Re: [computer-go] Re: Mirror Go against Zen
2009/7/20 Stefan Kaitschick : > Ofcourse they can know. They just have to check for it. > Those programs that do well against mirror go probably all do check for it. I think a strong MCTS could find the lines that make mirror Go useless. Maybe MF plays lines that brake mirror or related capture races because this lines have more probability of winning. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] opening book structure
2009/6/17 Willemien : > I was puzzeling what is the best way to organise an opening book? It depends of how you program will play. > i am writing a program to be very strong on 7x7 go program (as > prelimary for writing a very strong 9x9 program ) and am wondering > what is the best structure for an opening book. > > Where i am at the moment is: > > There are about 4 fundamentally different ways to structure it > > 1 a position -> move collection (if the position is such make that move) > 2 a position value collection (this position is good, that position is > bad for the colur who is on the move) > 3 a professional game collection (let the program just play like the pro's) I think a bit difficult to find 7x7 pro games. > 4 a game tree (game with lots of variations) > > all have there advantages and disadvantages. What I did in a chess engine was a hash table with positions with the evaluation number. I think if your engine makes Monte Carlo you can store the positions with the probability of winning (and maybe also the number of games with that position). I think that this is number 2 in your list. With a hash you can reenter the book if the game comes from an unkown position. You can make the book with self evaluation (or self playing) or from professional games. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Time weighting in opening
2009/5/24 Don Dailey : > > To be honest, I don't like the Bronstein clock. I disagree. I think Bronstein is the best time control system. Players have fixed time per move, plus a pool time that can be used at the moves you want. > I believe the most logical time control for games in general is what is > known as the Fischer clock. With Fischer your time control is some fixed > time plus some increment which is added to your clock after every move. I don't like Fischer time control because it adds time to the total time remaining. This way players can play stupid sente moves only to get nearly as time as you want. For example, in chess a player can make 50 checks (without repetition) and get 10 extra minutes, then continue the "true" game. This also happens in Go, where sometimes a player has nearly infinite kou threads. Andrés Domínguez ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 7x7 komi
2009/5/22 Robert Jasiek : > Don Dailey wrote: >> Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about? > > IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6. AFAIK the claimed solution is tengen the first move. Maybe you are remebering some interesting lines that starts with (3,2) and (2,2): > Subject: computer-go: 5x5 Go is solved > Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 15:27:04 -0100 > From: Erik van der Werf > To: COMPUTER GO MAILING LIST > > Yesterday my program solved 5x5 Go starting with the first move in the > centre. As was expected it is a win for the first player with 25 points > (the whole board belongs to black). Andrés Domínguez ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] COGS bug in Ko detection?
2009/4/14 Richard Brown : > Situational superko can be defined in terms of not permitting a > cycle in the game-tree, thus always preserving its acyclic nature. > [Positional superko, IMHO, has no such elegant rationale.] Agree, situational superko seems to me much more elegant. For example, pass allways makes positional superko (of course pass is an exception). Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Bobby Fischer
2008/9/11 Ian Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > My grandpa, Gordon Preston, used to play go and chess with Alan Turing every > day while they were at Bletchley Park. They had 8 hours of sleep and 8 hours > of work each day, leaving 8 hours with little else to do apart from chess > and go. :-) ¿Gordon Bamford Preston? Very interesting. With little search: "With Turing I spent uncountable hours playing Go, as also with David Rees." http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Biographies/Preston.html ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] August KGS bot tournament
2008/7/29 Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I wonder if > anyone here has any knowledge of the schedule of the Computer Olympiad, or > of the date of the Gifu challenge? Hideki Kato said three weeks ago: 2008/7/2 Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I strongly believe Gifu Challenge will not come back any more. > > #Please attend The 2nd UEC Cup, planned on December 13-14, 2008, > instead. > > -Hideki ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] My experience with Linux
2008/4/9, David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Since I sell software, building Linux apps is out of the question, since > Linux users will insist that I give them my work for free. MS Windows users also insist that you give your work for free, look at emule. Maybe you are wrong and loosing sales. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] On average how many board updates/sec can top Go programs do these days?
2008/1/15, Rémi Coulom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > > Multi-stone suicide is allowed, single stone not. > > Strange. The reverse would make more sense to me. Multi-stone suicide is sometimes the best move (if the rules allow it). This is because multi-stone suicide is sometimes a good ko thread (to kill a group). Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Language
2007/11/14, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Good, I wouldn't want it without XML libraries. > > Is there any versions that use XML for writing code?I want to be > able to use xml tags instead of parenthesis: > > > > Then it will much more readable - which is one of the strengths of xml. I don't like XML tags without attributes: while XML ; Much more readable, and easy to parse. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Language
2007/11/13, Hellwig Geisse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 20:17 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote: > > C > > garbage collection: free(). > > Well, that's not garbage collection. Ok, Java don't have garbage collection: don't close open files, sockets etc. only frees memory (maybe never) but nobody knows when or why. The only thing sure is that don't free memory with refereces. That is easy to do with C, don't use free(). > > very fast. > > And it's not fast either. Free() has a reputation of being > slow, Then use gc(). Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
2007/10/30, Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: > >> Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other - > >> which could easily happen. The game might start like this: > >> > >> pass > >> pass > >> pass > >> etc. > > > > And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped' > > program will start to move and the other will respond. > > If two 'self-handicapped' programs play each other the game will > look like (eg. 2H): >pass >pass >pass >pass >d4 ... > > And it will be an even game; exactly what it should be, right? Right. I like this way very much. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Former Deep Blue Research working on Go
2007/10/10, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > Andrés, > > You are right about null move of course. The assumption that other > moves are >= to the value of a pass is much stronger in GO than in > Chess, yet ironically it's not as effective in Go. That was what i was trying to say. Pass is one of the worst moves (except final) is good for null-move on Go. Of course you have reduced depth, probably bad with alpha-beta with a bad evaluation function, but looks interesting with UCT reducing the number of simulations and increasing the % value. I don't use UCT, so I haven't tried it. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Former Deep Blue Research working on Go
2007/10/9, Eric Boesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 10/8/07, Tapani Raiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > May sound unpolite. But Deep Blue reached a very > > > important step in IA. They will be known for ever. > > > But, from a research point of view, they didn't much > > > really. It was mainly a technological/technical > > > achivement. > > > > > Maybe they will reimplement Mogo, try a null-move tweak, use a > > supercomputer, and claim to have the strongest computer Go player ever. :-) > > Naive null move is unhelpful because throughout much of a go game, > almost every move is better than passing, I think this is not the point of null move. Null move is "if pass is good enough to an alpha cut, then will be a _better_ move". It is not important if pass is the worse move, is important that there is a better (>=) move than pass (not zugzwang). Then you bet searching not so deep. But null nove is not a trick in Go, because pass is always a legal move. There isn't zugzwang in Go. Andrés Sorry my bad english ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Fast data structures explained! (was Re: [computer-go] Go datastructures)
2007/7/20, Ian Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Looking at only the four neighbors to detect eye-like points seems like it could leave many false eyes and allow captures of dangling chains. Is there any mechanism to avoid this problem in the play of the bot? > > > It does also look at the diagonals; see Board.isEyelike(). I'll note this in the next version of the document. I lost a game in the most recent tournament from a buggy alternative to isEyelike. I believe that it may be a bug that affects many, but I'm not really sure... That makes me especially interested in seeing how others do it and the trades they accepted for it. My program disallows playing in eyes (string of empty surrounded by self) unless a neighboring stone is in atari. That catches your special-case, but is not good for saving tails (strings connected by false eyes, often found along the edge of the board). Do you mean oiotoshi? Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Chen Zhixing
Someone knows something about Chen Zhixing? Handtalk is my favorite Go software, very good style. The web page is down for the las two years, and Handtalk don't play tournaments since 2005. Andrés Domínguez ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] MonteGnu
2007/6/27, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: What is MonteGnu?Who wrote it? Is it a version of GnuGo? Just curious. http://trac.gnugo.org/gnugo/attachment/ticket/150/MonteGNU.diff Gnugo versión with montecarlo and uct code. Web says "added by gunnar". Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player
2006/12/25, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On Sun, 2006-12-24 at 13:54 -0800, David Fotland wrote: > There is no fixed relationship between ELO and handicap stones. Stronger > players have less variation in their play, so a handicap stone is worth more > ELO points for a stronger player than a weaker player. What you say is consistent with what I've heard from other sources. My understanding is that in ELO terms the ranks are compressed at the higher levels and spread out at lower levels. So there is less difference between 4 dan and 5 dan than 15 kyu and 16 kyu for instance. I think it's exactly the opposite. The difference between 4 dan and 5 dan is one stone, but more ELO than between 15 and 16k (also one stone). Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Metrics for good shape
2006/12/11, David Fotland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I don't think it's a good idea to evaluate based on shape alone. Good shape is just shorthand for other aspects of a the position that can be evaluated. For example there are many times where it is good to make an empty triangle, so just saying empty triangles are bad is not a good evaluation. Hai. One example is "nakade" shapes. Bad shapes are usually good for nakade. The reason empty triangles are bad is that two stones share a single liberty. That means that the group involved probably has one less liberty than it could have with a different move sequence. Since groups with more liberties are stronger, the empty triangle is often bad. But it's better to evaluate group strength directly, by counting and comparing liberty counts. Empty triangle is also a "slow" move, if can connect, one point jump is usually better because is faster. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] language choices
2006/12/5, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: I speak from experience. I know exactly how these things work. The match would begin, the human would probably be outplaying the computer and then make some error. The computer would win and everyone would cry it shouldn't have happened.The computer just got lucky this time. Thats not the case of computer go. The computer is playing well but then makes a stupid error. The human gets an easy win. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] How to improve my minimax speed?
2006/11/19, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: On 17-nov-06, at 07:15, Eduardo Sabbatella wrote: > Shouldn't base the entire game play on the last move. > > But looking at the last move could be an excellent > search optimisation. Indeed, I think any serious Go > program "should" look closer at the last move. ;-) > I think most of you approach the idea of proximity to the last move from the wrong angle. The concept to consider is stability of a position, not proximity in a spatial sense. Proximity is only a side- effect of an unstable situation in that a local answer is needed to make the position stable again. Statistically this is often an answer near the last move, but often it's also near the last move in the sense for example that the move defends a group next to the last move that was threatened by it. I think you are right, but proximity is easy and fast to implement while stability is very difficult. If a program knows about stability, it understands Go (life and death, shape, tesuji etc.). I think proximity is a good and fast heuristic to get candidate moves. Andrés Domínguez ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 19x19 game strategy.
2006/10/12, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: Andrés Domínguez wrote: >Also, as white with komi, is very easy to defeat a pure mirror go program .. >Tengen has not points if you don't use it. It is even easier if you capture tengen as in this example where white (O) moves at (a) and captures. The [X] at the center is the initial black at tengen. . . . . . . . . . . . . O O O . . . . . O X X X(a). . . . O X[X]O X . . . . . O O O X . . . . . B X X . . . . . . . . . . . . Jacques. But then white has done inefficient moves, so black stops mirroring (with steve rules). But it is easy don't do inefficient moves and win because komi (making tengen inefficient). Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 19x19 game strategy.
2006/10/11, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: i'm wondering about perfect 19x19 game strategy (about which i assume not much is known). here's what i'm thinking. as white, mirror black until black plays inefficiently, then play to take advantage of that inefficiency. (so if the first move by black is inefficent, there will be no mirror). as black, being mirrored, play tengen as soon as it is the best move on the board. (i have a sense that tengen as first move won't pop out as best opening move for ideal play, but who knows?) If you want to play mirror go, I think you should play tengen first. Tengen is not a bad move. Also, as white with komi, is very easy to defeat a pure mirror go program (don't playing inefficient moves). Tengen has not points if you don't use it. Last, you shouldn't stop mirroring when rival makes inefficient move. You should stop when is inefficient move for you. Otherwise, tengen will be a 0 points move. Andrés ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
