Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Nick Wedd wrote: According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. All games were played with Chinese rules, with a komi of 6.5. Those who played through KGS had to use Japanese rules, because otherwise KGS would set the komi to 7.5. There is no way to set the komi with kgsgtp. But although KGS games were Japanese, the official counting was Chinese. This led to the confusing situation where one program would win its game, but KGS indicated that it lost. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
> -Original Message- > From: Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > ... > P.S. There is also rec.games.go, but I think people only post there when > they want to argue about something. (Disclaimer: I've not followed > rec.games.go in about 5 years, I suppose it may have mellowed since.) Actually,?rec.games.go had something of a rapture and most people who used it have moved to a moderated forum at http://godiscussions.com./ For those left behind, I can only suppose another forum at http://godistribulations.com./?is being readied. - Dave Hillis Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:23 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, chrilly wrote: > > I have written a C# Prototype-GUI. But I have no time and also not much > > interest to develop this further. I have good jobs in industry. Working 2 > > weeks on an GUI costs me indirectly 5.000 Euro. CGOS is not worth this > > money. > > Adding direct CGOS protocoll to my (simple) program took me > less than a day. You don't need GTP to play on CGOS. Yes, you could go directly to CGOS which is almost the same as GTP but you might as well implement GTP and have everything, a way to use tools and GUI and connect to KGS as well as CGOS. - Don > Christoph > ___ > 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: Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:50 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote: > On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really > only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary > situations. That ignores the very real problems that many beginners have trying to understand the logic behind Japanese rules. Computer Go has also benefitted tremendously by using Chinese-style rules. I don't think MoGo would have achieved such stunning success in 1 year without them. I also find it ugly that in the small percentage of games where disputes occur, the common solution is to stop the clock and verbally dispute the position, or appeal to a higher authority, instead of having the players finish the game on the board. In tournament play this ugliness is magnified. As a cute example, I recently ran across a KGS game (non-tournament) where a player was complaining that his opponent had lost the game and "escaped". After looking at the game, it was clear that the "escaper" had actually won by half a point, but his opponent didn't agree to the status of a group. He escaped in frustration. The player who misunderstood the position was rated 7k, but it took me several minutes worth of demonstrations before he could understand the position. I have attached the game. Finally, I think the people involved with the AGA rules would be rightfully upset at your summary of the situation. Those interested in their view on the matter can read: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.commentary.html In particular, the section "Transmittal letter", dated from 1991. Yep, these rule debates have been going on for quite some time. -Jeff Piet-yukatto.sgf Description: application/go-sgf ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, chrilly wrote: I have written a C# Prototype-GUI. But I have no time and also not much interest to develop this further. I have good jobs in industry. Working 2 weeks on an GUI costs me indirectly 5.000 Euro. CGOS is not worth this money. Adding direct CGOS protocoll to my (simple) program took me less than a day. You don't need GTP to play on CGOS. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
>> Or did you mean it is too much bother to connect with gogui while >> also running your code in a debugger? > > That would be great! How do you do that (without going through a > million zillion steps each time)? I use Visual Studio. Can Visual Studio connect to a running process? On linux you'd do something like: 1. Start gogui 2. Start your program 3. Use ps | grep your_program_name to find the PID 4. gdb your_program_name its_PID (Not tested.) I find debuggers unsuitable for go - it is too hard to set breakpoints saying "stop here when you are at depth ply 17 and the move A5 was played at ply 13". So I usually use a debug log where I output variable values and ascii board positions. Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
> I thought the rules for Go were rather simplistic when it came to scoring: > Count all eyes, and spaces owned by each player and each captured > stone counted as a point. Whoever had the most points wins. > > How does that differ from Japanese, Chinese, Korean? Hi Josh, Many of your recent questions are more about go than about computer go, and the best place to search to get them answered is here: http://senseis.xmp.net/ Darren P.S. There is also rec.games.go, but I think people only post there when they want to argue about something. (Disclaimer: I've not followed rec.games.go in about 5 years, I suppose it may have mellowed since.) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
>> New lesson learned. It depends on the rule set if something is correct >> or a blunder. >> So far the Go-masters told me, it does not matter, its practically the >> same. Obviously its not. This is not some weired, constructed >> position, it really happened and it does not look strange at all. > > I actually think that under Chinese rules White wins too because > Black owes 1 point for playing the last (and first) move. I'd not heard that 1pt adjustment before; is it only when black plays the last move? Do you have a reference, as this page does not mention it: http://senseis.xmp.net/?ChineseCounting Darren ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
I didn't write this :) I'm pretty familiar with the differences in rule sets. David > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Robert Jasiek > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:17 PM > To: computer-go > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? > > > David Fotland wrote: > > I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people > play the game > > of go? > > Different scoring requires my strategy to be adapted. > Different counting > leads to different kinds of defensive methods against accidental or > cheating errors. > > > I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my > > reason for that is because the game ends sooner... > > So how do you ensure that in real games? Do you not use > Japanese fill-in > counting because for that you would need to make the game > longer again > by filling the dame? > > > I don't have to go filling dame > > You don't have to (I guess you use some verbal Japanese > rules), but how > do you count? > > -- > robert > ___ > 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] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On Thu, 12 Jul 2007, chrilly wrote: New lesson learned. It depends on the rule set if something is correct or a blunder. So far the Go-masters told me, it does not matter, its practically the same. Obviously its not. This is not some weired, constructed position, it really happened and it does not look strange at all. I actually think that under Chinese rules White wins too because Black owes 1 point for playing the last (and first) move. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes The key question is really if the game would have been played differently knowing the ruleset. Yes. In both games, a player who was mistaken about the ruleset chose a calm solid defensive line which would have given them a half-point victory using what they thought was the ruleset. They could have chosen a less clear line, whose outcome would likely have been different by a point or two, one way or the other. I am 2-kyu by the European system, 3-kyu on KGS. It is possible that my experiences refereeing KGS 9x9 tournaments have caused my skill at counting almost-finished 9x9 games to be above average for someone of my strength :-) Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
IIRC, in KGS, the players themselves mark the dead groups, and if they disagree I suppose there is a conflict-resolution procedure. ( haven't come across that in actual play ) When I started on KGS, I was unaware that it was the players' responsibility to mark dead groups - my opponent was marking the groups, but I didn't know this. Once dead groups are marked, KGS then appears to be able to determine what is territory and what is dame. I'd have to check some sample games to say whether it can determine that a space should be filled in to prevent a capture when the dame are filled - can't speak to that. Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster - Original Message From: Robert Jasiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:17:07 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? David Fotland wrote: > I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Different scoring requires my strategy to be adapted. Different counting leads to different kinds of defensive methods against accidental or cheating errors. > I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for > that is because the game ends sooner... So how do you ensure that in real games? Do you not use Japanese fill-in counting because for that you would need to make the game longer again by filling the dame? > I don't have to go filling dame You don't have to (I guess you use some verbal Japanese rules), but how do you count? -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast with the Yahoo! Search weather shortcut. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#loc_weather___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
David Fotland wrote: I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Different scoring requires my strategy to be adapted. Different counting leads to different kinds of defensive methods against accidental or cheating errors. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... So how do you ensure that in real games? Do you not use Japanese fill-in counting because for that you would need to make the game longer again by filling the dame? > I don't have to go filling dame You don't have to (I guess you use some verbal Japanese rules), but how do you count? -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: > If both players miss it because it's a more complex vulnerability, then they miss it and the score corresponds to their expectations. Players miss it mostly when being too lazy to make a positional judgement shortly before the end and to verify whether KGS marks the right intersections as territory. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Does Chrilly have anything to do with this project? -Josh No. Up to my knowledge a student makes his Diplomarbeit (masters-thesis) on this topic. But building such a machine is somewhat beyond a masters thesis. The problem is: There are no funds, no money available. Generally the Univ. Paderborn has relative a lot of money for hardware, but it is very difficult to get money for software development. Not just for Go, for any field. Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, "International Guild Of Glass Artists", "International Grooving and Grinding Association", "International Gomputer Games Association", is it a typo??? In my head its still ICCA. I knew, that there was an G somewhere added. Maybe my brain solved the conflict where to replace the C with G by replacing both Cs. Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
The biggest difference in over the board club play is the scoring procedure. in territory scoring, prisoners are kept separate, and at the end of the game prisoners are put back in enemy territory and regions are rearranged to rectangles and counter. Counting is pretty fast, and the board position is partially preserved. In Chinese scoring, prisoners are put back in the bowls with stones to be played, and at the end of the game one color only is counted, first territory, then the stones are collected into piles of 10 and counted. The position is completely destroyed in the process. So though Chinese rules avoid the special cases in Japanese rules, counting mistakes are easier to make. In AGA rules, counting is done using the territory procedure, but the score is the same as the Chinese procedure since anyone who passes gives a prisoner to the opponent. In Ing rules, each player starts with 180 stones exactly. During play prisoners are put back in the bowls, then at the end all 181 stones are put on the board into the territory. The person with territory left over wins. So there is not much difference in the moves chosen, but the scoring procedure is radically different. If the players don't agree on the rules and one saves prisoner and the other doesn't it will be difficult to count the score. I think this group has a tendency to think mostly about computer scoring, and not how games are scored on a wooden go board in a club :) David I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason House wrote: > I mean that the > resulting marking of who's territories is who's matches what I would have > done if I stopped at that point and scored the game. Occasionally, KGS fails here. See rec.games.go or elsewhere for details. Honestly, I'm not interested enough to go searching. I've played lots and lots of games and feel comfortable from my experience that it works fine. I don't see a way that > the game would have come out to any other result if the extra 10 moves were > played. Of course. If you don't look carefully each time, you overlook KGS's failures. ... Both players can review the outcome before accepting it. If they don't agree, they undo and play enough to correct the problem... If both players miss it because it's a more complex vulnerability, then they miss it and the score corresponds to their expectations. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 13:58 -0400, Jason House wrote: > I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz > games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane > because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in > endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing > the number of moves in a game. Yes, on KGS you can stop the game and send a list of dead stones. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: > I mean that the resulting marking of who's territories is who's matches what I would have done if I stopped at that point and scored the game. Occasionally, KGS fails here. See rec.games.go or elsewhere for details. > I don't see a way that the game would have come out to any other result if the extra 10 moves were played. Of course. If you don't look carefully each time, you overlook KGS's failures. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
For computer purposes, this is the problem: Territorial scoring is more human-convenient, can be done without filling the dame or removing dead stones. But it all depends on knowing which groups are live, which dead, which in seki. If there's a disagreement, it needs to be settled by resuming the game (assuming there isn't some superko problem depending on choice of rule set.) But knowing how that would work depends on being seeing the situation and the needed plays at a human level of accuracy. There's no reason in principle a computer program can't be accurate in scoring, but generally they aren't; it's hard enough to program something good enough to teach human beginners, and the scoring is a roughly equally difficult problem on top of that! Area scoring... If it's on the board, it's alive. A program might need to make lots of tedious moves removing dead stones, but what's tedium to a program? If a program doesn't remove some dead stones, it loses points, but the score itself is defined whenever both players pass. If we aren't going to explicitly code in a lot of go knowledge, area scoring is much easier. But once a program learns to play a successful area-based play, it wouldn't be playing the same game as Japanese & most Western players. For the territorial game, at some point you'd need to bring in either knowledgable humans or a complex territorial scoring/estimation program to settle things. 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] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason House wrote: > KGS does a fine job with unfilled dame. Any server that violates the rules during scoring does not do a "fine" job. KGS violates whichever Japanese rules. It's probably already clear that I pay little attention to the rules and their subtleties. I can honestly say that I don't know Japanese rules. I know territory and area scoring. One is score = territory + captures, the other is territory + living stones. I know some of the seki problems on goproblems.com throw me for a loop with how they score it given a particular ruleset... I play for *fun*. When I say KGS scores the game as "fine", I mean that the resulting marking of who's territories is who's matches what I would have done if I stopped at that point and scored the game. I don't see a way that the game would have come out to any other result if the extra 10 moves were played. If the way KGS does it shaves 10 moves off the end of the game when the game is already decided, I'm happy and having (slightly) more fun. I run some really dumb bots online that play perfectly fine blitz games (10s/move) with Chinese rules and it still drives humans insane because the computer doesn't stop playing. People resign won games in endgame because they can't take it. There is some value in reducing the number of moves in a game. -- robert ___ 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: Why are different rule sets?
Does Chrilly have anything to do with this project? -Josh On 7/12/07, Richard Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 7/12/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No, gomputers are real: > > http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer Maybe you were joking, but did you notice that one of the hits from that search was a URL where the spelling was not only used _intentionally_, but also -- in a remarkable occurrence of serendipity and relevance to this list -- used to describe a computer-go project? The page describes the efforts of a group at the University of Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing to develop a go program on a cluster of FPGAs. Hence "GOmputer": http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/pc2/index.php?id=191 [Pipe it through http://translate.google.com/ if you don't read German.] ___ 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: Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: No, gomputers are real: http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer Maybe you were joking, but did you notice that one of the hits from that search was a URL where the spelling was not only used _intentionally_, but also -- in a remarkable occurrence of serendipity and relevance to this list -- used to describe a computer-go project? The page describes the efforts of a group at the University of Paderborn Center for Parallel Computing to develop a go program on a cluster of FPGAs. Hence "GOmputer": http://wwwcs.uni-paderborn.de/pc2/index.php?id=191 [Pipe it through http://translate.google.com/ if you don't read German.] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes >On 7/12/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? > >I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game >of go? Kyu players, using full boards, aren't really affected. Kyu players can't count a full board with perfect accuracy, so they just play out the yose and then count to find what the result was. Kyu players on 9x9 boards can be affected. I recently lost a 9x9 game by half a point, playing a line that would have guaranteed a half-point victory except that I was mistaken about the ruleset. I've seen analysis of "perfect" 7x7 play that shows how some moves are ideal under one ruleset rather than another. I'm a kyu player (3k) and I know that I never even consider the ruleset and how counting would be different. My yose plays don't take scoring differences into account. What rank are you? Do you have a link to the game? Strong players are certainly affected. At a London Open Go Tournament a few years ago, a Chinese 5-dan was disappointed to lose by half a point a game which she would have won using Chinese rules. The key question is really if the game would have been played differently knowing the ruleset. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of >my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to >go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). The Japanese rules in fact require the players to fill the dame. Though very few people take any notice ... Nick >Another nice bonus to territory scoring is that avoiding point loss in >end game forces me to have confidence in the stability of a position as >the outer dame are filled. A little bit like gambling 30 points to >save one. > >Besides that stuff, I really play the game the same way for either rule >set. It's only once I reach the bitter end of the endgame that I might >play differently. Mostly, I'd fill dame instead of passing. I'd also >be more ok with putting an extra stone to protect an internal group >weakness that I think probably won't be a problem. -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ 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: Why are different rule sets?
- Original Message From: Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, "International Guild Of Glass >> Artists", "International Grooving and Grinding Association", > >"International Gomputer Games Association", is it a typo??? > No, gomputers are real: > http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer Maybe someday dictionaries will include gomputer,n: a computer which plays Go at the shodan level or better. Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, "International Guild Of Glass Artists", "International Grooving and Grinding Association", "International Gomputer Games Association", is it a typo??? No, gomputers are real: http://www.google.com/search?q=gomputer ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based >programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and >plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it. >Are there something as Universal accepted computer-Go rules? There is - >at least on paper - a computer FIDE. The IGGA. Is there something as >the IGGA computer-Go ruleset? According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. Don't trust the rule specification (or timing information for that matter) in the raw game records, they may have been set differently to circumvent difficulties by those who played using a remote system. All Go events in Amsterdam used Chinese rules. IIRC the last time the Olympiad used Japanese rules was in 2002, after that it was always Chinese rules. BTW I have no idea what IGGA means, "International Guild Of Glass Artists", "International Grooving and Grinding Association", "International Gomputer Games Association", is it a typo??? Erik ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes I think your table tennis analogy is not really applicable. The rule changes in table tennis were presumably motivated by the need to fix a real problem, and really changed the game. Yes, due to the advancements in rubber technology the game become too fast. "Bumm-Bumm-Over". Furthermore the ball should be easier to spot on TV. Another way would be to limit the rubbers, but making the ball larger is easier to control and define. But it was a significant change. New ball technology had to be developed, old balls become absolete, the rule is a disadvantage for "Bumm-Bumm" players... On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. There's no motivation to change the way the game is actually played. For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it. Are there something as Universal accepted computer-Go rules? There is - at least on paper - a computer FIDE. The IGGA. Is there something as the IGGA computer-Go ruleset? According to the game records from the recent ICGA events in Amsterdam, the 19x19 events used Japanese rules with 6.5 komi, and the 9x9 games used Chinese rules, but with 6.5 komi. So I suspect not. Are all tournaments played according a well defined and uniform rule set? No. Ing-sponsored events used the Ing (SST) rules. Japanese-sponsored events such as the Gifu Challenge and the CGF Special Meeting use Japanese rules. Chinese-sponsored events use Chinese rules. Nick -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 18:53 +0200, chrilly wrote: > Jesus, there are not just Japanese, Chinese rules, there are ING, AGA... I > learned today, that suicide is allowed under some rules... > I thought, Go is a well defined game with a very clear "mathematical" rule > set. > > There are discussions in other sports too (e.g. in Table-Tennis), but > nevertheless there is usually a reasonable compromise, everybody can live > with. There is at the end some pragmatism. This pragmatism is also quite > missing in chess and it seems to be absent in Go. The explanation I have for > chess is: Chess players have a board infront of their head. The difference > to Go seems to be: The Go-Board is even larger. > > Chrilly > > > I think the > - Original Message - > From: "Robert Jasiek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "computer-go" > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:04 PM > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? > > > > chrilly wrote: > >> Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? > > > > As somebody having taken part in the International Go Rules Forum, which > > has been meant to unify the rules, I can tell you the reasons: > > > > The major split has - not surprisingly - occurred again between the Area > > Scoring (China, Ing, AGA, supported by the EGF delegates) and the > > Traditional Territory Scoring (Japan, Korean, supported by some IGF > > delegates) factions. The reasons are: > > - The territorialists (or their influential majority) don't want to > > compromise. They reject even compromises that are very close to their > > current rulesets. They want to keep at least 99.9% of their tradition. > > - The territorialists play on time for the purpose of leaving things as > > they are. > > - The majority of the Chinese (except Mr. Hua) has been too silent during > > the discussion because they have not educated themselves well about the > > theoretical background of rules discussion. > > - The Ing delegates played too much on aiming at Ing-specific aspects > > instead of going for compromise earlier and could bear too little factual > > criticism. > > > > After the territorialists had gone, the arealists solved every secondary > > issue quickly, all expressed a good will and time schedule for solving the > > major issues, and then (so far) have stopped further unifying at least the > > Area Scoring rules: > > - The Chinese and Ing delegates have been almost completely silent since > > the last meeting. > > - The AGA delegates slowed down discussion for some months. > > - The AGA delegates and every European delegate or expert (except myself) > > insisted on discussing and aiming at superko again while during the last > > meeting it had become pretty clear that the Chinese and Ing delegates > > would not accept superko at all. > > > > If you need to criticise also me, you might argue that I did most of the > > factual discussion instead of being simply silent and letting the Asians > > do whatever they might have liked (although IMO it did not seem that they > > would have advanced any sooner then and it would have meant for sure that > > the rules would have got significantly more flaws). > > > > Summarizing, the overall intention to compromise or at least to accelerate > > factual discussion is still by far too small. > > > > -- > > robert jasiek > > ___ > > 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] Why are different rule sets?
Jesus, there are not just Japanese, Chinese rules, there are ING, AGA... I learned today, that suicide is allowed under some rules... I thought, Go is a well defined game with a very clear "mathematical" rule set. There are discussions in other sports too (e.g. in Table-Tennis), but nevertheless there is usually a reasonable compromise, everybody can live with. There is at the end some pragmatism. This pragmatism is also quite missing in chess and it seems to be absent in Go. The explanation I have for chess is: Chess players have a board infront of their head. The difference to Go seems to be: The Go-Board is even larger. Chrilly I think the - Original Message - From: "Robert Jasiek" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "computer-go" Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 5:04 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets? chrilly wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? As somebody having taken part in the International Go Rules Forum, which has been meant to unify the rules, I can tell you the reasons: The major split has - not surprisingly - occurred again between the Area Scoring (China, Ing, AGA, supported by the EGF delegates) and the Traditional Territory Scoring (Japan, Korean, supported by some IGF delegates) factions. The reasons are: - The territorialists (or their influential majority) don't want to compromise. They reject even compromises that are very close to their current rulesets. They want to keep at least 99.9% of their tradition. - The territorialists play on time for the purpose of leaving things as they are. - The majority of the Chinese (except Mr. Hua) has been too silent during the discussion because they have not educated themselves well about the theoretical background of rules discussion. - The Ing delegates played too much on aiming at Ing-specific aspects instead of going for compromise earlier and could bear too little factual criticism. After the territorialists had gone, the arealists solved every secondary issue quickly, all expressed a good will and time schedule for solving the major issues, and then (so far) have stopped further unifying at least the Area Scoring rules: - The Chinese and Ing delegates have been almost completely silent since the last meeting. - The AGA delegates slowed down discussion for some months. - The AGA delegates and every European delegate or expert (except myself) insisted on discussing and aiming at superko again while during the last meeting it had become pretty clear that the Chinese and Ing delegates would not accept superko at all. If you need to criticise also me, you might argue that I did most of the factual discussion instead of being simply silent and letting the Asians do whatever they might have liked (although IMO it did not seem that they would have advanced any sooner then and it would have meant for sure that the rules would have got significantly more flaws). Summarizing, the overall intention to compromise or at least to accelerate factual discussion is still by far too small. -- robert jasiek ___ 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: Why are different rule sets?
I think your table tennis analogy is not really applicable. The rule changes in table tennis were presumably motivated by the need to fix a real problem, and really changed the game. Yes, due to the advancements in rubber technology the game become too fast. "Bumm-Bumm-Over". Furthermore the ball should be easier to spot on TV. Another way would be to limit the rubbers, but making the ball larger is easier to control and define. But it was a significant change. New ball technology had to be developed, old balls become absolete, the rule is a disadvantage for "Bumm-Bumm" players... On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. There's no motivation to change the way the game is actually played. For computers special cases matter. Especially for a search based programm. A search based programm finds every possible special case and plays into this case, because the opponent does not prevent it. Are there something as Universal accepted computer-Go rules? There is - at least on paper - a computer FIDE. The IGGA. Is there something as the IGGA computer-Go ruleset? Are all tournaments played according a well defined and uniform rule set? Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] UCT caveat (was in Explanation to MoGo paper wanted)
From discussion, it seems that there are two important tests of unbiasedness that we can make for an improvement to playouts: 1: For any position, we should equally study what happens when either black or white moves there. This is captured in the proverb "your opponent's good move is your good move". Mathematically, this means that in the playouts, P(black moves there) should be the same as P(white moves there) when the position is a legal move for both black and white. 2: An improvement to the algorithm should help equally for winning and losing board positions. This is because the random playouts already contain very useful and subtle information about the strength of a board position (hidden by noise) that we don't want to obscure with our improvement. The point of the improvement is to reduce noise and make the quality of the position more clear without obscuring the information we have already. Are there other useful tests of bias? Clearly, some forms of change should be okay, or no improvement would be possible. - Brian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Been following this tread and it has me concerned both as a beginning player and engine developer. I thought the rules for Go were rather simplistic when it came to scoring: Count all eyes, and spaces owned by each player and each captured stone counted as a point. Whoever had the most points wins. How does that differ from Japanese, Chinese, Korean? -Josh On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Dave Dyer wrote: > all the rules arguments in Go are really > only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary > situations. Traditional Territory Scoring rules fail in the most ordinary (!) positions of EACH game, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html What you claim is false and a myth. -- robert ___ 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] Why are different rule sets?
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes On 7/12/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? Kyu players, using full boards, aren't really affected. Kyu players can't count a full board with perfect accuracy, so they just play out the yose and then count to find what the result was. Kyu players on 9x9 boards can be affected. I recently lost a 9x9 game by half a point, playing a line that would have guaranteed a half-point victory except that I was mistaken about the ruleset. Strong players are certainly affected. At a London Open Go Tournament a few years ago, a Chinese 5-dan was disappointed to lose by half a point a game which she would have won using Chinese rules. I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). The Japanese rules in fact require the players to fill the dame. Though very few people take any notice ... Nick Another nice bonus to territory scoring is that avoiding point loss in end game forces me to have confidence in the stability of a position as the outer dame are filled. A little bit like gambling 30 points to save one. Besides that stuff, I really play the game the same way for either rule set. It's only once I reach the bitter end of the endgame that I might play differently. Mostly, I'd fill dame instead of passing. I'd also be more ok with putting an extra stone to protect an internal group weakness that I think probably won't be a problem. -- Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
Dave Dyer wrote: > all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. Traditional Territory Scoring rules fail in the most ordinary (!) positions of EACH game, see http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/j1989c.html What you claim is false and a myth. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: KGS does a fine job with unfilled dame. Any server that violates the rules during scoring does not do a "fine" job. KGS violates whichever Japanese rules. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
I think your table tennis analogy is not really applicable. The rule changes in table tennis were presumably motivated by the need to fix a real problem, and really changed the game. On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. There's no motivation to change the way the game is actually played. With the stakes so low, there's no limit to debate. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: Why are different rule sets?
I think your table tennis analogy is not really applicable. The rule changes in table tennis were presumably motivated by the need to fix a real problem, and really changed the game. On the other hand, all the rules arguments in Go are really only applicable to incredibly marginal, bordering on imaginary situations. There's no motivation to change the way the game is actually played. With the stakes so low, there's no limit to debate. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On 7/12/07, Phil G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason wrote: > I'd also be willing to support slight variants to SGF that use positions > such as C4 instead of wacky things that don't match the notation > everyone else uses and vary depending on the board size. Anders Kierulf's SmartGo program has the option to use standard Go coordinates in SGF files. I think it knows which coordinate system to use based on if it has a digit in it or not. And for style, the letter in the coordinate is in uppercase. I plan to add support for this in GoTraxx (but continue to use SGF coordinates until other programs, like GoGui, support this too). - Phil I've submitted this as a feature request (1752711) for GoGUI http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1752711&group_id=59117&atid=489967 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, Robert Jasiek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Jason House wrote: > I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my > reason > for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame > (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). This is for most part an illusion. In real world games, the dame are filled anyway. In go server games, it depends on the server whether filling is meaningful. E.g., on KGS it is essential because KGS makes scoring mistakes otherwise. E.g., on IGS it is undefined whether it would be meaningful or not. IMHO, KGS does a fine job with unfilled dame. It only finds lost points that would be because dame filling causes a chain to be in atari. Honestly, a more complex attack could be missed by the opponent and it seems reasonable for KGS to miss it too. Occasionally, I'll fill dame to force the opponent to acknowledge a more involved vulnerability and fill it. I checked my recent personal game record to see how this applies "in the real world". For this month, I had 5 relevant games (vs. human, no resignation). On average, 4 dame remain unfilled in one of my games. It seems like most games that number of unfilled dame are low (0,3,4,4), but occasionally there can be a lot (10). 4 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/10/Touch-jhouse.sgf 0 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/9/teee-jhouse.sgf 10 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/3/bearkid-jhouse.sgf 4 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/3/jhouse-GoTooom.sgf 3 dame unfilled: http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/7/3/bitchesbru-jhouse.sgf -- robert ___ 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] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
Jason wrote: > I'd also be willing to support slight variants to SGF that use positions > such as C4 instead of wacky things that don't match the notation > everyone else uses and vary depending on the board size. Anders Kierulf's SmartGo program has the option to use standard Go coordinates in SGF files. I think it knows which coordinate system to use based on if it has a digit in it or not. And for style, the letter in the coordinate is in uppercase. I plan to add support for this in GoTraxx (but continue to use SGF coordinates until other programs, like GoGui, support this too). - Phil___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
Jason House wrote: > I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). This is for most part an illusion. In real world games, the dame are filled anyway. In go server games, it depends on the server whether filling is meaningful. E.g., on KGS it is essential because KGS makes scoring mistakes otherwise. E.g., on IGS it is undefined whether it would be meaningful or not. -- robert ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On Jul 12, 2007, at 7:36 AM, Don Dailey wrote: I'm curious about this myself. I don't know if there is a world-wide go organization. I don't think there is any organization that has the clout to standardize this in a way that would be respected and globally adopted. Yes there is: http://senseis.xmp.net/?InternationalGoFederation The "clout" part is taking time, but the IGF is clearly involved in Go at the highest level. Peter Drake http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
chrilly wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? As somebody having taken part in the International Go Rules Forum, which has been meant to unify the rules, I can tell you the reasons: The major split has - not surprisingly - occurred again between the Area Scoring (China, Ing, AGA, supported by the EGF delegates) and the Traditional Territory Scoring (Japan, Korean, supported by some IGF delegates) factions. The reasons are: - The territorialists (or their influential majority) don't want to compromise. They reject even compromises that are very close to their current rulesets. They want to keep at least 99.9% of their tradition. - The territorialists play on time for the purpose of leaving things as they are. - The majority of the Chinese (except Mr. Hua) has been too silent during the discussion because they have not educated themselves well about the theoretical background of rules discussion. - The Ing delegates played too much on aiming at Ing-specific aspects instead of going for compromise earlier and could bear too little factual criticism. After the territorialists had gone, the arealists solved every secondary issue quickly, all expressed a good will and time schedule for solving the major issues, and then (so far) have stopped further unifying at least the Area Scoring rules: - The Chinese and Ing delegates have been almost completely silent since the last meeting. - The AGA delegates slowed down discussion for some months. - The AGA delegates and every European delegate or expert (except myself) insisted on discussing and aiming at superko again while during the last meeting it had become pretty clear that the Chinese and Ing delegates would not accept superko at all. If you need to criticise also me, you might argue that I did most of the factual discussion instead of being simply silent and letting the Asians do whatever they might have liked (although IMO it did not seem that they would have advanced any sooner then and it would have meant for sure that the rules would have got significantly more flaws). Summarizing, the overall intention to compromise or at least to accelerate factual discussion is still by far too small. -- robert jasiek ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
On 7/12/07, Phil G <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But there are only two drawbacks with this approach. One, it only works as a result of a customized GTP command. Sometimes I want it to display debugging information data while the GTP command is still executing (or maybe as an addition to an existing GTP command). Two, it's not interactive - it doesn't have any ability to ask simple questions, "Yes | No", etc. The first I think would be easy to add to GoGui, if it would "listen" to the stderr and given a trigger string, response type (plist, gfx, etc) and data it could display that immediately in the GUI. The second probably isn't possible since the stderr is output only and not bi-directional. This is really one of the big reasons why some alternative to GTP should be created. We'd all like a little more flexibility. If someone came out with a non-binary bidirectional format that was a competitor to GTP, I'd support it. I'd also be willing to support slight variants to SGF that use positions such as C4 instead of wacky things that don't match the notation everyone else uses and vary depending on the board size. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
Darren Cook wrote: > You know you can output internal data to stderr and gogui will pick it > up and show it in the shell window? Yes; I use the stderr output feature extensively. In fact, GoGui can be extended via customizable analyze commands via GTP, which among other things, can display graphics (squares, circles, text, etc). [Thanks Markus Enzenberger for such a great program!] But there are only two drawbacks with this approach. One, it only works as a result of a customized GTP command. Sometimes I want it to display debugging information data while the GTP command is still executing (or maybe as an addition to an existing GTP command). Two, it's not interactive - it doesn't have any ability to ask simple questions, "Yes | No", etc. The first I think would be easy to add to GoGui, if it would "listen" to the stderr and given a trigger string, response type (plist, gfx, etc) and data it could display that immediately in the GUI. The second probably isn't possible since the stderr is output only and not bi-directional. > Or did you mean it is too much bother to connect with gogui while also > running your code in a debugger? That would be great! How do you do that (without going through a million zillion steps each time)? I use Visual Studio. Phil___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On 7/12/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? I'm curious... How does the rule sets affect how people play the game of go? I personally find territory scoring more interesting. 90% of my reason for that is because the game ends sooner... I don't have to go filling dame (open spaces between chains of opposing colors). Another nice bonus to territory scoring is that avoiding point loss in end game forces me to have confidence in the stability of a position as the outer dame are filled. A little bit like gambling 30 points to save one. Besides that stuff, I really play the game the same way for either rule set. It's only once I reach the bitter end of the endgame that I might play differently. Mostly, I'd fill dame instead of passing. I'd also be more ok with putting an extra stone to protect an internal group weakness that I think probably won't be a problem. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why are different rule sets?
On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 16:37 +0200, chrilly wrote: > I am playing competitive tennis-table. There were for years a heated debatte > if the ball-diamater should be increased from 38 to 40mm and if the set > shall go to 11 instead of to 21. A few years ago, the decision was taken to > play with the 40mm ball to make the game slower and in turn to reduce the > set to 11. > Since then Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the rest of the world play with > 40mm and stop at 11. After a short transition time, there is no discussion > at all about the new rules. Tennis, soccer, chess is played all over > the world in the same way. > Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? Is there not > something like a FIDE or a FIFA ? I'm curious about this myself. I don't know if there is a world-wide go organization. I don't think there is any organization that has the clout to standardize this in a way that would be respected and globally adopted. - Don > Chrilly > > ___ > 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] Why are different rule sets?
Hi Chrilly, Take a look at this list, there are already maybe more than 100 posts on this subject. While I agree with you, just don't worry, almost all computer go games are with the same set of rules, just ignore the rest. Cheers, Sylvain 2007/7/12, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I am playing competitive tennis-table. There were for years a heated debatte if the ball-diamater should be increased from 38 to 40mm and if the set shall go to 11 instead of to 21. A few years ago, the decision was taken to play with the 40mm ball to make the game slower and in turn to reduce the set to 11. Since then Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the rest of the world play with 40mm and stop at 11. After a short transition time, there is no discussion at all about the new rules. Tennis, soccer, chess is played all over the world in the same way. Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? Is there not something like a FIDE or a FIFA ? Chrilly ___ 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] Why are different rule sets?
I am playing competitive tennis-table. There were for years a heated debatte if the ball-diamater should be increased from 38 to 40mm and if the set shall go to 11 instead of to 21. A few years ago, the decision was taken to play with the 40mm ball to make the game slower and in turn to reduce the set to 11. Since then Chinese, Japanese, Korean and the rest of the world play with 40mm and stop at 11. After a short transition time, there is no discussion at all about the new rules. Tennis, soccer, chess is played all over the world in the same way. Why is it not possible to establish uniform rules in Go? Is there not something like a FIDE or a FIFA ? Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] UCT caveat (was in Explanation to MoGo paper wanted)
Brian Slesinsky wrote: And this would mean that a position where black is in trouble would look stronger than in a random playout (due to black playing well only for this kind of situation) which would make it harder to tell which positions are actually good. Or in general, an improvement in play that only works for some positions will tend to make those positions look good, and make it hard to tell which positions actually are good. That's what I mean. The defense favors one player (the one in danger) more than the other and these positions get a wrong evaluation. That is dangerous and, in general, will weaken the program. Maybe in a particular situation it is a good idea. Sometimes breaking the rules is a good idea. ;-) I like this example because it sounds very reasonable and it is not obvious that it is breaking the rules (the unbiasedness rule), but it is. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
Hi Chrilly, There is no CGOS protocol, you only need to support GTP and any serious GO program supports that. GTP is a simple text based protocol that can implemented faster than it takes you to read the spec and make sure you understand it! I would expect you to need 2 hours to implement the basic GTP commands including reading the documentation and finding it. You can use gnugo gtp output for examples, typing to stdin to test what works and what doesn't in conjunction with the documentation. This is really minor work compared to the development time of your 2 versions, an alpha beta version and a UCT version. And not having GTP is like a carpenter leaving most of his tools at home.Once you have it you can play test games on KGS and play on CGOS. - Don On Thu, 2007-07-12 at 08:10 +0200, chrilly wrote: > > Why not put both version on CGOS and find out? > > > > - Don > > We have at the moment 3 GUIs and each of them does not support the > protocoll. > The main GUI is from GoAhead. Its written in old Atari-Basic and according > to Peter Woitke its difficult to integrate it. ChessBase has promised a > better GUI, but they are busy with other things and Go has obviously low > priority on their list. But thats not their fault, because my input was even > less. > I have written a C# Prototype-GUI. But I have no time and also not much > interest to develop this further. I have good jobs in industry. Working 2 > weeks on an GUI costs me indirectly 5.000 Euro. CGOS is not worth this > money. > > Chrilly > > ___ > 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] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
I forgot to mention, it's C#. On 7/12/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I haven't been working on Go at all recently so here's my UI code. It's not great. I only used it for testing and feedback. It's not meant to look nice. Perhaps someone else can also use it. www.fantius.com/Go.UI.rar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
I haven't been working on Go at all recently so here's my UI code. It's not great. I only used it for testing and feedback. It's not meant to look nice. Perhaps someone else can also use it. www.fantius.com/Go.UI.rar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
Phil wrote: > anymore? I could use it. Right now I use GoGui for the GUI, which is > great, but sometimes I'd like to display internal data during debug > for which GoGui would be too difficult to use. You know you can output internal data to stderr and gogui will pick it up and show it in the shell window? Or did you mean it is too much bother to connect with gogui while also running your code in a debugger? Chrilly wrote: > One always thinks "oh its a mess, it could be done much better and > now the other people see what mess I have done". Open-source > programmers are in this respect very brave. I think this is the most > positive effect of open-source. Its like when visitors are coming to > ones home. One washes the dishes, cleans the carpet, no dirty > underwear is lying around This is actually the biggest objection I hear to releasing as open source - it is nothing to do with the idea of people stealing your hard work, but simple embarrassment/fear of criticism. I've managed to get some open source code out of the door - dirty underwear and all - simply by tricking my ego: "I'll just do a first quick release, no-one will see it, and I'll go back and make it beautiful next week. And people will think it must be very active because we got to version 0.2 so quickly!" Darren -- Darren Cook http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese free dictionary) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://dcook.org/work/charts/ (My flash charting demos) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
it's much more likely not to matter on a real (19x19) board. s. --- chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > New lesson learned. It depends on the rule set if > something is correct or a > blunder. > So far the Go-masters told me, it does not matter, > its practically the same. > Obviously its not. This is not some weired, > constructed position, it really > happened and it does not look strange at all. > > Chrilly > > - Original Message - > From: "Erik van der Werf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "computer-go" > Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:32 AM > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Interesting Test Position > (for UCT) > > > > On 7/11/07, chrilly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > >> Attached is an interesting testposition which > occured in UCT-Suzie > >> against > >> Peter-Woitke. If black plays 37 c4 the game is > lost by 0.5 points. If > >> Black > >> passes, white gets a lot of threats. Black can > choose between a safe > >> loss, > >> or some risk and a win. > >> UCT-Suzie and the public domain version of > Crazy-Stone played the save > >> loss. > > > > Seems like you're mixing up Territory and Area > scoring. Under area > > scoring rules the programs can strengthen their > (final) position by > > playing in their own territory. (Crazystone as > Black would win under > > Chinese rules) > > > > The example illustrates why Japanese rules provide > a slightly more > > interesting endgame. > > > > Erik > > ___ > > 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/ > Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos & more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] SGF parsing
At 08:49 AM 7/9/2007, you wrote: ... Any help is appreciated, trying to write a parse in C you might try some of the people on the mailing list: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- 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] Interesting Test Position (for UCT)
Hi Chrilly, GoTraxx has a C# class that interfaces directly with CGOS. Should be fairly trivial to incorporate especially if it already knows GTP. The source code is up at CodePlex. Regarding your prototype GUI, would you consider donating it the open source community, especially if you don't have much interest in it anymore? I could use it. Right now I use GoGui for the GUI, which is great, but sometimes I'd like to display internal data during debug for which GoGui would be too difficult to use. Phil Its really a prototype. The main purpose was to learn C#. I use it for developing, because I can then display the info I need. But its not in the state where one can give things away. D.Knuth has written about how reluctant he (and other scientist) was to publish his code. One always thinks "oh its a mess, it could be done much better and now the other people see what mess I have done". Open-source programmers are in this respect very brave. I think this is the most positive effect of open-source. Its like when visitors are coming to ones home. One washes the dishes, cleans the carpet, no dirty underwear is lying around Chrilly ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
