Thank you for being so kind in your response. I truly appreciate it. s.
On Feb 28, 2018 6:32 PM, "Hideki Kato" <hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> wrote: > uurtamo .: <CADg0iNBjVU2qzAhgKyYm+AhObqdV5RMWGcNqTtCxqkZhQFSo5w@ > 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
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
