGS humans, but that's up to individual authors and is not dependent on the ruleset. -Jeff ___ 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] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Ok, this is my last post on this topic for a while, promise. On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 17:21 -0500, Jason House wrote: I think having a way to generate a lot of games to test this style of behavior is helpful. I really care little about the rules, except that it provides a mechanism to encourage the human-like behavior that I want my bot to exhibit. This behavior is not dependent on the rules! Even if your monte carlo bot uses territory scoring, it will still play useless moves if it is losing. If you want more human-like behavior, you'll still have to make your program know when to pass under either ruleset. I see no benefit in putting up a territory-based CGOS server that you couldn't have gotten from local experimentation with GnuGo. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Hi Jason, A few comments. Area scoring is what CGOS does, Territory scoring is Japanese. Territory scoring doesn't make the game end any sooner, it just penalizes you for not doing so. I like the concept of not playing the game out to the bitter end but you can't stop players from doing this if they want to. I have considered implementing something like this in CGOS so that bots could stop playing early as an option. Would require a negotiation phase to make sure both sides agree on dead stones and so on. But I refrained for 2 reasons: 1. It makes everything more confusing and complicated. 2. There is a better way. In my opinion, since it's clear you can't force anyone to pass unless they want to, then there is no good solution based on agreement protocols that require the cooperation of both bots. However, since any solution is optional, there is a solution that does not require the cooperation of the other bot. I'll call it the resign protocol. If you are interested in playing nice and not dragging out the game - then you can resign if you are losing. If you are not losing there is nothing you can do to shorten the game if the opponent is not willing. In other words, if he won't resign, he probably won't pass either. It's far easier to resign than work out a pass/pass/negotiate phase. So to me this is really the most elegant solution. - Don Jason House wrote: Personally, I'm ignorant on the subtle nature of Japanese rules. I look it as territory scoring instead of area scoring. Area scoring has the nice side effect that people can and should stop playing a game once all territory is decided. Having run a dumb bot on KGS in the past, I became sensitive to user needs... 1. A bot that stubbornly plays 50 useless moves in endgame is highly annoying... especially with sudden death time limits. Resigning a lost game helps, but so would territory scoring with proper dead stone marking. 2. Byo yomi or canadian time are very popular, but a computer can't take full advantage of byo yomi or canadian time in endgame without frustrating the opponent. When a game is nearly over, the bot should not ponder for 19 out of 20 seconds of byo yomi to play an obvious move. My usual method to solve #1 is to put up an approximate and hope I don't piss off too many people while testing. #2 is usually pretty easy to solve by adding a max time per move that decreases as the game length gets longer. On Nov 6, 2007 3:45 PM, Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-11-06 at 18:27 +0100, Lars Schäfers wrote: Hello Jeff, as far as I know there don't exist any formal and automatable japanese ruleset. I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. I don't see what is gained by converting CGOS to Japanese rules. You lose the ability for programs to play out disputes and instead depend on a 6k computer program (typical KGS rank for GnuGO) to resolve disputes. It's also a needless complication for bot authors that aren't concerned about Japanese rules. If you want to implement Japanese rules for your program, great. This discussion has been had many times on this list. What's the new compelling argument for having it again? -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org mailto: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] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Lars Schäfers wrote: I would propose the GnuGO scoring as a referee. Perhaps it's possible to ask the two bots which stones they think are dead or in seki. If they don't agree GnuGO will decide who had won. This would perhaps be an advantage for GnuGO playing on CGOS but show me a 9x9 game where you wouldn't agree with the scoring, I think such cases are really rare. I am using GnuGo scoring in my tournaments. But GnuGo 3.7.10 mostly doesn´t score seki correctly, has this been revised for v3.7.11 ...?! So the reliability of GnuGo´s scoring depends on the programs playing stile because some programs tend to look for living in seki more often than others. A rough estimation for my 9x9 tournament: between 1% and 5% of the 9x9 games are not scored correctly by GnuGo 3.7.10 but the side to win is correct in 99,9% of the games. Stefan ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
It takes some tricky analysis to work out the Japanese score, due to uncertainty about life/death; likewise it's not easy for a program to recognize when moving is no longer to its advantage. How about bringing in a Monte Carlo routine after both players have passed?--as a scoring referree, set to fill up the board (but avoiding eye-filling and self-atari except in ko situations) until all legal moves are played, then either a) Do a Chinese score or b) use information re which groups are still on the board where the final borders ended up to score the actual ending position? Forrest Curo San Diego - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
What about seki situations? On Nov 5, 2007 1:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It takes some tricky analysis to work out the Japanese score, due to uncertainty about life/death; likewise it's not easy for a program to recognize when moving is no longer to its advantage. How about bringing in a Monte Carlo routine after both players have passed?--as a scoring referree, set to fill up the board (but avoiding eye-filling and self-atari except in ko situations) until all legal moves are played, then either a) Do a Chinese score or b) use information re which groups are still on the board where the final borders ended up to score the actual ending position? Forrest Curo San Diego - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ 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] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
For scoring, you could use integral instead of boolean outcomes again, which would solve some of the problems you descibed... This might be a great idea for programs that must deal with Japanese scoring, but for our reseach the best thing is just to stick to Chinese rules :) On 11/5/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be tricky indeed to implement Japanese scoring with Monte Carlo programs. Monte Carlo programs are very strong and thus they are not naive about what the situation is.But I view them as relativistic players - whether a group is dead or alive depends on your point of view! A group is dead if it needs to be dead to win. This makes it a difficult fit for scoring dead groups. A monte carlo go program might even play a move that makes it possible to win your dead group back if it's not relevant to it's winning chances. So dead group analysis must be done by external methods in my opinion. Also, Japanese scoring is problematic because it gives meaning to moves which should be considered meaningless. Monte Carlo only cares about meaningful moves - moves which increase the winning chances.Some of the moves that Monte Carlo considers worthless are considered to be negative worth in Japanese scoring. When a monte carlo program thinks the game is dead won or lost, you can stop playing - but you can't necessarily get a correct bean count of the position. So I don't think Japanese scoring is compatible with Monte Carlo methods - although with some cleverness I'm sure it's possible to impose it. It occurred to me that you could build your play-outs to use Japanese counting.I'm sure this would weaken the program considerably however.Japanese scoring would impose a lot of noise on the positions. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] use for Monte Carlo on 19X19?
Jason House said: What about seki situations? On Nov 5, 2007 1:41 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It takes some tricky analysis to work out the Japanese score, due to uncertainty about life/death; likewise it's not easy for a program to recognize when moving is no longer to its advantage. How about bringing in a Monte Carlo routine after both players have passed?--as a scoring referree, set to fill up the board (but avoiding eye-filling --- -- and self-atari (except in ko situations) -- --- until all legal moves are played... - This email was sent using AIS WebMail. http://www.americanis.net/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
