uurtamo .: <cadg0inbjvu2qzahgkyym+ahobqdv5rmwgcnqttcxqkzhqfs...@mail.gmail.com>: >I didn't mean to suggest that I can or will solve this problem tomorrow. > >What I meant to say is that it is clearly obvious that 9x9 is not immune to >being destroyed -- it's not what people play professionally (or at least is >not what is most famous for being played professionally), so it is going to >stand alone for a little while; it hasn't been the main focus yet. I >understand that it technically has features such as: very tiny point >differences; mostly being tactical. I don't think or have reason to believe >that that makes it somehow immune. > >What concerns me is pseudo-technical explanations for why it's harder to >beat humans at 9x9 than at 19x19. Saying that it's harder at 9x9 seems like >an excuse to explain (or hopefully justify) how the game is still in the >hands of humans. This feels very strongly like a justification for how "go >is still really hard for computers". Which, I suppose, we can break down >into lots of little subcases and worry about. The tiny point difference >issue is interesting; it means that things need to be super tight (less >room for sloppy play). Checkers also has this feature. > >The reality, in my unjustified opinion, is that this will be a solved >problem once it has obtained enough focus.
I'm suspecious. The value network (VN) is not enough for 9x9 because VN can't approximate value functions at enough detail. This is also a problem on 19x19 but the advantages VN gives at silent positions is big enough (actually a few points) to beat top level human players. I believe another idea is necessary for 9x9. #One possible (?) simple solution: if the inference speed of the policy network gets 100 or more times faster then we can use PN directly in rollouts. This may make VN useless. Go is still hard for both human and computers :). Hideki >s. > > >On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 6:12 PM, Hideki Kato <hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> wrote: > >> uurtamo .: <CADg0iNCAM-_iH31cBKA4mvG2fbdmJ3adqWCUyfxTb >> 1vhk7t...@mail.gmail.com>: >> >Slow down there, hombre. >> > >> >There's no secret sauce to 9x9 other than that it isn't the current focus >> >of people. >> > >> >Just like 7x7 isn't immune. >> > >> >A computer program for 9x9, funded, backed by halfway serious people, and >> >focused on the task, will *destroy* human opponents at any time it needs >> to. >> >> Why do you think (or believe) so? I'd like to say there >> is no evidence so far. >> >> >If you believe that there is a special reason that 9x9 is harder than >> >19x19, then I'm super interested to hear that. But it's not harder for >> >computers. It's just not what people have been focusing on. >> >> 9x9 is not harder than 19x19 as a game. However: (1) Value >> networks, the key components to beat human on 19x19, work >> fine only on static positions but 9x9 has almost no such >> positions. (2) Humans can play much better on 9x9 >> than 19x19. Top level professionals can read-out at near >> end of the middle stage of a game in less than 30 min with >> one point accuracy of the score, for example. >> >> Humans are not good at global evaluation of larger boards so >> bots can beat top professionals on 19x19 but this does not >> apply 9x9. The size of the board is important because >> value networks are not universal, ie, approximate the >> value function not so presicely, mainly due to >> the number of training data is limited in practice (up to >> 10^8 while the number of possible input positions is greater >> than, at least, 10^20). One more reason, there are no >> algorithm to solve double ko. This is not so big problem on >> 19x19 but 9x9. >> >> Best, Hideki >> >> >s. >> > >> >On Feb 23, 2018 4:49 PM, "Hideki Kato" <hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> wrote: >> > >> >> That's not the point, Petri. 9x9 has almost no "silent" >> >> or "static" positons which value networks superb humans. >> >> On 9x9 boards, Kos, especially double Kos and two step Kos >> >> are important but MCTS still works worse for them, for >> >> examples. Human professionals are much better at life&death >> >> and complex local fights which dominate small board games >> >> because they can read deterministically and deeper than >> >> current MCTS bots in standard time settings (not blitz). >> >> Also it's well known that MCTS is not good at finding narrow >> >> and deep paths to win due to "averaging". Ohashi 6p said >> >> that he couldn't lose against statiscal algorithms after the >> >> event in 2012. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Hideki >> >> >> >> Petri Pitkanen: <CAMp4Doefkp+n16CxDWY9at9OFwdh3V7+ >> >> 3zrby3k9kjvmzah...@mail.gmail.com>: >> >> >elo-range in 9x9 smaller than 19x19. One just cannot be hugelyl better >> >> than >> >> >the other is such limitted game >> >> > >> >> >2018-02-23 21:15 GMT+02:00 Hiroshi Yamashita <y...@bd.mbn.or.jp>: >> >> > >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> Top 19x19 program reaches 4200 BayesElo on CGOS. But 3100 in 9x9. >> >> >> Maybe it is because people don't have much interest in 9x9. >> >> >> But it seems value network does not work well in 9x9. >> >> >> Weights_33_400 is maybe made by selfplay network. But it is 2946 in >> >9x9. >> >> >> Weights_31_3200 is 4069 in 19x19 though. >> >> >> >> >> >> In year 2012, Zen played 6 games against 3 Japanese Pros, and lost >by >> >> 0-6. >> >> >> And it seems Zen's 9x9 strength does not change big even now. >> >> >> http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2012- >> November/005556.html >> >> >> >> >> >> I feel there is still enough chance that human can beat best program >> in >> >> >> 9x9. >> >> >> >> >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> Hiroshi Yamashita >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> >> Computer-go mailing list >> >> >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> >> >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >> >---- inline file >> >> >_______________________________________________ >> >> >Computer-go mailing list >> >> >Computer-go@computer-go.org >> >> >http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >> -- >> >> Hideki Kato <mailto:hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Computer-go mailing list >> >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >---- inline file >> >_______________________________________________ >> >Computer-go mailing list >> >Computer-go@computer-go.org >> >http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> -- >> Hideki Kato <mailto:hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >---- inline file >_______________________________________________ >Computer-go mailing list >Computer-go@computer-go.org >http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go -- Hideki Kato <mailto:hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
