Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)
I am sorry, but I think this discussion is a bit pointless. While I write these 3 lines and you read them, AlphGo got 20 ELO points stronger. :-) Thomas On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Lucas, Simon M wrote: Still an interesting question is how one could make more powerful inferences by observing the skill of the players in each action they take rather than just the final outcome of each game. If you saw me play a single game of tennis against Federer you’d have no doubt as to which way the next 100 games would go. From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Álvaro Begué Sent: 22 March 2016 17:21 To: computer-go Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results) A very simple-minded analysis is that, if the null hypothesis is that AlphaGo and Lee Sedol are equally strong, AlphaGo would do as well as we observed or better 15.625% of the time. That's a p-value that even social scientists don't get excited about. :) Álvaro. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Jason House wrote: Statistical significance requires a null hypothesis... I think it's probably easiest to ask the question of if I assume an ELO difference of x, how likely it's a 4-1 result? Turns out that 220 to 270 ELO has a 41% chance of that result. >= 10% is -50 to 670 ELO >= 1% is -250 to 1190 ELO My numbers may be slightly off from eyeballing things in a simple excel sheet. The idea and ranges should be clear though On Mar 22, 2016 12:00 PM, "Lucas, Simon M" wrote: Hi all, I was discussing the results with a colleague outside of the Game AI area the other day when he raised the question (which applies to nearly all sporting events, given the small sample size involved) of statistical significance - suggesting that on another week the result might have been 4-1 to Lee Sedol. I pointed out that in games of skill there's much more to judge than just the final outcome of each game, but wondered if anyone had any better (or worse :) arguments - or had even engaged in the same type of conversation. With AlphaGo winning 4 games to 1, from a simplistic stats point of view (with the prior assumption of a fair coin toss) you'd not be able to claim much statistical significance, yet most (me included) believe that AlphaGo is a genuinely better Go player than Lee Sedol. From a stats viewpoint you can use this approach: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/itprnn/book.pdf (see section 3.2 on page 51) but given even priors it won't tell you much. Anyone know any good references for refuting this type of argument - the fact is of course that a game of Go is nothing like a coin toss. Games of skill tend to base their outcomes on the result of many (in the case of Go many hundreds of) individual actions. Best wishes, Simon ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo
On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Lukas van de Wiel wrote: And the hardware available for this tournament was tremendous. It remains to be seen whether the hardware and the people maintaining it would be available for a longer period. The costs of this are not to be underestimated. Who would pay it? The AlphaGo team would get feedback from testing by players with very different ideas/strengths who they would otherwise never get in contact with. For example, Michael Redmond mentioned repeatedly in the last 3 reviews that he would love to play AlphaGo to study Go, to find new openings,... Lukas On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 12:20 PM, Clark B. Wierda wrote: On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Thomas Wolf wrote: Having AlphaGo playing exclusively on KGS would be such a boost to KGS! For sure. The other Go servers might have their own opinion on that. Clark ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo
Having AlphaGo playing exclusively on KGS would be such a boost to KGS! On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Brian Sheppard wrote: Play on KGS. Pros can be anonymous, and test themselves and AlphaGo at the same time. :-) From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Jim O'Flaherty Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 4:56 PM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo I think you're correct, Thomas. The challenge is going to be getting ANY professional to be the one who "takes handicap stones" for the first time in years. The possible "shame" of doing so is what will make it messy. Once someone does take that step, though, I think it is only a matter of time before the rating of humans will be made a subordinate rating relative to the "objective" rating of the AIs, AlphaGo just being the first. And that has its own psychological challenges as the Go world has many decades of handling ELOs and rankings for humans. So, I don't think change in this area is going to be welcomed anytime soon. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 3:03 PM, Thomas Wolf wrote: Chris, Prompted from a discussion on the computer go email list (and my last email today) : We currently have no measure at all to judge how safe a winor loss is at any stage of the game. The measure applied currently of counting territory does only apply if both players try to maximize territory but not if at least one player maximizes the chance of winning. (I know, it was mentioned already). But really, comments like "Player ... is catching up" are pretty meaningless and are only valid if one explicitly mentions points or territorry, and adds that this has nothing to do with winning probabilities. Even the winning percentages provided by the computer programs themselves are no real indicator for winninig chances. They are tools to find the best move and are a statistical measure over several playout sequences based on selfplay not based on play against that opponent. Equally, winning percentages worked out by other computer programs are also not adequate (although they are at least unbiased) because they do also not use the real opponents to play out the sequences. The only valid strength indicator would be to gradually increase handicap stones or komi for the previous loser in a series of games. Regards, Thomas On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Sorin Gherman wrote: It is fascinating indeed to try to find how much stronger is AlphaGo compared to top humans. Given the fact that it is hard to find the reason why Lee Sedol lost, and that AlphaGo seems to get mysteriously ahead without a clear reason, tells me that the difference is definitely more than one stone handicap, maybe 2+ stones, as crazy as it may sound given Lee Sedol's level. I am pretty sure he will not accept to play with handicap against AlphaGo though. Maybe "younger wolves" like Ke Jie will though and we will find out. On Mar 12, 2016 11:03 AM, "Thomas Wolf" wrote: A suggestion for possible future games to be arranged between AlphaGo and strong players: Whoever lost shall be given 1 stone or the equivalent of 1/2 stone handcap in the next game. Games should continue until each side has won at least once. This way AlphaGo will be forced to demonstrate its full strength over a whole game which we are all too curious to see. Thomas On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Aja Huang wrote: Thanks all. AlphaGo has won the match against Lee Sedol. But there are still 2 games to play. Aja On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jim O'Flaherty wrote: It was exhilerating to witness history being made! Awesome! On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:17 AM, David Fotland wrote: Tremendous games by AlphaGo. Congratulations! From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Lukas van de Wiel Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:14 AM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo
Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo
Chris, Prompted from a discussion on the computer go email list (and my last email today) : We currently have no measure at all to judge how safe a winor loss is at any stage of the game. The measure applied currently of counting territory does only apply if both players try to maximize territory but not if at least one player maximizes the chance of winning. (I know, it was mentioned already). But really, comments like "Player ... is catching up" are pretty meaningless and are only valid if one explicitly mentions points or territorry, and adds that this has nothing to do with winning probabilities. Even the winning percentages provided by the computer programs themselves are no real indicator for winninig chances. They are tools to find the best move and are a statistical measure over several playout sequences based on selfplay not based on play against that opponent. Equally, winning percentages worked out by other computer programs are also not adequate (although they are at least unbiased) because they do also not use the real opponents to play out the sequences. The only valid strength indicator would be to gradually increase handicap stones or komi for the previous loser in a series of games. Regards, Thomas On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Sorin Gherman wrote: It is fascinating indeed to try to find how much stronger is AlphaGo compared to top humans. Given the fact that it is hard to find the reason why Lee Sedol lost, and that AlphaGo seems to get mysteriously ahead without a clear reason, tells me that the difference is definitely more than one stone handicap, maybe 2+ stones, as crazy as it may sound given Lee Sedol's level. I am pretty sure he will not accept to play with handicap against AlphaGo though. Maybe "younger wolves" like Ke Jie will though and we will find out. On Mar 12, 2016 11:03 AM, "Thomas Wolf" wrote: A suggestion for possible future games to be arranged between AlphaGo and strong players: Whoever lost shall be given 1 stone or the equivalent of 1/2 stone handcap in the next game. Games should continue until each side has won at least once. This way AlphaGo will be forced to demonstrate its full strength over a whole game which we are all too curious to see. Thomas On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Aja Huang wrote: Thanks all. AlphaGo has won the match against Lee Sedol. But there are still 2 games to play. Aja On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jim O'Flaherty wrote: It was exhilerating to witness history being made! Awesome! On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:17 AM, David Fotland wrote: Tremendous games by AlphaGo. Congratulations! From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Lukas van de Wiel Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:14 AM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo Whoa, what a fight! Well fought, and well won! Lukas ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo
Hi Ingo, I have the manuscript of 2 books with each 100 computer generated problems which 1st class insei Yutae Seo (Korea) picked out of 20,000 computer generated problems, working for 5 months on this selection. Many have a tricky ko status. I am happy to provide them. Simpler even and more revealing would be to write down semeai problems using, for example, the work of Teigo Nakamura. These problems can be evaluated in no time once one understood the math but which take arbitrarily long to solve if a brute force search would be applied. Simple pattern matching should not help there. Finally, there are seki problems which I showed several professional players, including famous 9p who could not tell whether the game was over or not. Lot's of fun tests one could do. Cheers, Thomas. On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Hi Thomas, Von: "Thomas Wolf" A suggestion for possible future games to be arranged between AlphaGo and strong players: Whoever lost shall be given 1 stone or the equivalent of 1/2 stone handcap in the next game. Games should continue until each side has won at least once. This way AlphaGo will be forced to demonstrate its full strength over a whole game which we are all too curious to see. That is one interesting proposal. I have another one: You are the master of computer tsume go. Give DeepMind a set of your tsume go compositions (from easy to really difficult) and let them test which of the problems AlphaGo can solve. Cheers, Ingo. ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo
A suggestion for possible future games to be arranged between AlphaGo and strong players: Whoever lost shall be given 1 stone or the equivalent of 1/2 stone handcap in the next game. Games should continue until each side has won at least once. This way AlphaGo will be forced to demonstrate its full strength over a whole game which we are all too curious to see. Thomas On Sat, 12 Mar 2016, Aja Huang wrote: Thanks all. AlphaGo has won the match against Lee Sedol. But there are still 2 games to play. Aja On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:49 PM, Jim O'Flaherty wrote: It was exhilerating to witness history being made! Awesome! On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 2:17 AM, David Fotland wrote: Tremendous games by AlphaGo. Congratulations! From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Lukas van de Wiel Sent: Saturday, March 12, 2016 12:14 AM To: computer-go@computer-go.org Subject: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo Whoa, what a fight! Well fought, and well won! Lukas ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Finding Alphago's Weaknesses
With at most 2x361 or so different end scores but 10^{XXX} possible different
games, there are at least in the opening many moves with the same optimal
outcome. The difference between these moves is not the guaranteed score (they
are all optimal) but the difficulty to play optimal after that move. And the
human and computer strengths are rather different.
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, uurtamo . wrote:
If that's the case, then they should be able to give opinions on best first
moves, best first two move combos, and best first three move combos. That'd
be interesting to see. (Top 10 or so of each).
s.
On Mar 10, 2016 12:37 PM, "Sorin Gherman" wrote:
From reading their article, AlphaGo makes no difference at all between
start, middle and endgame.
Just like any other position, the empty (or almost empty, or almost full)
board is just another game position in which it chooses (one of)
the most promising moves in order to maximize her chance of winning.
On Mar 10, 2016 12:31 PM, "uurtamo ." wrote:
Quick question - how, mechanically, is the opening being handled by
alpha go and other recent very strong programs? Giant
hand-entered or game-learned joseki books?
Thanks,
steve
On Mar 10, 2016 12:23 PM, "Thomas Wolf" wrote:
My 2 cent:
Recent strong computer programs never loose by a few points.
They are either
crashed before the end game starts (because when being
clearly behind they play more
desperate and weaker moves because they mainly get negative
feadback from
their search with mostly loosing branches and risky play
gives them the only
winning sequences in their search) or they win by resignation
or win
by a few points.
In other words, if a human player playing AlphaGo does not
have a large
advantage already in the middle game, then AlphaGo will win
whether it looks
like it or not (even to a 9p player like Michael Redmond was
surprised
last night about the sudden gain of a number of points by
AlphaGo in the
center in the end game: 4:42:10, 4:43:00, 4:43:28 in the
video https://gogameguru.com/alphago-2/)
In the middle and end game the reduced number of possible
moves and the
precise and fast counting ability of computer programs are
superior. In the
game commentary of the 1st game it was mentioned that Lee
Sedol considers the
opening not to be his strongest part of the game. But with
AlphaGo playing
top pro level even in the opening, a large advantage after
the middle game
might simply be impossible to reach for a human.
About finding weakness:
In the absense of games of AlphaGo to study it might be
interesting to get a general idea by checking out the games
where 7d Zen lost on KGS
recently.
Thomas
On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, wing wrote:
One question is whether Lee Sedol knows about these
weaknesses.
Another question is whether he will exploit those
weaknesses.
Lee has a very simple style of play that seems less
ko-oriented
than other players, and this may play into the hands of
Alpha.
Michael Wing
I was surprised the Lee Sedol didn't take the
game a bit further to
probe AlphaGo and see how it responded to
[...complex kos, complex ko
fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, ...,
multiple connection
problems, complex life and death problems] as
ammunition for his next
game. I think he was so astonished at being put
into a losing
position, he wasn't mentally prepared to put
himself in a student's
role again, especially to an AI...which had
clearly played much weaker
games just 6 months ago. I'm hopeful Lee Sedol's
team has been some
meta-strategy sessions where, if he finds
himself in a losing position
in game two, he turns it into exploring a set of
experiments to tease
out some of the weaknesses to be better
exploited in the remaining
games.
On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Robert Jasiek
wrote:
> On 10.03.2016 00:45, Hideki Kato wrote:
Re: [Computer-go] Finding Alphago's Weaknesses
But at the start of the game the statistical learning of infinitessimal advantages of one opening move compared to another opening move is less efficient than the learning done in the middle and end game. On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, Sorin Gherman wrote: From reading their article, AlphaGo makes no difference at all between start, middle and endgame. Just like any other position, the empty (or almost empty, or almost full) board is just another game position in which it chooses (one of) the most promising moves in order to maximize her chance of winning. On Mar 10, 2016 12:31 PM, "uurtamo ." wrote: Quick question - how, mechanically, is the opening being handled by alpha go and other recent very strong programs? Giant hand-entered or game-learned joseki books? Thanks, steve On Mar 10, 2016 12:23 PM, "Thomas Wolf" wrote: My 2 cent: Recent strong computer programs never loose by a few points. They are either crashed before the end game starts (because when being clearly behind they play more desperate and weaker moves because they mainly get negative feadback from their search with mostly loosing branches and risky play gives them the only winning sequences in their search) or they win by resignation or win by a few points. In other words, if a human player playing AlphaGo does not have a large advantage already in the middle game, then AlphaGo will win whether it looks like it or not (even to a 9p player like Michael Redmond was surprised last night about the sudden gain of a number of points by AlphaGo in the center in the end game: 4:42:10, 4:43:00, 4:43:28 in the video https://gogameguru.com/alphago-2/) In the middle and end game the reduced number of possible moves and the precise and fast counting ability of computer programs are superior. In the game commentary of the 1st game it was mentioned that Lee Sedol considers the opening not to be his strongest part of the game. But with AlphaGo playing top pro level even in the opening, a large advantage after the middle game might simply be impossible to reach for a human. About finding weakness: In the absense of games of AlphaGo to study it might be interesting to get a general idea by checking out the games where 7d Zen lost on KGS recently. Thomas On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, wing wrote: One question is whether Lee Sedol knows about these weaknesses. Another question is whether he will exploit those weaknesses. Lee has a very simple style of play that seems less ko-oriented than other players, and this may play into the hands of Alpha. Michael Wing I was surprised the Lee Sedol didn't take the game a bit further to probe AlphaGo and see how it responded to [...complex kos, complex ko fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, ..., multiple connection problems, complex life and death problems] as ammunition for his next game. I think he was so astonished at being put into a losing position, he wasn't mentally prepared to put himself in a student's role again, especially to an AI...which had clearly played much weaker games just 6 months ago. I'm hopeful Lee Sedol's team has been some meta-strategy sessions where, if he finds himself in a losing position in game two, he turns it into exploring a set of experiments to tease out some of the weaknesses to be better exploited in the remaining games. On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote: > On 10.03.2016 00:45, Hideki Kato wrote: > > > such as solving complex semeai's and double-ko's, aren't solved yet. > > To find out Alphago's weaknesses, there can be, in particular, > > - this match > - careful analysis of its games > - Alphago playing on artificial problem positions incl. complex kos, > complex ko fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, complex endgames, > multiple connection problems, complex life and death problems (such as > Igo Hatsu Yoron 120) etc., and then theoretical analysis of such play > -
Re: [Computer-go] Finding Alphago's Weaknesses
My 2 cent: Recent strong computer programs never loose by a few points. They are either crashed before the end game starts (because when being clearly behind they play more desperate and weaker moves because they mainly get negative feadback from their search with mostly loosing branches and risky play gives them the only winning sequences in their search) or they win by resignation or win by a few points. In other words, if a human player playing AlphaGo does not have a large advantage already in the middle game, then AlphaGo will win whether it looks like it or not (even to a 9p player like Michael Redmond was surprised last night about the sudden gain of a number of points by AlphaGo in the center in the end game: 4:42:10, 4:43:00, 4:43:28 in the video https://gogameguru.com/alphago-2/) In the middle and end game the reduced number of possible moves and the precise and fast counting ability of computer programs are superior. In the game commentary of the 1st game it was mentioned that Lee Sedol considers the opening not to be his strongest part of the game. But with AlphaGo playing top pro level even in the opening, a large advantage after the middle game might simply be impossible to reach for a human. About finding weakness: In the absense of games of AlphaGo to study it might be interesting to get a general idea by checking out the games where 7d Zen lost on KGS recently. Thomas On Thu, 10 Mar 2016, wing wrote: One question is whether Lee Sedol knows about these weaknesses. Another question is whether he will exploit those weaknesses. Lee has a very simple style of play that seems less ko-oriented than other players, and this may play into the hands of Alpha. Michael Wing I was surprised the Lee Sedol didn't take the game a bit further to probe AlphaGo and see how it responded to [...complex kos, complex ko fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, ..., multiple connection problems, complex life and death problems] as ammunition for his next game. I think he was so astonished at being put into a losing position, he wasn't mentally prepared to put himself in a student's role again, especially to an AI...which had clearly played much weaker games just 6 months ago. I'm hopeful Lee Sedol's team has been some meta-strategy sessions where, if he finds himself in a losing position in game two, he turns it into exploring a set of experiments to tease out some of the weaknesses to be better exploited in the remaining games. On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote: > On 10.03.2016 00:45, Hideki Kato wrote: > > > such as solving complex semeai's and double-ko's, aren't solved yet. > > To find out Alphago's weaknesses, there can be, in particular, > > - this match > - careful analysis of its games > - Alphago playing on artificial problem positions incl. complex kos, > complex ko fights, complex sekis, complex semeais, complex endgames, > multiple connection problems, complex life and death problems (such as > Igo Hatsu Yoron 120) etc., and then theoretical analysis of such play > - semantic verification of the program code and interface > - theoretical study of the used theory and the generated dynamic data > (structures) > > -- > robert jasiek > ___ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go [1] Links: -- [1] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Mastering the Game of Go with Deep Neural Networks and Tree Search
The next type of event could be a new 'Pair Go' Where a human and a program make up a pair, like Mark Zuckerberg and his facebook program against a Google VP and alphaGo. :-) Thomas On Mon, 1 Feb 2016, John Tromp wrote: For those of you who missed it, chess grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura, rated 2787, recently played a match against the world's top chess program Komodo, rated 3368. Each of the 4 games used a different kind of handicap: Pawn and Move Odds Pawn Odds Exchange Odds 4-Move Odds As you can see, handicaps in chess are no easy matter:-( When AlphaGo surpasses the top human professionals we may see such handicap challenges in the future. One may wonder if we'll ever see a computer giving 4 handicap to a professional... So how did Nakamura fare? See for yourself at https://www.chess.com/news/komodo-beats-nakamura-in-final-battle-1331 regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Game Over
Congratulations to Aja $ DeepMind to that great result! I am curious to see AlphaGo having to play a tough narrow endgame. In the first of the 5 games it could affort not to play totally optimal in the end and in the next 4 games Fan resigned. End games require again other, more math like skills, at least as human player. But maybe trained networks got good at that too. Thomas On Wed, 27 Jan 2016, Yuandong Tian wrote: Congratulations to Aja & DeepMind team! Amazing results :) Yuandong Tian Research Scientist, Facebook Artificial Intelligence Research (FAIR) Website: https://research.facebook.com/researchers/1517678171821436/yuandong-tian/ ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Number of Go positions computed at last
On Fri, 22 Jan 2016, Adrian Petrescu wrote: Very cool! I find it interesting that the number is only about 1.2% of 3^361 (though I realize 3^361 doesn't take symmetries into account). On the surface it's counterintuitive to me that nearly 99% of random stone configurations are not legal Go positions! The chance to violate the rule somewhere goes linearly with the area, so quadratically with the size of the board. On Fri, Jan 22, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Xavier Combelle wrote: well done ! 2016-01-22 5:18 GMT+01:00 John Tromp : It's been a long journey, and now it's finally complete! http://tromp.github.io/go/legal.html has all the juicy details... regards, -John ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Seki frequencies
On Mon, 18 Jan 2016, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Thanks to Robert, Thomas , and Nick for their contributions. My main motivation for thinking about Seki was/is the question if it is possible to recognize upcoming Seki situations in the histograms of an MCTS bot (for instance in Crazy Analysis). No. You need to be able to compute semeai efficiently. Seki is one possible outcome. Thomas An interesting game is between Aya (White) and Zen (Black) from round 15 of the 13x13 KGS bot tournament back in August 2015: http://www.gokgs.com/tournGames.jsp?id=984&round=15 Ingo. Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Januar 2016 um 19:06 Uhr Von: "Nick Wedd" An: computer-go@computer-go.org Betreff: Re: [Computer-go] Seki frequencies There are some exotic sekis on this page by Denis Feldman: http://denisfeldmann.fr/bestiary3.htm#p2 Nick On 17 January 2016 at 16:04, Thomas Wolf wrote:Hi, On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Hi Robert, thanks for the whole bunch of very intersting information. Seki has AT LEAST two groups Sekis can have various different shapes ... ... stable anti-sekis (stable because other anti-sekis exist elsewhere on the board). Can you give an example for anti-seki? Listing the possible configurations is a demanding open research field. Perhaps you and someone like Thomas Wolf (with his life-and-dath background) would be "the right" people for this question. I have an (unpublished) talk about sekis online: http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/sekitalk2.pdf[http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/sekitalk2.pdf] I am grateful for any references about literatur on seki and any examples of strange, exotic seki. Thomas ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org[Computer-go@computer-go.org] http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go -- Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com[mapr...@gmail.com]___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go[http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go] ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Seki frequencies
Hi, On Sun, 17 Jan 2016, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: Hi Robert, thanks for the whole bunch of very intersting information. Seki has AT LEAST two groups Sekis can have various different shapes ... ... stable anti-sekis (stable because other anti-sekis exist elsewhere on the board). Can you give an example for anti-seki? Listing the possible configurations is a demanding open research field. Perhaps you and someone like Thomas Wolf (with his life-and-dath background) would be "the right" people for this question. I have an (unpublished) talk about sekis online: http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/sekitalk2.pdf I am grateful for any references about literatur on seki and any examples of strange, exotic seki. Thomas___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] CFP: IJCAI Computer Games Workshop 2016
Hi Mark, Thank you for the information. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend even though it is relatively close to my place. Would it be possible to submit a paper and if accepted, a prerecorded talk? Regards, Thomas On Sat, 16 Jan 2016, Mark Winands wrote: Computer Games Workshop at IJCAI 2016, July 2016 --- Description --- A workshop on computer games is to be held at IJCAI 2016 in New York City, USA. It is planned to publish the proceedings with Springer in their Communications in Computer and Information Science series CCIS. The topics of the workshop concern all aspects of artificial intelligence for computer games. This includes: • Monte-Carlo methods • Heuristic search • Board games • Card games • Video games • Perfect and imperfect information games • Puzzles and single player games • Multi-player games • Serious games • Combinatorial game theory Important Dates -- Paper Submission Deadline: April 18th 2016 Acceptance Notification: May, 18th 2016 Final Papers: June, 8th 2016 Paper Submission Requirements -- Papers of 10 to 15 pages in LNCS format are preferred. The file format for submission is PDF. Submitted papers should be sent to tristan.cazen...@dauphine.fr Tentative Program Committee --- Christopher Archibald, Mississippi State University Yngvi Björnsson, Reykjavik University Bruno Bouzy, University Paris Descartes Tristan Cazenave, University Paris Dauphine (Co-chair) Stefan Edelkamp, University of Bremen (Co-chair) Ryan Hayward, University of Alberta Hiroyuki Iida, JAIST Nicolas Jouandeau, University Paris 8 Richard Lorentz, California State University Simon Lucas, University of Essex Jean Méhat, University Paris 8 Martin Müller, University of Alberta Thomas Runarsson, University of Iceland Abdallah Saffidine, University of New South Wales Nathan Sturtevant, University of Denver Olivier Teytaud, University Paris Sud Julian Togelius, New York University Mark Winands, Maastricht University (Co-chair) Shi-Jim Yen, National Dong Hwa University For more information: http://www.lamsade.dauphine.fr/~cazenave/cgw2016/cgw2016.html ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] 7x7 Go is weakly solved
On Sun, 29 Nov 2015, Aja Huang wrote: It's the work by Chinese pro Li Zhe 7p. http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_53a2e03d0102vyt5.html His conclusions on 7x7 Go board: 1. Optimal komi is 9.0. Who can enforce a win with this komi? Thomas 2. Optimal solution is not unique. But the first 3 moves are unique, and the first 7 moves generate 5 major optimal solutions. 3. There are many variations not affecting final score. Aja ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
Re: [Computer-go] Move Evaluation in Go Using Deep Convolutional Neural Networks
Last move info is a cheap hint for an instable area (unless it is a defense move). Thomas On Mon, 22 Dec 2014, Stefan Kaitschick wrote: Last move info is a strange beast, isn't it? I mean, except for ko captures, it doesn't really add information to the position. The correct prediction rate is such an obvious metric, but maybe prediction shouldn't be improved at any price. To a certain degree, last move info is a kind of self-delusion. A predictor that does well without it should be a lot more robust, even if the percentages are poorer. Stefan ___ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
RE: [computer-go] benchmark tests for static evaluation functions
Thanks for the comment. On Sun, 17 Jan 2010, David Fotland wrote: > I think you can only evaluate static evaluation in the context of a search > and a tournament between programs. You could start with a simple 1-ply > search and play against gnugo. Strength in life and death or predicting pro > moves doesn't correlate with the ability to win games. I know of the limited correlation, also it depends how you test the evaluation function. Having only limited time to work on and off on Go I do not have a game-playing program and tested the function on its own on professional games. Anyway, my question was whether people had published any related tests. Thomas > > David > > -Original Message- > From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org > [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Wolf > Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 9:03 AM > To: computer-go@computer-go.org > Subject: [computer-go] benchmark tests for static evaluation functions > > Last year I was working on a static evaluation function. > > Does anyone know references about published benchmark tests for static > evaluation functions, for example, in predicting moves in professional games > or best moves in life and death problems or predicting the status of > semeai problems? > > The published benchmarks need not be for a static evaluation function in the > traditional sense, they could be for an opening book or a MCTS program with > very short times available. > > Thanks, > > Thomas Wolf > ___ > 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] benchmark tests for static evaluation functions
Last year I was working on a static evaluation function. Does anyone know references about published benchmark tests for static evaluation functions, for example, in predicting moves in professional games or best moves in life and death problems or predicting the status of semeai problems? The published benchmarks need not be for a static evaluation function in the traditional sense, they could be for an opening book or a MCTS program with very short times available. Thanks, Thomas Wolf ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] end game analysis
A comment to my own question: I should have formulated it better, of course all MC programs are useful in some sense. The specifics of the request is that the player is not avalable to play live against a normal program and to learn from interactive play. Also, for the analysis to be more accurate and/or to investigate positions that are earlier in the game the computing times may be too long for interactive sessions. Ideal would be a program submitted in batch-mode which is given an sgf file from a game and the program would analyse all positions starting with the last move going backwards and making comments into a file. I realize that MC programs are stronger in close games, so for each analysis the number of prisoners might be adapted to get the best out of MC so that from the analysis one can see where the player lost one or two points. Thomas On Mon, 5 Oct 2009, Thomas Wolf wrote: > A quick question: > > What programs are useful for coaching a player by analysing the moves that > have been played in the endgame of some 19x19 game? > > What one would want to do is to input the position, say 30 moves from the end, > and get a ranking of the remaining moves. It would be nice if it would not be > too cumbersome to explore optimal follow up moves for any one of the moves, > i.e. to select a move and see what the winning statistics for the followup > moves is. It also should be possible to add more and more time to the analysis > to see how stable it is if more time is available. The program should be able > to use large computing resources (e.g. computing nodes with 32 CPU sharing > 128GB RAM would be available). > > Thanks, > Thomas > ___ > 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] end game analysis
A quick question: What programs are useful for coaching a player by analysing the moves that have been played in the endgame of some 19x19 game? What one would want to do is to input the position, say 30 moves from the end, and get a ranking of the remaining moves. It would be nice if it would not be too cumbersome to explore optimal follow up moves for any one of the moves, i.e. to select a move and see what the winning statistics for the followup moves is. It also should be possible to add more and more time to the analysis to see how stable it is if more time is available. The program should be able to use large computing resources (e.g. computing nodes with 32 CPU sharing 128GB RAM would be available). Thanks, Thomas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Fuego, the new champion!
On Wed, 13 May 2009, Isaac Deutsch wrote: > Wow, you're fast to congratulate. ;) > > Congratulations from me, too. From me 3. :) Thomas > > Isaac > -- > Neu: GMX FreeDSL Komplettanschluss mit DSL 6.000 Flatrate + Telefonanschluss > für nur 17,95 Euro/mtl.!* > http://dslspecial.gmx.de/freedsl-surfflat/?ac=OM.AD.PD003K11308T4569a > ___ > 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] 19x19 CGOS
Is the 19x19 server down? (I wanted to look at some games.) Thomas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Human Learning against MoGo
On Sun, 15 Feb 2009, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Hello, > ... > > When you follow this line of thought, the results of Tainan > show that the computer go community will also now (and likely in > future, too) have to fight with the problem/phaenomenon of quick > human learning (as has been the case already for several decades). I think this is not about quick human learning, it is about missing abilities of monte carlo programs and it takes just one game to make them obvious to a strong player. Thomas > > Ingo. > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Re: FW: computer-go] Monte carlo play?
On Sun, 16 Nov 2008, Claus Reinke wrote: > ... > better feeling for the game; personally, I don't like fast games(*), but > ... But there is this saying: "Play quick, lose quick, learn quick!" :) Thomas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] The Enemy's Key Point Is My Own
The typical situation is that two weak chains of opposite colours attached to each other have their few liberties (in the extreme case their single liberty) far apart. In simple Manhatten distance you can have these liberties easily as distant as you want, but if you think of empty points and chains as the elementary building blocks on the board then these liberties are still only two steps apart, separated just by 2 chains. Thomas On Thu, 30 Oct 2008, Richard Brown wrote: > Thanks to all who replied. > > I particularly liked David's and Gunnar's clear examples of why the > enemy's exact key point is not always exactly "my own". > > My foe's monkey jump is almost always better-prevented by my simple > descent; the right distance for an extension differs for me and my > foe; and so on. > > Gunnar's example contains an interesting symmetry: > > If it's Black (X) to play, the 1-1 point is the worst for Black, but > best for White. > > If it's White to play, the 2-2 point is worst for White, but best for Black. > > So from _both_ players' points-of-view, it serves as an excellent > counter-example to that old saw, "the enemy's key point is my own". > > On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 3:08 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > An extreme case is this life and death problem where playing the > > opponent's key point is the worst you can do locally. > > > > |O. > > |O. > > |.O.XOO > > |.XOX.O > > +-- > > -- > "The region in which the enemy's key point lies may also contain a key > point for me, nearby, which neutralizes the effect of the enemy's key > point, if I play my key point first." > > Nah, just doesn't have the same ring to it. > ___ > 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: komi argument = silly
On Fri, 7 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:33:16PM -0800, Dave Dyer wrote: > > > > To a first order approximation, would changing the komi change the > > rankings? Presumably, programs are playing the same number of games > > as black and white, so any "unfair" advantage or disadvantage black > > has would balance out. > > > > Komi only matters when there is only one game between a pair of opponents. > > This has nothing to do with black/white distinction. The idea is to > dynamically adjust the komi to make UCT to aim at higher and potentially > less sure win or lower and potentially more sure loss. Of course, > depending on whether it takes black or white you would adjust the komi > in the correct direction. I assume that when you change komi dynamically, all that was learned by MC so far under the different komi value is useless/wrong. Thomas > > -- > Petr "Pasky" Baudis > Whatever you can do, or dream you can, begin it. > Boldness has genius, power, and magic in it. -- J. W. von Goethe > ___ > 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] Bent four in the corner was:Scalability problem of play-out policies
On Wed, 23 Jan 2008, Harald Korneliussen wrote: > It turns out it's not the "bent four" shape, but I suspect it's > another such shape, where more playouts only confirm that "these moves > aren't worth including into the tree", so that UCT catches them very > late, if ever. Just a quick note that an algorithm how to evaluate "bent four" like positions with a minimax search is given in http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/bent4.pdf Thomas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] BOINC
On Tue, 30 Oct 2007, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > On 29/10/2007, Ian Preston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > G'day guys, > > I'm involved in the development of a very powerful and flexible grid > > software, which we plan to release in January. It is all java based. > > http://www-nereus.physics.ox.ac.uk/ (bear in mind you can't download > > it yet and the website is out of date) > > > > One of the things I'd like to do on it, once it is finished, is some > > kind of attack on Go. I've messed around trying to genetically > > generate algorithms to play go. However this has had to go on the back > > burner for the moment. The brief attempt I made had no way of storing > > data between games (I ran out of time) and the best algorithm it came > > up with was a purely random algorithm... :-) > > > > our group is also the one that is doing JPC - > > http://www-jpc.physics.ox.ac.uk/ > > > > I'd love to hear about anyone else distributed attacks on Go. > > It would be great to see a java port of GoTools by Thomas Wolf[1], > which is probably the kind of thing that most naturally lends itself > to distributed attacks. > > Does anyone know whether GoTools is under active development? The > webpages were last updated in 2001... There is a newer web page http://lie.math.brocku.ca/gotools/ with links to some recent publications for checking solutions of life and death problems and a link to http://lie.math.brocku.ca/gotools/applet.html which is a Java based online service. A standalone Java interface was developed on and off and will hopefully be ready in the next months. Thomas Wolf > > cheers > stuart > > [1] http://www.qmw.ac.uk/~ugah006/gotools/ > ___ > 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] pictures from Amsterdam
Here are some pictures I just shot at the Computer Olympiade and Computer Chess World Championship in Amsterdam. http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/htdocs/photos/35 userid: Amsterdam07 passwd: Kruislaan Thomas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Amsterdam paper
> On 5/19/07, Thomas Wolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Here is another Amsterdam paper on Go, although about life & death > > and not full game playing. > > I may be missing the obvious, but in Section 4.2, Diagram 13, > isn't Black 10 a basic ko violation? Yes, that eats up one of the necessary external ko-threats which White needs in order to win. The GoLaTeX style file I have does not mention the Ko-threats and answers played elsewhere underneath the diagrams. Thomas > > regards, > -John > ___ > 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] Amsterdam paper
Here is another Amsterdam paper on Go, although about life & death and not full game playing. http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/bugsintro.ps Thomas ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Why not forums?
On Mon, 5 Feb 2007, Christoph Birk wrote: > > > > > > > Why can't we use proper forums instead of this > > > > > > > outdated list? > > > > > > > Forums are easier to keep track of and search for > > > > > > > messages. As a > > > > > > > start we can use Yahoo groups. What do you think? > > I vote for keeping this (email) list. > > Christoph > I vote for keeping this (email) list too. Thomas > ___ > 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] position
About 2 months ago I sent a note to this email list about a research chair position and a postdoc position, both financed through the SHACRNET High Perfomance Consortium. The advert below does not have high performance computing as a requisite attached. But because it mentions discrete math, combinatorics and experience in computation as valuable strengths, this might be of interest to someone on the email list. Together with a few students we already have a small but active computer Go group at our math department. Thomas Wolf Prof at Department of Mathematics Brock University Ontario, Canada --- BROCK UNIVERSITY FACULTY OF MATHEMATICS AND SCIENCES MATHEMATICS The Department of Mathematics invites applications for a tenure-track appointment in an area of discrete and computational mathematics at the rank of Assistant Professor starting July 1, 2007. The Department offers an MSc in Mathematics and Statistics, has an innovative and unique B.Sc. Mathematics program called MICA (Mathematics Integrated with Computers and Applications) and plays a leading role in Mathematics Education. The successful candidate must have a PhD in Mathematics or related field by the time of the appointment, a proven record of or potential for research excellence, and an active research program that will attract external funding. Ideally, the candidate’s area of research would complement that of current faculty. The position requires undergraduate teaching including Combinatorics and Mathematics for Computer Science, graduate teaching, and supervision of graduate students. The successful candidate must demonstrate strong teaching abilities and a committed interest in the use of technology for the exploration, understanding and applications of mathematics. The appointment is subject to the availability of funds. The review of applications will start on February 28, 2007 and will continue until the position is filled. Applicants should send a curriculum vitae, an outline of their research plan and a description of teaching philosophies, and arrange for at least three letters of reference (one of which should address teaching) to be sent directly to: Chair of the Mathematics Search Committee Department of Mathematics Brock University St. Catharines, Ontario L2S 3A1, Canada E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In accordance with Canadian Immigration requirements, priority will be given to citizens and permanent residents of Canada. Brock University encourages applications from all qualified individuals including women, members of minorities, native people, and persons with disabilities. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
RE: [computer-go] Useless moves in the endgame
On Tue, 9 Jan 2007, Chaslot G (MICC) wrote: > Mango passes as soon as the opponent passes two times in a row. > Might this lead to bugs in some situations? You need 3 passes in case of ko. Thomas > > Anyway this is very nice for playing against humans and GnuGo. > > Guillaume > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Benjamin > Teuber > Sent: Tuesday, January 09, 2007 4:32 PM > To: computer-go > Subject: [computer-go] Useless moves in the endgame > > I just lost my first game against MoGo on KGS, 9x9, 0.5 komi, I was > white. > Impressing! > But as a human, you don't like the useless endgame-moves MC-programs > play against you when they know they win anyways. > In order to make these programs more attractive for humans, I would like > > them to play the move winning by the biggest amount of points once > several moves have the same high winning probability at the endgame. > What do you think about this? > ___ > 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] position
The preliminary advert below is not precisely for a position in computer Go but maybe still of interest to someone on the list. Essential is experience in high performance computing and a research topic which is somehow in bioinformatics (hardly anyone on this list) or math, e.g. combinatorial game theory, discrete optimization or anything else related to Go which I am personally of course interested in. We might have a postdoc position in high performance computing which can be closer to Computer Go in 2-3 months. So if you are interested, please get in contact with me. Thomas Wolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] tel (1) 905 688 5550 ext 3803 --- Tenure-track assistant professor at Brock University We are writing to informally identify suitable candidates for a tenure-track position at the assistant professor level, whose research requires high performance computation, either in the area of bioinformatics or applied mathematics. The successful candidate should have a PhD degree and be able to teach undergraduate- and graduate-level courses in either the mathematics or biological sciences department. Authorization for the appointment and its terms are likely not forthcoming until after January 1st. If approved, the position will be advertised and will commence on July 1st, 2007. We expect the position to be partially funded by the SHARCNet consortium (http://www.sharcnet.com), entailing involvement with their activities, both on and off our campus. For example, the appointee will serve at least one term as SHARNet's site-leader on our campus, being an advocate for high performance computing, proactive in its use by existing Brock researchers, and facilitating collaboration among them. The individual's potential for recruiting students, both undergraduate and graduate students, as well as having significant potential for receiving research grants, are important factors in making the appointment. Interested parties should submit their CV's with a statement of their current research interests to the following address: Prof. Stuart M. Rothstein, Department of Chemistry, Brock University, St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?
On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Heikki Levanto wrote: > On Tue, Oct 24, 2006 at 07:26:34PM +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: > > BTW: In my over 50K master games collection I have only seen 2 games > > with a triple KO. (The whole collection was played out by GnuGo 3.6 > > level 10 to verify/compute the final score.) And I have never seen > > other superkos than triple KO in real top games. In case of triple > > KO all SK definitions lead to the same, so we are probably discussing > > principles rather than facts. > > I believe this to be true for "normal" go, with a suitably large board. > The various ko rules seem to make a difference to pathologically small > board sizes, and other anomalies. Those may be an interesting field of > study, but seem not to be awfully relevant to the game of go, as we know > it. No. The probability of a ko arising is roughly proportional to the area, so it sort of grows quadratically with the side length of the board. I experienced this when generating life and death problems automatically that the percentage of problems with a status ko (given that these are unsettled positions where it matters who moves first) increases with the size of the problems. The same experience was made (and graphically displayed) when generating this data base of monolithic eyes up to size 11 that the positions in which the status is ko grew faster than the number of unsettled positions in general. Thomas > > Just my humble opinion, of course. I am sure to be corrected by more > knowing people on this list if I am wrong. Maybe even if I am not... > > -H > > > -- > Heikki Levanto "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk > > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] When is Pass the best move?
Section 6 in http://lie.math.brocku.ca/twolf/papers/mono.pdf is about chains with a single eye who's status is ko (the original position does not have a ko-forbidden field) and where passing is one of the best moves of both sides. There also is a position at the end of the paper where the first two! moves are passes. Thomas On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Phil G wrote: > Does anyone have an example where "pass" is the best move, and not part of > the two passes to end the game? I'm trying to determine if passes should ever > be considered in a search for the best move, and if so, how to exclude them > until it is really necessary. Thanks, Phil ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Connecting to cgos failed
Our area has power cuts once in a while. :( Thomas On Sun, 22 Oct 2006, Don Dailey wrote: > There is no bug, the server was apparently rebooted last night. > > It's up and running now. > > - Don > > > On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 12:14 +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Hello, > > > > I have failed connecting a bot to cgos. The error message is: > > > > server startup return code: 1 msg: couldn't open socket: connection > > refused > > Cannot connect to server. Will retry shortly > > > > I also tried with gnugo as the bot, so it does not come from MoGo. I tried > > from two different machines, so it does not seem to come from the computer. > > > > In my "cgosGtp.tcl" I have the server "cgos.boardspace.net" and port > > "6867". > > Perhaps something has changed since the last time I connected? > > > > Is the problem only for me, and can anyone help me? > > > > Thank you, > > 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/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
