Re: [Computer-go] Notes from the Asilomar Conference on Beneficial AI

[Richard J Lorentz]

Thanks for the interesting link. Indeed, some good reading there.

One quote that I've seen various versions of a number of times now: " 
More interesting for the rest of us, AlphaGo is playing moves and styles 
that all human masters had dismissed as stupid centuries ago."


Can any one point me to concrete examples of such moves, styles, and/or 
games? With some commentary?!


Thanks!

-Richard


On 02/09/2017 02:42 PM, Freeman Ng wrote:
My favorite blogger's account of this conference that the Deep Mind 
team also participated in.


http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/06/notes-from-the-asilomar-conference-on-beneficial-ai/ 



Note: he's neither a Go player nor a computer programmer, which limits 
his AlphaGo related reporting, but I thought this might be interesting 
to the list nonetheless.


Freeman



___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

[Computer-go] Tygem

[Richard J Lorentz]

Can anyone tell me a bit more about the go server Tygem? I am intrigued 
by the apparent level of players that participate. Who runs this server? 
Are serious games and/or tournaments played on it? What sort of time 
controls are typically used there? Apparently professionals play on it 
(as did Master, which is what prompts this message). Can anybody join 
and play? Is it mostly used by players from a certain country?


Any information is greatly appreciated.

-Richard



___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).

[Richard J. Lorentz]

How things changes. You would never hear a comment like Remark c) below 
concerning the "old" alpha-beta chess engines.



Olivier Teytaud wrote:


Dear all,

 For information, our Taiwanese partners(**) for a ANR grant have 
organized public demonstration games between


MoGoTW (based on MoGo 4.86.Soissons + the "TW" modifications developped
jointly with our Taiwanese colleagues)
 and
C.-H. Chou 9P, top pro player winner of the LG Cup 2007.

This was during a press conference at Taipei around a French-Taiwanese 
grant for joint research.


Details:
a) MoGoTW was running on 32 quad-cores(*) in Taiwan.
b) There were two blitz games (15 minutes per side), won by the pro.
c) There was one non-blitz game (45 minutes per side). MoGo was unlucky
  as it was black, but it nonetheless won the game. This game is 
enclosed.

 All games can be found on KGS (account nutngo)

Remarks:

a) Fuego won as white against a 9P a few months ago. Therefore computers
have won both as white and black against top players :-)  We now should
win on a complete game like 4 out of 7 games and the job would be
completly done for 9x9 Go :-)

b) MoGo already won a game as black, against Catalin Taranu, but I guess
   the pro, at that time, had played an original opening somehow for fun
   (I'm not sure of that, however).

c) My feeling is that blitz games are not favorable to computers... 
Statistics
are in accordance with this I guess. Humans are stronger for short 
time

settings.

d) If I understand well, MoGo won a final semeai in the upper right 
part. But,
   nearly everybody on this mailing (except you, Sylvain, maybe, if 
you still
   read this mailing-list :-) ?) reads go games better than me, so 
don't trust this

   comment :-)

e) The game was longer than most important games I've seen (59 moves).

All comments welcome.

Best regards
Olivier

(*) mogoTW was supposed to run on this 32x4 system, but other 
platforms were prepared in case of trouble on this cluster. I'll 
publish a correction if I see that the game was not played on this 
machine.


(**) contributors include all the mogo-people, plus Mei-Hui Wang, 
Chang-Shing Lee, Shi-Jim Yen, and people that I only know by their 
nicknames (Coldmilk, TomTom...) - sorry for the people I've forgotten, 
names in Chinese are difficult for me :-)



___
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] List of contestants for US Go Congress tournament

[Richard J. Lorentz]

Thanks for that. It's nice to know that I'm not the only one.


David Doshay wrote:
I think we all understand trying to get code done for an event. I gave 
up any hope of that with SlugGo a little while ago. Now I am only 
doing parameter tweaking (hunting in too many dimensions, all in the 
dark).


Cheers,
David



On 25, Jun 2008, at 12:02 PM, Sam Gross wrote:

It's not the same program as the one from 1995--maybe I should change 
the name to avoid confusion.  Argus is a program in development, and 
I'm actually still not 100% sure it will be done in time for the 
tournament.


Sam

On Mon, Jun 23, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David 
Doshay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes


I had not previously heard about Sam Gross and Argus. Is there any 
info about that program?


A program of that name came third out of six entrants in the European 
Computer Go Tournament in 1995.  That is all the information I have;  
I will be grateful for more.


Nick


It is great to hear that David Fotland will be bringing Many Faces.

Cheers,
David



On 22, Jun 2008, at 10:41 PM, Peter Drake wrote:

Here's the info I have so far. Please appraise me of any errors or 
omissions.



Program  Primary Author  Notes

SlugGo   David DoshayAs the author is involved in 
organizing the   tournament,
this program will not be eligible for 
prize money


OregoPeter Drake Same as above

FirstGo  Edward de Grijs Needs operator, will borrow 
hardware


ManyFacesDavid Fotland

ArgusSam Gross

HouseBot Jason House Needs operator, will borrow hardware


Any others? None of the very strong UCT programs are here, so who 
knows who will win the $400 first prize?


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/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

--
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/


___
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] Former Deep Blue Research working on Go

[Richard J. Lorentz]

Of no particular importance I suppose, but did any one else get the 
impression after looking at the picture (and the way he is holding the 
stone) that he is not a regular go player?



Chris Fant wrote:

I'm just now reading the article.

"Monte Carlo techniques have recently had success in Go played on a
restricted 9-by-9 board. My hunch, however, is that they won't play a
significant role in creating a machine that can top the best human
players in the 19-by-19 game."

The author loses credibility with this statement.


On 10/10/07, Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
  

At 02:33 PM 10/7/2007, you wrote:


Found this link and thought you all might find it interesting.

http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/oct07/5552
  

thread on slashdot: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/10/10/1758244


---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/


___
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: Fast data structures explained! (was Re: [computer-go] Go datastructures)

[Richard J. Lorentz]

Peter Drake wrote:

On Jul 20, 2007, at 8:04 AM, Jason House wrote:

I thought he was using the disjoint set!  I'll recheck.  Well written 
disjoint sets average out to nearly O(1) operations for everything.


Yes -- O(log* n) to be precise,  ...


At the risk of being accused of serious nit-picking here, I believe 
Tarjan proved that the bound is actually a bit better than that, namely 
the inverse of the Ackermann function.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] CPU for UTC

[Richard J. Lorentz]

Thanks! That one CPU comparison is very helpful. So, indeed, there is a 
lot more to worry about these days than simple clock speed. Has anybody 
else done similar comparisons?  :)


P.S. I'll almost surely pass on overclocking, but I had heard rumors 
that current CPUs were running well under speed to reduce heat. Still, 
over 5 GHz is pretty impressive!


-Richard

Sylvain Gelly wrote:

So, what should I be looking for in a
processor if I want to get the most out of my single threaded UCT
program?

The best way is to find a friend with exactly the processor you want
and try your program on it... The second best is see benchmarks, and
find which benchmark is relevant to your program. Then, buy the
processor with the highest value on this benchmark :-).



Perhaps the most interesting question for me is: How will a Core2 (duo?)
2.33 GHz compare with my existing P4 3.2 GHz? In any case I guess I will
have to retool the program to be multi-threaded to take advantage of the
dual core. Should I also be worrying about converting to 64-bit?


This one:
processor   : 1
vendor_id   : GenuineIntel
cpu family  : 6
model   : 15
model name  : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 CPU  6700  @ 2.66GHz
stepping: 6
cpu MHz : 2660.110
cache size  : 4096 KB

is the fastest processor for MoGo I have access to. Each processor
(there are 2), is 1.5 time the speed of my P4 3.4Ghz (already 1.2
faster than other P4 3.4Ghz).

BTW, someone managed to overclock this processor to 5.182 Ghz !!!
(http://www.hardware.fr/myocdb.com/processeur364.html).
And 3.750 Ghz seems pretty easy to get (without very special cooling
material, at a price of less than 30 euros).

Hope that helps for your choice :-).

Sylvain
___
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] Library of Effective GO routines v 0.106

[Richard J. Lorentz]

The hardware portion of this topic is very important, at least to me 
since I'm in the market for a new laptop. :)  The comment "today the 
frequency means nothing" is my main concern and I worry even more if I 
need to investigate all the other numbers associated with the CPU. I bet 
the laptop manufactures won't even be able to tell me things like the 
"stepping number", anyway!  So, what should I be looking for in a 
processor if I want to get the most out of my single threaded UCT 
program? Assuming I go with Intel, will I get more simulations out of a 
Core2 machine than a Core machine, say, with the same clock speed? 
Perhaps the most interesting question for me is: How will a Core2 (duo?) 
2.33 GHz compare with my existing P4 3.2 GHz? In any case I guess I will 
have to retool the program to be multi-threaded to take advantage of the 
dual core. Should I also be worrying about converting to 64-bit?


Thanks!!

-Richard

Sylvain Gelly wrote:

Hello,


I do not understand it. Maybe someone does?
I've made some tests on 2 core processors, and I have strange results.
Some of 2 core processors got results exactly 2x times worse than 
they should.

Why?
I have no idea.
But 2.8 Ghz 2 core works exactly like my 1.4 laptop.
Also version of g++ does matter.


Here, from my experience, the following can matter a lot:
- version of g++ (g++ 4.1 gave me +50% against g++ 4.0 on an opteron!)
- version of the libc: even compiled with a modern compiler, a program
running on a machine with an old version of the libc can be very
significantly slower (-30% observed!).
- exact version of the processor: today the frequency means nothing,
nor the name of the processor. You have to check the exact numbers.
And I also observed that even the small numbers as the "stepping
number", matters. MoGo runs faster on my P4 3.4 Ghz  than on a 3 years
newer P4 3.8 Ghz, which has also more cache. I ran test on other P4,
and the slower had a different stepping, that's all (all are dell
computers using same hardware).
- Measure of time: if you take the CPU time, on multiprocessor
machine, while using multithreading, sometimes the reported time is
not what you expect (generaly reported for all the threads), so when
you calculate the speed of playouts, you can have a 2x/4x factor.

Hope that can help,
Sylvain
___
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] MC approach (was: Monte Carlo (MC) vs Quasi-Monte Carlo (QMC))

[Richard J. Lorentz]

terry mcintyre wrote:
If I recall correctly, someone spoke of constraining the opening moves 
to the 3rd,4th,and 5th lines in the absence of nearby stones, or 
something to that effect. What was the impact of this experiment?


For what it's worth, I tried a number of experiments along these lines 
and none of them produced any improvement in play whatsoever. I'm still 
baffled by this. Sylvain says, both in his paper and in a message posted 
here, that it seems that one must try to constrain moves based on 
sequences of moves rather than individual moves in isolation. All rather 
mysterious to me.


-Richard
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Can a computer beat a human?

[Richard J. Lorentz]

Taking recent comments out of context:


- how about what is possible with a computer that
has infinite memory and infinite speed?   ... just try all possible programs ...

and


We also showed
theoretically how to obtain the answer without ever running the
algorithm ...


Perhaps we can all agree the answer lies somewhere in this range?  :)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] scaling up by boardsize

[Richard J. Lorentz]

We have recently had some conversations about scaling our program up to 
13 x 13 to see what would happen. If CGOS13 were available I would 
imagine we would have something running on it most of the time.


-Richard

David Doshay wrote:

Hello All,

It is my belief that the next big advance in computer Go will
come from an understanding of scaling relationships. With the
recent advances in MC programs, there is plenty of interesting
work to be done in how those programs will scale with more
time and/or memory.

My question to all of you is the level of your interest in scaling
by board size.

In order to help this effort, I am considering extending Don's
wonderfully helpful cgos by running servers at increasingly
larger board sizes. The obvious steps are the odd numbers
starting at 11 and increasing up towards 19, but I fear that
having too many cgosNxN servers will thin out participation
on each of the servers. The thing that makes the present 9x9
server so useful is the number of opponents that are available
at any time, and already I sometimes wish that I saw one or
two specific opponents available when their programmers do
not have them up and running.

Is there interest? Do enough of you have sufficient computer
resources to play on several size boards at the same time?
There is no sense in having multiple versions of cgosNxN
unless there is a steady supply of a variety of programs.

Cheers,
David



___
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/