Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
Actually there might be. Wasn't one of Ralph Nader's Golden Fleece awards given to the government funded Cray Blitz by Hanz Berliner? I believe that there are many government agencies that are hessitant to fund game research with taxpayer dollars. In the late 1980s I tried to get some government funding to help support a chess learning program. After the talk, one of the people in the audience asked me if I had prepared my Golden Fleece award acceptance speech. On Jul 28, 2008, at 2:05 AM, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: Various branches of the US government (including NIST) have developed a very successful approach to funding research. Set up a measurable competition (such as we already have with CGOS) and then fund research groups through a series of rounds, with the results of each funding round being influenced by the group's success at the measurable competition in the previous rounds. This obviously works better in some fields than in others, but there's no reason it couldn't work for go. cheers stuart On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not the author of a strong program, but I'll throw another item into the list: more incentive. For many, computer go competes for time with many other hobbies and perhaps even a day job. The big Ing prize brought many people into computer-go, all working in parallel, competing, to make mediocre programs. And plenty of progress has been made in the past few years, without any big money being offered. Could it be that the lack of financial incentive makes people willing to share their work and knowledge, and that that is behind recent progress? (I don't know, it could just be coincidence.) Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
Hideki Kato wrote: Mark Boon: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Opposed to removing 9x9. In favor of adding 13x13 wthout removing 9x9. Me too. If, however, limited two 9x9 and 13x13 might be better now as 19x19 is not so utilized, IMHO. It's just early this year many programs started being running on 9x9. I will donate too but no so much until I'll have a job :). -Hideki I second that suggestion of replacing 19x19 cgos by 13x13 cgos. For 19x19, I prefer KGS, it is a lot more interesting. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
David Fotland wrote: I prefer keeping 9x9. We have 9x9 for quick testing of changes (because the games are fast), and 19x19 for testing play on a full board. I don't think 13x13 adds anything. It's slower, so I would still use 9x9 for quick tests. It's not a board size that anyone uses, so I would still use 19x19 to test for full boards. I agree. 9x9 and 19x19 are the most popular board sizes and the only ones used in Computer Go tournaments. I think the participation on the 19x19 CGOS would be higher if it wasn't down so often. Sometimes the server does not work for days, sometimes it is only the result pages on the web, which are not updated. I think it would be very helpful to have an 19x19 server with a higher uptime. Unfortunately I cannot offer to run one myself. - Markus ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second most popular for computer go. - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:49 -0600, Markus Enzenberger wrote: David Fotland wrote: I prefer keeping 9x9. We have 9x9 for quick testing of changes (because the games are fast), and 19x19 for testing play on a full board. I don't think 13x13 adds anything. It's slower, so I would still use 9x9 for quick tests. It's not a board size that anyone uses, so I would still use 19x19 to test for full boards. I agree. 9x9 and 19x19 are the most popular board sizes and the only ones used in Computer Go tournaments. I think the participation on the 19x19 CGOS would be higher if it wasn't down so often. Sometimes the server does not work for days, sometimes it is only the result pages on the web, which are not updated. I think it would be very helpful to have an 19x19 server with a higher uptime. Unfortunately I cannot offer to run one myself. - Markus ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second most popular for computer go. 7x7 is interesting to me for a few reasons: • It was solved by some dans a while back. This gives a perfect fuseki database and measurably correct and incorrect evaluations • 7x7 64, so bitboards could be extremely effective. - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:49 -0600, Markus Enzenberger wrote: David Fotland wrote: I prefer keeping 9x9. We have 9x9 for quick testing of changes (because the games are fast), and 19x19 for testing play on a full board. I don't think 13x13 adds anything. It's slower, so I would still use 9x9 for quick tests. It's not a board size that anyone uses, so I would still use 19x19 to test for full boards. I agree. 9x9 and 19x19 are the most popular board sizes and the only ones used in Computer Go tournaments. I think the participation on the 19x19 CGOS would be higher if it wasn't down so often. Sometimes the server does not work for days, sometimes it is only the result pages on the web, which are not updated. I think it would be very helpful to have an 19x19 server with a higher uptime. Unfortunately I cannot offer to run one myself. - Markus ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
We put up a 7x7 site a while back and I thought it would get heavy traffic, but instead almost no interest. - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:39 -0400, Jason House wrote: On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second most popular for computer go. 7x7 is interesting to me for a few reasons: • It was solved by some dans a while back. This gives a perfect fuseki database and measurably correct and incorrect evaluations • 7x7 64, so bitboards could be extremely effective. - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 09:49 -0600, Markus Enzenberger wrote: David Fotland wrote: I prefer keeping 9x9. We have 9x9 for quick testing of changes (because the games are fast), and 19x19 for testing play on a full board. I don't think 13x13 adds anything. It's slower, so I would still use 9x9 for quick tests. It's not a board size that anyone uses, so I would still use 19x19 to test for full boards. I agree. 9x9 and 19x19 are the most popular board sizes and the only ones used in Computer Go tournaments. I think the participation on the 19x19 CGOS would be higher if it wasn't down so often. Sometimes the server does not work for days, sometimes it is only the result pages on the web, which are not updated. I think it would be very helpful to have an 19x19 server with a higher uptime. Unfortunately I cannot offer to run one myself. - Markus ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We put up a 7x7 site a while back and I thought it would get heavy traffic, but instead almost no interest. I don't remember ever hearing about it. I'd use it for faster testing. On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:39 -0400, Jason House wrote: On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second most popular for computer go. 7x7 is interesting to me for a few reasons: • It was solved by some dans a while back. This gives a perfect fuseki database and measurably correct and incorrect evaluations • 7x7 64, so bitboards could be extremely effective. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
7x7 is actually not very interesting for computers. I did some tests with Lazarus, which is far weaker than many of the better programs and the games are one-sided, depending on the komi either white or black wins every game. If you made the komi 9.0 probably all the games would end in a draw. If you use 8.5 black would win them all and 9.5 would be white wins. That is probably why it didn't get a lot of traffic. It's not entirely useless, but I don't think it's worth having to maintain a separate 7x7 server. - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:55 -0400, Jason House wrote: On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We put up a 7x7 site a while back and I thought it would get heavy traffic, but instead almost no interest. I don't remember ever hearing about it. I'd use it for faster testing. On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:39 -0400, Jason House wrote: On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second most popular for computer go. 7x7 is interesting to me for a few reasons: • It was solved by some dans a while back. This gives a perfect fuseki database and measurably correct and incorrect evaluations • 7x7 64, so bitboards could be extremely effective. ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
I played on that temporary 7x7 server and I think the better programs came close at being almost unbeatable on 7x7 white and 9.5 komi especially if one uses the known opening library. So it might quickly get boring for most better programs. Although losses with white might reveal some serious bugs if one knows the program should win for sure. -Magnus Quoting Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:45 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: We put up a 7x7 site a while back and I thought it would get heavy traffic, but instead almost no interest. I don't remember ever hearing about it. I'd use it for faster testing. On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 12:39 -0400, Jason House wrote: On Jul 31, 2008, at 12:20 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am working on a plan to possibly be able to run 2 boardsizes on Dave Dyers boardspace site. If this plan works out, obviously 9x9 is very popular and we will keep it. The only questions is what should the other board size be. It is starting to appear than 19x19 is the second most popular for computer go. 7x7 is interesting to me for a few reasons: • It was solved by some dans a while back. This gives a perfect fuseki database and measurably correct and incorrect evaluations • 7x7 64, so bitboards could be extremely effective. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Magnus Persson Berlin, Germany ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank bots based on KGS games. I'm pretty sure the site stopped doing rankings when KGS moved to gokgs.com I'm afraid I am responsible for that awful page. :) The move to gokgs.com also brought some changes to the structure of the game archives ( I basically downloaded the game history of each Bot each hour or so and grabbed the data from it ) . I never liked the ugly hack I made into that page and the changes made to KGS definitely put a stop to my motivation... Collecting the data from KGS archives isn't all that hard, although I'd expect direct access to the database would be easier. Getting that kind of access is probably not going to happen... /Christian If you can figure out how to make it schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it. I doubt you'd get the CGOS style for either of these out of the box. Scheduling for automatch is likely a first-come, first-serve basis, probably with some kind of anti-repeat feature. Having engines reconnect at the start of a round could help fairness issues. Randomized connection times could be helpful too. KGS would limit games to within 9 stones and would automatically give handicap, but I consider that a good thing. Obviously, the more wms helps (or lets us provide code, the better things will be. I doubt we'd get anywhere without Nick Wedd backing the idea, and he probably wouldn't if you don't. A KGS alternative may never be as good as a custom computer go server, but if it's close, it has other side benefits... Game caches, wider human audiences, potential integration with human play, etc I want to be able to put my bot on line, leave it alone for a day or more, and know it will play only other computers under a consistent rule set and get a ranking. Also I want to know that you can't just disconnect and to abort lost games. I don't want the same player playing it 20 games in a row and so on. If you can get all that to happen without WMS support, then I'm definitely interested. - Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:20 -0400, Jason House wrote: Where there's a will, there's a way. It may not be hard to use auto match with the self-proclamed bot ranks as a first step approximation. All that's needed for that is to allow bots to be paired against each other. Ratings could be computed offline and used by a kgsGtp wrapper to update the self-proclaimed ratings between games. Everything else could be incremental tweaks as issues are identified. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like KGS and the maturity of it compared to CGOS. However, it's a different problem. KGS doesn't schedule games for you. I also tried to persuade WMS to rate 9x9 bot games, but he was unwilling to add more indexes and overhead to the database. And even if he agreed, sometimes I want to play other bots, although I like the idea of being able to play humans when I want that. Still, it's a scheduling issue that KGS just doesn't support. If WMS had made a computer go server that looks like KGS but does the scheduling and rating for bots only (or given a choice with humans too) and such, I would have never written CGOS. If he does it later, I would probably prefer it to CGOS and would use it instead. - Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:35 -0400, Jason House wrote: Maybe we should approach wms about using KGS. Rank and pairings could be computed separately. Once upon a time, there was a page that computed 9x9 bot ratings Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be something special about 9x9 go for computers, it's very popular, perhaps because it's so much more approachable. However I personally think it's time to start looking at bigger board sizes seriously.If it were up to me, we would move to 11x11 on CGOS but I fear that would be especially unpopular because it's not one of the 3 standard sizes. If we were to look at 13x13 I don't think I would want to continue supporting the 9x9 server, I would want to replace it with 13x13. There is also the issue of space and performance. I think we are pushing the limits of what boardspace can handle, especially in terms of space. I can't complain too much because it's a gift that we can use it at all but I'm constantly fighting a small storage limit. I'm not sure what the performance issues are but the 19x19 server seems fast and responsive in comparison to the 9x9 server. I do not have any idea why this is. But what I'm trying to say is that we can't have BOTH a 9x9 and 13x13 due to resource limitations and if we move to 13x13 I think we would need a bit more capable server to be happy and
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most? 9x9 KGS rating
Yes, I liked that page too. It was a great effort and I don't think it was so awful. - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:23 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: That was a great page while it lasted! Sure it could have been tweaked some more; probably the ultra-blitz games shouldn't be counted. The fundamental problem with deriving a bot's rating from 9x9 KGS games is that the people involved tend not to play seriously. But it was still fun. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: Christian Nilsson [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most? On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank bots based on KGS games. I'm pretty sure the site stopped doing rankings when KGS moved to gokgs.com I'm afraid I am responsible for that awful page. :) The move to gokgs.com also brought some changes to the structure of the game archives ( I basically downloaded the game history of each Bot each hour or so and grabbed the data from it ) . I never liked the ugly hack I made into that page and the changes made to KGS definitely put a stop to my motivation... Collecting the data from KGS archives isn't all that hard, although I'd expect direct access to the database would be easier. Getting that kind of access is probably not going to happen... /Christian If you can figure out how to make it schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it. I doubt you'd get the CGOS style for either of these out of the box. Scheduling for automatch is likely a first-come, first-serve basis, probably with some kind of anti-repeat feature. Having engines reconnect at the start of a round could help fairness issues. Randomized connection times could be helpful too. KGS would limit games to within 9 stones and would automatically give handicap, but I consider that a good thing. Obviously, the more wms helps (or lets us provide code, the better things will be. I doubt we'd get anywhere without Nick Wedd backing the idea, and he probably wouldn't if you don't. A KGS alternative may never be as good as a custom computer go server, but if it's close, it has other side benefits... Game caches, wider human audiences, potential integration with human play, etc I want to be able to put my bot on line, leave it alone for a day or more, and know it will play only other computers under a consistent rule set and get a ranking. Also I want to know that you can't just disconnect and to abort lost games. I don't want the same player playing it 20 games in a row and so on. If you can get all that to happen without WMS support, then I'm definitely interested. - Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:20 -0400, Jason House wrote: Where there's a will, there's a way. It may not be hard to use auto match with the self-proclamed bot ranks as a first step approximation. All that's needed for that is to allow bots to be paired against each other. Ratings could be computed offline and used by a kgsGtp wrapper to update the self-proclaimed ratings between games. Everything else could be incremental tweaks as issues are identified. Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I like KGS and the maturity of it compared to CGOS. However, it's a different problem. KGS doesn't schedule games for you. I also tried to persuade WMS to rate 9x9 bot games, but he was unwilling to add more indexes and overhead to the database. And even if he agreed, sometimes I want to play other bots, although I like the idea of being able to play humans when I want that. Still, it's a scheduling issue that KGS just doesn't support. If WMS had made a computer go server that looks like KGS but does the scheduling and rating for bots only (or given a choice with humans too) and such, I would have never written CGOS. If he does it later, I would probably prefer it to CGOS and would use it instead. - Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:35 -0400, Jason House wrote: Maybe we should approach wms about using KGS. Rank and pairings could be computed separately. Once upon a time, there was a page that computed 9x9 bot ratings Sent from my iPhone On Jul 30, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There seems to be something special about 9x9 go for computers, it's very popular, perhaps because it's so much more approachable. However I personally think it's time to start looking at bigger board sizes seriously.If it were up to me, we would move to 11x11 on CGOS but I fear that would be especially unpopular because it's not one of the 3
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 08:31 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: Mark Boon: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Opposed to removing 9x9. In favor of adding 13x13 wthout removing 9x9. Hideki Kato wrote: Me too. If, however, limited two 9x9 and 13x13 might be better now as 19x19 is not so utilized, IMHO. It's just early this year many programs started being running on 9x9. Rémi Coulom wrote: I second that suggestion of replacing 19x19 cgos by 13x13 cgos. For 19x19, I prefer KGS, it is a lot more interesting. +1. 9x9 play doesn't include some features of the game on the larger board size, but 19x19 is too big too experiment with some brute-force ideas on today's hardware. I believe 13x13 is the perfect test-bed for the next algorithmic breakthrough. I actually would prefer working our way up, doing 11x11 next but that is sure to be unpopular I think. 11x11 is still a far more complex game than 9x9. So I'm in a quandary now. A lot of votes between 13x13 and 19x19 for the second server. I guess when we decide that we will have to argue over time-control :-) - Don Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
2008/7/28 Ray Tayek [EMAIL PROTECTED] At 07:53 PM 7/27/2008, you wrote: The traditional programs are around 10 kyu, but the new ones are 2 to 4 kyu, at least on KGS. I've seen some handicap games against dan players that are consistent with these ratings. wow. that's impressive. can one buy these or just play the on kgs? You can download for free an old version of MoGo (which reached 2k on KGS on a 4 CPU machine) at: http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htm Enjoy, Sylvain It wouldn't surprise me to see 1 dan from an MC program before 2010, running on an 8 processor mainstream system. David 1-dan in two years? i must give your opinion a lot a weight, but i remain skeptical. how strong will the next version of manyfaces be? (and when can i buy it). -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Tayek Sent: Sunday, July 27, 2008 7:09 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most? At 06:23 PM 7/27/2008, you wrote: I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is at least 3-dan by 2010. we all do. but as the programs are only about 10-kyu these days, we will be lucky to get to the small kyu ratings by 2010 and then you will hit a hard wall. i think michael is correct when he mentions incentive. there are not to many $'s out there to go after. some of us try to get the programs into tournaments (like http://www.cotsengotournament.com/), but the aga refuses to allow the games for credit. ... --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
2008/7/28 David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The traditional programs are around 10 kyu, but the new ones are 2 to 4 kyu, at least on KGS. I've seen some handicap games against dan players that are consistent with these ratings. It wouldn't surprise me to see 1 dan from an MC program before 2010, running on an 8 processor mainstream system. David Here is a big catch for setting goals. 3-dan by which organization/server/whatever. At what point of time? KGS has gone through mane abrupt ratings changes and and I don't see any reason why it would not go through such a thing in future as well. Currently 2k KGS is about 5k EGF. So best of MC programs would still need about 7-9 stones handicap from European 3-dan (which is not well defined strength either). That is about 700-1000 Elo-points and if we assume 100 elo gain for a doubling of CPU power . So 1D KGS within year or two 1D EGF I doubt if that happen within 5 years, But if thre is a new innovation on par with MC_UCT. Then maybe. -- Petri Pitkänen e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
My question isn't about how strong programs are now, or what is the definition of a dan, or what you think will happen in the future. The question is: what do you need to give your current 19x19 program another 6-ish ranks in strength (or 6+N where N is the distance between your program and the top programs). Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
I'm not the author of a strong program, but I'll throw another item into the list: more incentive. For many, computer go competes for time with many other hobbies and perhaps even a day job. The big Ing prize brought many people into computer-go, all working in parallel, competing, to make mediocre programs. And plenty of progress has been made in the past few years, without any big money being offered. Could it be that the lack of financial incentive makes people willing to share their work and knowledge, and that that is behind recent progress? (I don't know, it could just be coincidence.) Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
Personally, I think the next big strength jump would come from combining localized searches/sequences with the global search's MC playouts. Curiously, my guess is the opposite: using UCT as the node evaluation in a more traditional alpha-beta searcher. (It's been mentioned a few times here but I don't think anyone has given it a serious try yet?) (BTW, David, the new Many Faces combines traditional algorithms and UCT; how are they working together?) I always recommend to new developers that they join forces with other developers to reduce the total work to get a strong bot. I think the more people we have starting from a solid bot implementation, the faster we'll discover the next great strength breakthrough. There are lots of competing projects, some open source, some in universities, some commercial. The thinking behind my question is perhaps I can help them all by working on a really good opening library (or connection patterns, or optimized UCT implementation, or whatever is needed most). Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
Various branches of the US government (including NIST) have developed a very successful approach to funding research. Set up a measurable competition (such as we already have with CGOS) and then fund research groups through a series of rounds, with the results of each funding round being influenced by the group's success at the measurable competition in the previous rounds. This obviously works better in some fields than in others, but there's no reason it couldn't work for go. cheers stuart On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 8:54 PM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not the author of a strong program, but I'll throw another item into the list: more incentive. For many, computer go competes for time with many other hobbies and perhaps even a day job. The big Ing prize brought many people into computer-go, all working in parallel, competing, to make mediocre programs. And plenty of progress has been made in the past few years, without any big money being offered. Could it be that the lack of financial incentive makes people willing to share their work and knowledge, and that that is behind recent progress? (I don't know, it could just be coincidence.) Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
For example, CrazyStone [1k]and MoGoBot1 [2k]. i found and played a few bots on kgs. can you tell me the name of yours and some of the stronger ones? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
At 12:43 AM 7/28/2008, you wrote: 2008/7/28 Ray Tayek mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED][EMAIL PROTECTED] At 07:53 PM 7/27/2008, you wrote: The traditional programs are around 10 kyu, but the new ones are 2 to 4 kyu,... wow. that's impressive. can one buy these or just play the on kgs? You can download for free an old version of MoGo (which reached 2k on KGS on a 4 CPU machine) at: http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htmhttp://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htm the exe just sits there. iirc, i need some sort of gui ? can you tell me what that is? thanks --- vice-chair http://ocjug.org/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
You can download for free an old version of MoGo (which reached 2k on KGS on a 4 CPU machine) at: http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htmhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Egelly/MoGo_Download.htm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/MoGo_Download.htmhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Egelly/MoGo_Download.htm the exe just sits there. iirc, i need some sort of gui ? can you tell me what that is? Yes you need some sort of gui. In the section Installation and use instructions I give some name and links to some available gui. Did you try the 2 first? Drago gives specific instructions for MoGo at: http://www.godrago.net/Engines.htm GoGui should not be more difficult to use either. Cheers, Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
Oops. Please ignore ... AvK ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
the $500K/year to hire an expert team of programmers to incorporate everyone's source code into an open-source framework is pretty wasteful. just let people dig through the code on their own. it'd be good enough, and save $500K/year. there's no real reason to give out the hardware, either, unless you want to encourage people to spend their time each year developing tinier and tinier high-powered wireless devices for cheating. all they need is access to an equivalent machine (say, ssh access) during the year to test and write speed optimizations. also, after this ran for a few years and started to get very competitive, it'd be difficult to convince people to give away their source code every year for the chance to win $100K/year. one reason is that commercial exploitation of their code would begin to be worth more as the strength improved significantly. another way to do all of this is to set aside a large chunk of money, let it accumulate interest, and have small milestones set each year that can pay prizes from a portion of that interest if they are met. this automatically ends up raising the value of the milestones over time. s. On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It's a question I have often contemplated. I don't think you can do anything now that will greatly influence what the level in 2010 will be. You have to think a little longer term. What it takes is fairly simple, it takes a million bucks per year (roughly). Getting that million bucks is not so simple, but if I had it to spend on computer-Go, here's what I'd do: - Use a system like CGOS to create an online testing system / community. - At some predetermined date the top n programs (say 16) get a standard state-of-the-art PC to work on. - Half a year later those 16 programs play an extensive tournament using the standard hardware. - Prize-money is $100K, $80K, $60K, $40K and $20K for the top five. - All participants contribute their source-code to an open-source project created for this event. - The cost of organising the competition above is about $500K per year, the other $500K is spent on hiring a team of expert programmers who incorporate the contributions of the competing programs into an open-source framework. This is sketchy and lacks some vital details, but you get the idea. The main points are a) Everybody starts from an equal base each year. b) The PC used is a standardized piece of equipment. c) The prize-money is enough to make people turn in their source-code. Since coming in 2nd or 3rd isnt much less an achievement as coming in 1st, the prize-money is also not much less. With a competition like this in place, I think the progress in a decade will be astounding. Now we have to find a sugar-daddy who's willing to put in the $1M each year :-) Mark On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board has given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the authors of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in strength. There seem to be four broad categories: * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) * More data * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search? other?) * More community By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source projects, etc. By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked up with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern libraries; test suites; opening libraries. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
On Jul 28, 2008, at 5:04 AM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I think the next big strength jump would come from combining localized searches/sequences with the global search's MC playouts. Curiously, my guess is the opposite: using UCT as the node evaluation in a more traditional alpha-beta searcher. (It's been mentioned a few times here but I don't think anyone has given it a serious try yet?) I have an alpha beta searcher that uses MC node evaluations. The last time I played with it was before I got my core 10x faster. I don't expect grand things from it yet. For example I don't have CrazyStone's ELO move ratings would be great for-based move ordering. Also, I'm unsure if MC noise would dominate the alpha-beta search. (BTW, David, the new Many Faces combines traditional algorithms and UCT; how are they working together?) I always recommend to new developers that they join forces with other developers to reduce the total work to get a strong bot. I think the more people we have starting from a solid bot implementation, the faster we'll discover the next great strength breakthrough. There are lots of competing projects, some open source, some in universities, some commercial. The thinking behind my question is perhaps I can help them all by working on a really good opening library (or connection patterns, or optimized UCT implementation, or whatever is needed most). Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?
Hi Mark, I like your basic idea very much (minor details aside of course.) I think 2 things have been largely responsible for the sudden increase in the strength of computer go programs: 1. Nicks KGS tournaments. 2. CGOS And your idea is an extension and improvement of these 2 things.I don't agree with all the details, but probably no 2 people would! - Don Mark Boon wrote: It's a question I have often contemplated. I don't think you can do anything now that will greatly influence what the level in 2010 will be. You have to think a little longer term. What it takes is fairly simple, it takes a million bucks per year (roughly). Getting that million bucks is not so simple, but if I had it to spend on computer-Go, here's what I'd do: - Use a system like CGOS to create an online testing system / community. - At some predetermined date the top n programs (say 16) get a standard state-of-the-art PC to work on. - Half a year later those 16 programs play an extensive tournament using the standard hardware. - Prize-money is $100K, $80K, $60K, $40K and $20K for the top five. - All participants contribute their source-code to an open-source project created for this event. - The cost of organising the competition above is about $500K per year, the other $500K is spent on hiring a team of expert programmers who incorporate the contributions of the competing programs into an open-source framework. This is sketchy and lacks some vital details, but you get the idea. The main points are a) Everybody starts from an equal base each year. b) The PC used is a standardized piece of equipment. c) The prize-money is enough to make people turn in their source-code. Since coming in 2nd or 3rd isnt much less an achievement as coming in 1st, the prize-money is also not much less. With a competition like this in place, I think the progress in a decade will be astounding. Now we have to find a sugar-daddy who's willing to put in the $1M each year :-) Mark On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board has given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the authors of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in strength. There seem to be four broad categories: * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) * More data * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search? other?) * More community By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source projects, etc. By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked up with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern libraries; test suites; opening libraries. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
Hi Don, Yes, there would be as many different approaches as people. I also agree that the KGS tournaments and CGOS have contributed a lot. But don't underestimate the influence of idea-sharing. Both GNU- Go and the many research papers about UCT/MC have contributed a lot, both by getting knowledge out and people in (volved). IMO more even than the online tournaments. But it's hard to quantify these things I also think that in the past the Ing competition has boosted computer-Go more than anything since. And that with only 1/10th of the money in my 'proposal'. Mark On 28-jul-08, at 11:06, Don Dailey wrote: Hi Mark, I like your basic idea very much (minor details aside of course.) I think 2 things have been largely responsible for the sudden increase in the strength of computer go programs: 1. Nicks KGS tournaments. 2. CGOS And your idea is an extension and improvement of these 2 things. I don't agree with all the details, but probably no 2 people would! - Don Mark Boon wrote: It's a question I have often contemplated. I don't think you can do anything now that will greatly influence what the level in 2010 will be. You have to think a little longer term. What it takes is fairly simple, it takes a million bucks per year (roughly). Getting that million bucks is not so simple, but if I had it to spend on computer-Go, here's what I'd do: - Use a system like CGOS to create an online testing system / community. - At some predetermined date the top n programs (say 16) get a standard state-of-the-art PC to work on. - Half a year later those 16 programs play an extensive tournament using the standard hardware. - Prize-money is $100K, $80K, $60K, $40K and $20K for the top five. - All participants contribute their source-code to an open-source project created for this event. - The cost of organising the competition above is about $500K per year, the other $500K is spent on hiring a team of expert programmers who incorporate the contributions of the competing programs into an open-source framework. This is sketchy and lacks some vital details, but you get the idea. The main points are a) Everybody starts from an equal base each year. b) The PC used is a standardized piece of equipment. c) The prize-money is enough to make people turn in their source- code. Since coming in 2nd or 3rd isnt much less an achievement as coming in 1st, the prize-money is also not much less. With a competition like this in place, I think the progress in a decade will be astounding. Now we have to find a sugar-daddy who's willing to put in the $1M each year :-) Mark On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 10:23 PM, Darren Cook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board has given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the authors of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in strength. There seem to be four broad categories: * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) * More data * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search? other?) * More community By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source projects, etc. By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked up with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern libraries; test suites; opening libraries. Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ 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] What Do You Need Most?
I'm not the author of a strong program, but I'll throw another item into the list: more incentive. For many, computer go competes for time with many other hobbies and perhaps even a day job. Darren Cook wrote: I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board has given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the authors of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in strength. There seem to be four broad categories: * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) * More data * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search? other?) * More community By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source projects, etc. By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked up with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern libraries; test suites; opening libraries. Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
