Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
And so we enter the "second phase" ... On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote: I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase', where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve disputes in a fair manner. Since capturing dead stones would cost points, how do you resolve a dispute where your opponent claims his stones are not dead? (Think bent-four corner.)The actual proof consists of playing out the sequence that captures the stones. Every time your opponent passes and you continue playing moves to capture the stones you'd lose a point. That's why passing has to be compensated by paying a point. It's not about Go playing skills that should be rewarded but about being able to resolve disputes fairly. I can see the purpose of a second phase to resolve disputes over the status of specific groups. Having the second phase played out with the "give a pass stone" does preserve the state as of the two passes that were intended to end the game, so I do not find this to be a problem. My argument against the pass stone costing a point applies to before the two consecutive passes that end the game. I would then expect that the moves made in this second phase be restricted to the life and death of specific groups in question. If our bots do this properly then there is no argument or objection from me. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 5, Jan 2007, at 8:50 AM, Mark Boon wrote: How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko- threats at the end of the game? I once played a game against a Chinese graduate student who did exactly that. I was quite impressed with how thorough he was, as if that kind of completeness was an important test. I was not sure if it was a test directed at me or at him. Those moves did not bother me because every one required an answer or I would have suffered. When I answered correctly he moved on. This was the first game I had played against a Chinese player, and I was stunned when he tossed captured stones back into my bowl. Waiting to see how that detail was going to work out was far more disconcerting than those easy to answer threats. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Mark Boon wrote: > How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-threats at the end of the game? I am happy to win the game, of course. the fact that we humans feel bad doing something like that Not "we humans". I don't feel bad when my opponent does it. When answers are not obvious, I also try some ko threats myself. It may win you a game occasionally but it won't make your program play any better. Winning more games is better play. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
In our club we estimate twice the komi for sente equal to a handicap stone, except for the first handicap stone one, which is just one time the komi. Using a komi of 6.5 for sente amounts to: Hand. Value 1 = 6.5 2 = 19.5 3 = 32.5 4 = 45.5 5 = 58.5 6 = 71.5 7 = 84.5 8 = 97.5 9 = 110.5 Using a komi of 6 for sente amounts to: Hand. Value 1 = 6 2 = 18 3 = 30 4 = 42 5 = 54 6 = 66 7 = 78 8 = 90 9 = 102 These estimates are fairly close to yours. Dave - Oorspronkelijk bericht - Van: alain Baeckeroot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Datum: vrijdag, januari 5, 2007 8:17 pm Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem > Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 22:37, Don Dailey a écrit : > > I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap > > game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one > > was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory > (obviously> it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the > handicapped player > > be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? Could he > > carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect > > opponents wishes? > > > > 9 handicap is equivalent to 120-150 komi (this is estimated by pro > playerstaking 9 handi and playing at maximum strenght) > > 8 h = 100 komi > 4h = 40 komi > > Alain > ___ > 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] Re: Interesting problem
Le jeudi 4 janvier 2007 22:37, Don Dailey a écrit : > I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap > game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one > was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously > it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player > be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he > carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect > opponents wishes? > 9 handicap is equivalent to 120-150 komi (this is estimated by pro players taking 9 handi and playing at maximum strenght) 8 h = 100 komi 4h = 40 komi Alain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, steve uurtamo wrote: i think that the attached initial (13-stone) setup requires life to be made in the center rather than the sides or corners, but it looks difficult. a stronger player can comment, perhaps? It should be possible to live with an attachment at the 3-3 point. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
I think the whole discussion about Japanese vs. Chinese scoring is moot in the context of "silly" invasions. If my opponent passes and 1) I am ahead ... I pass and win. 2) I am behind ... I may start an invasion if I think I have a chance; loosing a couple more points (Japanese) does not matter. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
>> If 2 perfect players played a game where one >> was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously >> it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player >> be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? > > > This is the same as asking if it's possible to make a living group, which is > obviously possible by invading at > 3-3. He'll get at least two of those. But I wouldn't be surprised if he could > do better. i think that the attached initial (13-stone) setup requires life to be made in the center rather than the sides or corners, but it looks difficult. a stronger player can comment, perhaps? the idea here was to remove room for 2-point extensions along the sides, and to enclose the corners in such a way as to protect them from being used as threats against the edge stones. tengen is intended to weakly influence against center development, but maybe this is a misguided idea. s. __ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com lifeq.sgf Description: x-unknown/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 4-jan-07, at 18:53, David Doshay wrote: I see it as perfectly fair that the bot with the better ability to read, and thus knows it can pass, should be rewarded for that reading skill. I think you are mistaken for the real reason of the 'second phase', where he who passes has to pay a point. This 'second phase' only comes into effect after both sides have passed. It's to solve disputes in a fair manner. Since capturing dead stones would cost points, how do you resolve a dispute where your opponent claims his stones are not dead? (Think bent-four corner.)The actual proof consists of playing out the sequence that captures the stones. Every time your opponent passes and you continue playing moves to capture the stones you'd lose a point. That's why passing has to be compensated by paying a point. It's not about Go playing skills that should be rewarded but about being able to resolve disputes fairly. In the case at hand this phase is abused by a player who doesn't contest the status of stones but instead contests the result of the game when it would be counted according to Japanese rules. Personally I think programming your bot to play inside opponents territory when you obviously know it won't affect the outcome under normal circumstances is showing poor mentality. You'd be wasting my time and/ or computing time. Using the rules used as an argument doesn't hold for me. How would you feel if your opponent played out possible all ko-threats at the end of the game? This is possible without punishment under any set of rules. In my opinion, the fact that we humans feel bad doing something like that should be enough to at least make an effort to make your program avoid such behaviour too. Unfortunately it seems rather frequent that the opposite is true and that some put effort into explicitly programming such bad behaviour. Personally I htink it's a waste of time. It may win you a game occasionally but it won't make your program play any better. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On 4-jan-07, at 19:37, Don Dailey wrote: If 2 perfect players played a game where one was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player be able to hold some territory at the end of the game? This is the same as asking if it's possible to make a living group, which is obviously possible by invading at 3-3. He'll get at least two of those. But I wouldn't be surprised if he could do better. Mark___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
Petri Pitkanen wrote: Like in example from tournament game where a bot makes hundreds of useless moves. Rules that encourage that simply are not good. The only way to prevent this is a mandatory pass whenever a pass is a possible perfect play. When you think about it, you would furthermore want to require the ambient temperature to be 0 (otherwise it would be mandatory to pass already when each player could make endgame plays of the same values, for example). Now write this down as rules and then make your statement again. Before, IYO, good rules do not exist yet. So that you don't make the same mistakes again, first read http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/wagcmod.html -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Memory - efficient UCT proposal.
Just add a new child only when parent is visited more times than X. You will loose only a minimal amount of information. Hope this helps :) Lukasz ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
well, i'm pretty sure that against a top player i would need around 20 stones to have much of a shot, but if I remember correctly, at the professional level, a 17-18 stone free placement is needed to take the entire board. A 9 stone handicap is not nearly enough to take the whole board no matter where they are placed. On 1/5/07, Heikki Levanto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:37:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap > game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one > was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously > it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player > be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he > carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect > opponents wishes? If the handicap stones are placed on the traditional points (4-4, etc), then the answer is obviously yes. It is possible to live with a 3-3 invasion under such a stone. If the handicap stones are placed at 3-4 points, there should be ample room to approach from the side, and live in the corner or on the side. I guess that if the stones are places on 3-3, it should be possible to approach at 4-4, and slide to one of the sides, and possibly make a life there. Here I am not strong enough to say for sure. The last alternative I can think is to use 2 stones for each corner, but that leaves the sides wide open. Black can invade the middle of a side, and probably make a life there. Again I ask stronger players' opinions. So, my guess is that white can always squeeze a small life somewhere. In normal play black would of course welcome that, because he can secure so much more by containing the small white group. But what kind of player can give 9 stones to one who plays (near?) perfect? -Heikki -- Heikki Levanto "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 04:37:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > I have a question. With perfect play, obviously a 9 stone handicap > game is dead lost. If 2 perfect players played a game where one > was given the 9 stones, and they played for maximum territory (obviously > it doesn't make sense to play for a win) would the handicapped player > be able to hold some territory at the end of the game?Could he > carve out a little piece for himself even against his perfect > opponents wishes? If the handicap stones are placed on the traditional points (4-4, etc), then the answer is obviously yes. It is possible to live with a 3-3 invasion under such a stone. If the handicap stones are placed at 3-4 points, there should be ample room to approach from the side, and live in the corner or on the side. I guess that if the stones are places on 3-3, it should be possible to approach at 4-4, and slide to one of the sides, and possibly make a life there. Here I am not strong enough to say for sure. The last alternative I can think is to use 2 stones for each corner, but that leaves the sides wide open. Black can invade the middle of a side, and probably make a life there. Again I ask stronger players' opinions. So, my guess is that white can always squeeze a small life somewhere. In normal play black would of course welcome that, because he can secure so much more by containing the small white group. But what kind of player can give 9 stones to one who plays (near?) perfect? -Heikki -- Heikki Levanto "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
opponent and eventually could have passed for free. Had game been under Japanese rules I would have been 'forced' to think whether reply was needed and thus think a lot longer time for replies and possibly lost on time because reply would have been needed probably too often. Conclusion: Under Chinese rules and limited time player can end game easier and faster than under Japanese rules when opponent tries silly invasions. Not really. If you are ahead you reply every move. You got the extra prisoner so you can afford to reply, it does not change the fact that you won. Only if you are behind you could gain victory because opponent makes silly move that loses points Like in example from tournament game where a bot makes hundreds of useless moves. Rules that encourage that simply are not good. -- Petri Pitkänen e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +358 50 486 0292 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fw: [computer-go] Re: Interesting problem
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 09:08 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: > there's a nice rule of thumb that says that you should only > play moves whose outcome results in your opponent playing > *what you think is the best move*. there's simply nothing > more irritating than someone attempting an unreasonable > invasion at the end of a game in order to try to turn a loss > into a win. either they're assuming that you're unable to > respond correctly, or hoping that you'll run out of time. I'll claim that unreasonable invasions are bigger problem under Japanese rules than under Chinese rules. 3 examples of silly invasions and reactions to them. Example 1: WeakBot50k vs some single digit kuy player at KGS2 time (now WeakBot50k is 20k, but at KGS2 time it was < 30k). WeakBot50k is very weak bot, but opponents kept passing and sometimes needed some time to think whether to pass or respond. Surprisingly often opponent passed when should not and WeakBot50k lived or increased live group size. So my conclusion is that this was stressful for stronger opponent and too often failure. Example 2: WeakBot50k vs me: It doesn't take that many moves to achieve unconditionally alive status so games end much faster and easier than with example 1. Of course this is attributed to WeakBot50k knowing when all is unconditionally decided and then passing. Still much easier way to end game. (currently running WeakBot50k version resigns when it gets too much behind as decided by 100 random games) Example 3: Me vs another human with 7:31 sudden death game with Chinese rules. Game was over and there was not much time left on either of our clocks. Opponent tries silly invasions, but I continue simplify positions and thus being able to answer faster and faster and eventually position was mostly unconditionally alive. At that point opponent resigned position being dead simple and having less time on clock. I used less time than opponent and eventually could have passed for free. Had game been under Japanese rules I would have been 'forced' to think whether reply was needed and thus think a lot longer time for replies and possibly lost on time because reply would have been needed probably too often. Conclusion: Under Chinese rules and limited time player can end game easier and faster than under Japanese rules when opponent tries silly invasions. Japanese: harder and more stressful Chinese: easier and less stressful Also being able to simplify and achieve unconditional life as fast as possible is a skill too. -- Aloril <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
