Re: [computer-go] Anchor player

[Don Dailey]

It's not real important for this test,  but I think I will use
gnugo-3.7.11 as the anchor and set it to 1800.0 ELO - which I think is
fairly close to what it would do on CGOS.

I will use level 10.

- Don


Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> Le jeudi 17 janvier 2008, Don Dailey a écrit :
>   
>> Perfect! I will adjust the level so that it plays as strong as
>> possible on CGOS without taking a risk of getting into time trouble on
>> modest hardware. Then I can make Mogo the anchor player.
>>
>> 
>
> Even if i love Mogo, and i am very impressed, i think it is a bad
> idea to use it as an anchor, as it is closed source.
>
> It can be used as a "floating anchor" (= a player always present,
> with no changes in settings), but i really think using GNU Go or one
> other open source program for the anchor is the best for the community.
>
> my 2 cents.
> Alain
>
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor player

[Alain Baeckeroot]

Le jeudi 17 janvier 2008, Don Dailey a écrit :
> Perfect! I will adjust the level so that it plays as strong as
> possible on CGOS without taking a risk of getting into time trouble on
> modest hardware. Then I can make Mogo the anchor player.
> 

Even if i love Mogo, and i am very impressed, i think it is a bad
idea to use it as an anchor, as it is closed source.

It can be used as a "floating anchor" (= a player always present,
with no changes in settings), but i really think using GNU Go or one
other open source program for the anchor is the best for the community.

my 2 cents.
Alain

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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[House, Jason J.]

 

>> One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
>> case?
>
>I believe, no.
>
>> Also, in the case of NO handicap,  what komi is normally 
>given in 19x19
>> Chinese?   6.5,  7.5 ???
>
>It's 7.5


As best I understand it, a "one stone" game is actually normal play
without komi (0.5 given to white to break ties)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Sanghyeon Seo]

2006/12/26, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

There are many other ways to take advantage of your opponent in
chess that I consider sound if applied in a very measured and
careful way.   None of them call for making truly unsound moves,
especially when you consider that in a losing position, all moves
are unsound in some sense.Now you are in a situation of
"risk management",  you are looking for moves that give you the
best chances of winning (a lost game) and usually, it requires
a move that makes it the most difficult for your opponent.  This
is not quite the same as moves that make it easiest for you, which
is what you look for in WON positions.


There's one easy way I found to do this in Go. In handicap Go,
if you're behind, set up a ko. :)

Ko does complicate a game, and almost by definition, you will play it
better and gain something.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Łukasz Lew]

But not all of those are final (often dead stones remain on board).
But one eye seki is an answer for me.

Thanks,
Lukasz

On 12/27/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I extracted all the games from one month and uniq'd them,   it looks
like
all results are possible:

Forfeit   B+
Forfeit   W+
Illegal   B+
Illegal   W+
Resign   B+
Resign   W+
Time   B+
Time   W+
0.5   B+
0.5   W+
1.5   B+
1.5   W+
2.5   B+
2.5   W+
3.5   B+
3.5   W+
4.5   B+
4.5   W+
5.5   B+
5.5   W+
6.5   B+
6.5   W+
7.5   B+
7.5   W+
8.5   B+
8.5   W+
9.5   B+
9.5   W+
10.5   B+
10.5   W+
11.5   B+
11.5   W+
12.5   B+
12.5   W+
13.5   B+
13.5   W+
14.5   B+
14.5   W+
15.5   B+
15.5   W+
16.5   B+
16.5   W+
17.5   B+
17.5   W+
18.5   B+
18.5   W+
19.5   B+
19.5   W+
20.5   B+
20.5   W+
21.5   B+
21.5   W+
22.5   B+
22.5   W+
23.5   B+
23.5   W+
24.5   B+
24.5   W+
25.5   B+
25.5   W+
26.5   B+
26.5   W+
27.5   B+
27.5   W+
28.5   B+
28.5   W+
29.5   B+
29.5   W+
30.5   B+
30.5   W+
31.5   B+
31.5   W+
32.5   B+
32.5   W+
33.5   B+
33.5   W+
34.5   B+
34.5   W+
35.5   B+
35.5   W+
36.5   B+
36.5   W+
37.5   B+
37.5   W+
38.5   B+
38.5   W+
39.5   B+
39.5   W+
40.5   B+
40.5   W+
41.5   B+
41.5   W+
42.5   B+
42.5   W+
43.5   B+
44.5   B+
44.5   W+
45.5   B+
45.5   W+
46.5   B+
46.5   W+
47.5   B+
47.5   W+
48.5   B+
48.5   W+
49.5   B+
49.5   W+
50.5   B+
50.5   W+
51.5   B+
51.5   W+
52.5   B+
52.5   W+
53.5   B+
53.5   W+
54.5   B+
54.5   W+
55.5   B+
55.5   W+
56.5   W+
57.5   B+
57.5   W+
58.5   B+
58.5   W+
59.5   B+
59.5   W+
60.5   B+
60.5   W+
61.5   B+
61.5   W+
62.5   B+
62.5   W+
63.5   B+
63.5   W+
64.5   B+
64.5   W+
65.5   B+
66.5   B+
66.5   W+
67.5   B+
68.5   B+
68.5   W+
69.5   B+
69.5   W+
70.5   B+
70.5   W+
71.5   W+
72.5   W+
73.5   B+
74.5   W+
75.5   W+
76.5   W+
77.5   W+
78.5   W+
79.5   W+
80.5   W+
81.5   W+
82.5   W+
83.5   W+
84.5   W+
85.5   W+
88.5   W+



On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 14:56 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I agree :)
> > > What I wanted to ask is:
> > > Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
> > > positions that their area score differ by one point ?
> >
> > Ah, sorry :)
> >
> > I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
> > There must be a seki somewhere on the board though.
>
> Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
> Lukasz
>
> >
> > -- nando
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I extracted all the games from one month and uniq'd them,   it looks
like
all results are possible:

Forfeit   B+
Forfeit   W+
Illegal   B+
Illegal   W+
Resign   B+
Resign   W+
Time   B+
Time   W+
0.5   B+
0.5   W+
1.5   B+
1.5   W+
2.5   B+
2.5   W+
3.5   B+
3.5   W+
4.5   B+
4.5   W+
5.5   B+
5.5   W+
6.5   B+
6.5   W+
7.5   B+
7.5   W+
8.5   B+
8.5   W+
9.5   B+
9.5   W+
10.5   B+
10.5   W+
11.5   B+
11.5   W+
12.5   B+
12.5   W+
13.5   B+
13.5   W+
14.5   B+
14.5   W+
15.5   B+
15.5   W+
16.5   B+
16.5   W+
17.5   B+
17.5   W+
18.5   B+
18.5   W+
19.5   B+
19.5   W+
20.5   B+
20.5   W+
21.5   B+
21.5   W+
22.5   B+
22.5   W+
23.5   B+
23.5   W+
24.5   B+
24.5   W+
25.5   B+
25.5   W+
26.5   B+
26.5   W+
27.5   B+
27.5   W+
28.5   B+
28.5   W+
29.5   B+
29.5   W+
30.5   B+
30.5   W+
31.5   B+
31.5   W+
32.5   B+
32.5   W+
33.5   B+
33.5   W+
34.5   B+
34.5   W+
35.5   B+
35.5   W+
36.5   B+
36.5   W+
37.5   B+
37.5   W+
38.5   B+
38.5   W+
39.5   B+
39.5   W+
40.5   B+
40.5   W+
41.5   B+
41.5   W+
42.5   B+
42.5   W+
43.5   B+
44.5   B+
44.5   W+
45.5   B+
45.5   W+
46.5   B+
46.5   W+
47.5   B+
47.5   W+
48.5   B+
48.5   W+
49.5   B+
49.5   W+
50.5   B+
50.5   W+
51.5   B+
51.5   W+
52.5   B+
52.5   W+
53.5   B+
53.5   W+
54.5   B+
54.5   W+
55.5   B+
55.5   W+
56.5   W+
57.5   B+
57.5   W+
58.5   B+
58.5   W+
59.5   B+
59.5   W+
60.5   B+
60.5   W+
61.5   B+
61.5   W+
62.5   B+
62.5   W+
63.5   B+
63.5   W+
64.5   B+
64.5   W+
65.5   B+
66.5   B+
66.5   W+
67.5   B+
68.5   B+
68.5   W+
69.5   B+
69.5   W+
70.5   B+
70.5   W+
71.5   W+
72.5   W+
73.5   B+
74.5   W+
75.5   W+
76.5   W+
77.5   W+
78.5   W+
79.5   W+
80.5   W+
81.5   W+
82.5   W+
83.5   W+
84.5   W+
85.5   W+
88.5   W+



On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 14:56 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I agree :)
> > > What I wanted to ask is:
> > > Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
> > > positions that their area score differ by one point ?
> >
> > Ah, sorry :)
> >
> > I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
> > There must be a seki somewhere on the board though.
> 
> Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
> Lukasz
> 
> >
> > -- nando
> >
> > ___
> > 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] Anchor Player

[John Tromp]

On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.



Two one-eyed groups sharing one dame are another common form
of seki, and these give you the sought one point difference.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[nando]

On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)

Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.


I'm walking on increasingly thin ice (for me), but you're right,
"normal" sekis shouldn't change things. Though, there are also beasts
like this one:

http://senseis.xmp.net/?path=LifeAndDeath&page=Seki#toc7

... and I'm not sure how this would be counted under chinese rules.

Anyway, I don't think this would cause any trouble to a 19x19 CGOS
server. Or do you see a potential problem here ?

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Urban Hafner]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1


On Dec 27, 2006, at 14:56 , Łukasz Lew wrote:


I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
There must be a seki somewhere on the board though.


Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.


Doesn't CGOS consider all stones alive that are left on the board? So
that shouldn't matter as Lukasz said.

Urban
- --
http://bettong.net - Urban's Blog



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (Darwin)

iD8DBQFFkn8wggNuVCIrEyURAoDbAKCRie6yXdrHGz2g3WhtjxDo2yn1QQCfb5b0
uPeXAUBoVetplD/TmVh7ZEY=
=M4bx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Łukasz Lew]

On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree :)
> What I wanted to ask is:
> Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
> positions that their area score differ by one point ?

Ah, sorry :)

I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
There must be a seki somewhere on the board though.


Normal seki gives two neutral points, so it doesn't matter.
Lukasz



-- nando

___
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] Anchor Player

[nando]

On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I agree :)
What I wanted to ask is:
Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
positions that their area score differ by one point ?


Ah, sorry :)

I believe there is, yes (that's what I was hinting at with "almost").
There must be a seki somewhere on the board though.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Łukasz Lew]

On 12/27/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)
> >
> > It's 7.5
>
> Is there a difference?
> I.e. Have You seen a situation where the result is W+(even number)
> (on Chinese/CGOS rules) ?

In chinese rules (or AGA), there's (almost) no difference between 5.5
and 6.5 or between 7.5 and 8.5. Currently on CGOS, we do have games
scored W+0.5 with 7.5 komi. As you can see, a komi of 6.5 would give
B+0.5 instead.


I agree :)
What I wanted to ask is:
Does there exists two final (no profitable move left) 9x9 board
positions that their area score differ by one point ?

Łukasz



-- nando

___
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] Anchor Player

[nando]

On 12/27/06, Łukasz Lew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
(...)

>
> It's 7.5

Is there a difference?
I.e. Have You seen a situation where the result is W+(even number)
(on Chinese/CGOS rules) ?


In chinese rules (or AGA), there's (almost) no difference between 5.5
and 6.5 or between 7.5 and 8.5. Currently on CGOS, we do have games
scored W+0.5 with 7.5 komi. As you can see, a komi of 6.5 would give
B+0.5 instead.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Łukasz Lew]

On 12/26/06, nando <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
> compensation per handicap stone.
>
> One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
> case?

I believe, no.

> Also, in the case of NO handicap,  what komi is normally given in 19x19
> Chinese?   6.5,  7.5 ???

It's 7.5


Is there a difference?
I.e. Have You seen a situation where the result is W+(even number)
(on Chinese/CGOS rules) ?



-- nando
___
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] Anchor Player

[nando]

On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
compensation per handicap stone.

One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone
case?


I believe, no.


Also, in the case of NO handicap,  what komi is normally given in 19x19
Chinese?   6.5,  7.5 ???


It's 7.5

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Yes, that's my plan.I'm going to use fixed handicap and 1 stone
compensation per handicap stone. 

One question I have - is compensation normally given in the 1 stone 
case?  

Also, in the case of NO handicap,  what komi is normally given in 19x19
Chinese?   6.5,  7.5 ???


- Don


On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 21:42 +0100, nando wrote:
> On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes,  the answer is that there is no gtp command available that defines
> > whether handicap stones are also compensated or by how much.
> 
> Just like there's no GTP command to define the ruleset. This
> compensation is 0 in japanese rules, N in chinese rules, N-1 in AGA
> rules, etc. So it seems more or less clearly defined by the ruleset
> used. CGOS 9x9 uses a modified Tromp-Taylor right ? What does this
> ruleset say about such compensation ? If it says nothing, let's just
> choose between N and N-1 (since a compensation is logical when area
> scoring is used), and add it to the set of input parameters that the
> operators have to pass "off-line" (out of the GTP stream).
> 
> -- nando

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[nando]

On 12/26/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Yes,  the answer is that there is no gtp command available that defines
whether handicap stones are also compensated or by how much.


Just like there's no GTP command to define the ruleset. This
compensation is 0 in japanese rules, N in chinese rules, N-1 in AGA
rules, etc. So it seems more or less clearly defined by the ruleset
used. CGOS 9x9 uses a modified Tromp-Taylor right ? What does this
ruleset say about such compensation ? If it says nothing, let's just
choose between N and N-1 (since a compensation is logical when area
scoring is used), and add it to the set of input parameters that the
operators have to pass "off-line" (out of the GTP stream).

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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

On Tue, 2006-12-26 at 12:56 -0500, House, Jason J. wrote:
>  
> >The question that I was asking is how do we inform the computer of the
> >handicap system?  Is there a gtp command to inform the program of the
> >type of compensation since there is more than 1 possibility?
> 
> There are two handicap commands in GTP.  One says, give me n handicap
> stones.  The other says "put handicap stones in these places".  I think
> they're called place_free_handicap and set_free_handicap.
> 
> Does that answer your question?

Yes,  the answer is that there is no gtp command available that defines
whether handicap stones are also compensated or by how much.

- Don




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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[House, Jason J.]

 

>The question that I was asking is how do we inform the computer of the
>handicap system?  Is there a gtp command to inform the program of the
>type of compensation since there is more than 1 possibility?

There are two handicap commands in GTP.  One says, give me n handicap
stones.  The other says "put handicap stones in these places".  I think
they're called place_free_handicap and set_free_handicap.

Does that answer your question?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player. High handi

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 15:35, Jacques Basaldúa a écrit :
> I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
> win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
> weaker. That happens because it had to invade
> unclear positions.
This is a feature of GNU Go :-)
GNU Go has very small invasion capacity, and this is done on purpose,
because it is too weak at making light plays, or move like escape-or-live.

GNU is tuned for even games on 19X19, and so behaves far from optimal
in high handicap games.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player. ELO / handicap

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le lundi 25 décembre 2006 00:46, Don Dailey a écrit :
> 
> 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.
> 
> If I want to use ELO and also expect the handicaps to be fair, then
> I will need to account for this curve.  

Current KGS ranking seems very close to european ranking, so stats at
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/statev.html can give usefull hint.

GNU and other "strong" programs are in the range 10k-6k where the stats
are rather regular, and rougly gives the follwowing winning percentage
in even games (from more than 2 games) 

   R + 1 R + 2 R + 3 R + 4
win% 44   403020
Equiv-ELO   -43  -72   -149  -240 

So a linear interpolation (even if it obviously not linear) gives approximately
 50 ELO == 1 handi (for this range of strenght)

> On the web I see that some ELO based GO servers assume 100 ELO is 1
> rank, and do exactly what I proposed, when they handicap they fold
> this into the ELO rating of the players for rating purposes.
So taking 100 ELO for 1 k difference seems to be a good first guess, and gives
slightly less handi than needed (this is good idea), and currently
no one knows how bot ranking will look like ...

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Jacques Basaldúa]

Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:

The best move may be a somewhat risky invasion - 
of course one has to assume the partner will not 
play perfectly, but everybody does that every time 
anyway, right? Otherwise nobody would have any hope 
to win and so nobody would play.


I agree. That's easy for humans to understand. An unclear
invasion is a blunder against a strong opponent but it 
is not against a weak one if you can trust your "know-how"

to keep invading stones alive. But the point is how
difficult it is for a computer to grasp subtlety.
I think, but don't know, that MC will more naturally
find the right measure of overplay than other approaches. 
It is a terribly bad idea to make a go program an 
"adventurer". Therefore, prudent programs will always be 
underrated when they give handicap. They could achieve 
more if they underestimated their opponent assuming that 
handicap is given because they are stronger. Note that 
the best moment for overplay is the beginning, "wait
and see" is not a good idea, the sharper the moyo is 
traced, the harder it is to invade. Later is too late.


Jacques.


PD Errata (in my previous post)
200 points = 1/(1+10^.50) = 0.3204 approx = 1/4
should be:
200 points = 1/(1+10^.50) = 0.2402 approx = 1/4

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Are you sure about this?  Here is what I've seen on Wikipedia but I've
also seen this before from other sources:

Another departure from tradition is that ELO ratings are
calibrated by
winning percentage, not by stone handicaps. An extra handicap
stone
has much less influence on winning percentage at a low level of
play
than at a high level of play. Therefore, from the perspective of
ELO
ratings, traditional ranks are too spread out at the low level
and too
compressed at a high level. To put it another way, a 6-dan
player has
a much better chance of beating a 5-dan player than a 15-kyu
player
has of beating a 16-kyu player, so the ELO system must conclude
either
that the top players need to be further apart in rating than 100
points, or the bottom players need to be closer in rating than
100
points.

- Don



On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 20:23 +0100, Andrés Domínguez wrote:
> 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] Anchor Player

[Andrés Domínguez]

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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I was always taught in Chess to play the board, not the player.
But in principle this is wrong if your goal is to increase your
chances of winning the game. 

The problem with playing your opponent is that if you don't know
the proper technique for doing this, it will distract you from
the real game.For weaker players, it's enough to just "play
the board",  anything beyond this will hurt their play.  

What most people don't understand is that playing your opponent
doesn't mean that you suddenly start playing risky unsound moves.
Playing your opponent is a very careful and controlled process
that should not involve a radical change of playing style.

It involves waiting for mistakes, not making them.  You will 
try to encourage these mistakes, but not at great risk to
yourself.   Also, you must never underestimate your weaker
opponent.   

I mention this because there have been a few posts that imply
that you should play normally, change nothing, and just wait
for the mistake.   In fact, this is almost correct,  most of
the moves should be like this.If you don't know what you are
doing ALL the moves should be like this.   But if you want to
actually maximize your winning chances, you need to be more
sophisticated than this.

At least this applies in Chess.  I'm sure this must apply to 
GO too. 

When books and experts
say "don't play the opponent" they are giving beginner
advice.   Most beginners can't handle this.   It should be
done in very carefully measured ways.It's obviously 
counter-productive to start playing high risk moves and
throw soundness out the window.But that doesn't mean
there is nothing you can do to take advantage of a weaker 
opponent in a losing position.

For most people, the advice to "just play the board" is
going to protect them.   Playing the opponent is a skill
and weaker (chess players) screw up big time when attempting
to do this.


I'll give one example from chess:

  What do you do when your opponent is in time-trouble?  
  How do you "play the opponent" and capitalize on this?

  The knee-jerk reaction is to play extra quickly, to deprive
  him of thinking on your time.

  This is foolish.  Your opponent will be at his best with the
  extra adrenaline kick.   If you play fast you will be at your
  worst.   

  The adrenaline rush will wear out your opponent, so in such
  a situation it is better to play normally or even EXTRA SLOW.
  In fact, if I see my opponent is excited, I take my sweet time,
  forcing him to stay at attention a very long time.   If I have
  a choice between complicated and simple positions, I take the
  complicated position IF and ONLY IF I am totally comfortable 
  with it.  After all I have more time to figure it out.   I won't 
  play unsoundly just to get a complicated position though.

  The better players are not really that handicapped when under
  time pressure - they remain highly focused and do not let 
  themselves get too excited - no point in helping them along 
  with rash moves.YOU are the one that must remain calm and
  stay 100 percent focused.   I did not have to lose very many
  games that way to figure this out. 

There are many other ways to take advantage of your opponent in
chess that I consider sound if applied in a very measured and
careful way.   None of them call for making truly unsound moves,
especially when you consider that in a losing position, all moves
are unsound in some sense.Now you are in a situation of
"risk management",  you are looking for moves that give you the
best chances of winning (a lost game) and usually, it requires
a move that makes it the most difficult for your opponent.  This
is not quite the same as moves that make it easiest for you, which
is what you look for in WON positions.

Weaker players cannot do this.  They are best just sticking with
the style that is most comfortable for them.

- Don




On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 15:23 +, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> On 12/25/06, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hideki Kato wrote:
> > Nevertheless, I have certain experience (not with
> > MC) of computer go with handicap and I can tell:
> > Waiting for the opponent to blunder is only a good
> > strategy if the handicap is lower than it should.
> > E.g. 7 kyu difference & Handi 3. If the handicap
> > approaches its real value, that does not work.
> > I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
> > win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
> > weaker. That happens because it had to invade
> > unclear positions. The more the invasion is
> > postponed, the worse. The weaker player simply
> > does defensive uninteresting play and so does the
> > stronger player (with better yose, but that's not
> > enough). If I (manually) use two or three turns
> > just to invade, GnuGo tries to save the invading
> > stones and that's more than enough to win the game.
> 
> Hi,
> 
> This depends on your definitions. If the position is unclear and GnuGo
> doesn't invade, then I'd 

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Hi Hideki,

I think what I will do is use ELO and a simple formula for
determining handicap.   The formula will impose a slight
curve on the value of a handicap stone, it will slightly
increase with each ELO point.   In other words a stronger
player will benefit more from having an extra stone and
the handicap will be chosen appropriately. 

Of course the formula will be an assumption.   I will either
build something in to the server to make gentle modifications
over time, or I will manually adjust the parameters from time
to time based on the data collected from the server.  It will
be easy to tell if the handicaps are too aggressive or too
conservative after a lot of data is collected.   

The initial formula will assume the stronger players on 19x19 
CGOS need 1 handicap stone to overcome 100 ELO points.  This
seems to be fairly standard in servers and I think it's probably
a good starting point.Since computer programs do not 
represent very strong players at 19x19 I don't think there is
a great deal of "rank compression" at these levels, so I can
imagine that this will be a reasonable starting point for the
stronger players.

Of course 100 ELO per stone will probably not work well with 
the really weak players (and may even be wrong for the strong
computer players) so one way or another we will have to converge
on a formula that tries to be as fair as possible.   There seems
to be a large range of computer playing skill on CGOS, from zero
ELO to 2200 without any large gaps.This may look different
at 19x19, we shall see.   

I think our formula will require 2 constants that can be
adjusted to control the shape of the curve.   I will come up 
with something but I will be happy to take suggestions too.  

Like everything else that has to do with ratings, rankings,
handicaps, etc  this is all an estimate and will never be
100% perfect.   But I think we can make the attempt to fit
the data according to the results to be as fair as possible.


- Don







On Mon, 2006-12-25 at 14:35 +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> Hideki Kato wrote:
> 
> > In Nihon Kiin's ELO system(1), 1000 ELO is 1 rank,
> 
> The Elo rating is based on two assumptions:
> 
> a. The performance of each player in each game is a 
>normally distributed random variable.
> b. All players performance have the same standard
>deviation. (This is controversial, and other
>rating systems modify this.)
> 
> Anything else is arbitrary! Including how many Elo
> points produce a given probability.
> 
> Elo *tradition* (from chess) has always used the
> convention:
> 
> 100 points = 1/(1+10^.25) = 0.3599 approx = 1/3
> 200 points = 1/(1+10^.50) = 0.3204 approx = 1/4
> 
> 1000 Elo points give a probability of 1/317
> 
> It is obvious that Nihon Kiin's use a different
> scale (may be 1000 Nihon Kiin's = 100 traditional).
> 
> On the handicap subject:
> 
> I am very happy to have a 19x19 server either with
> or without handicap, so I welcome it as it is.
> 
> Nevertheless, I have certain experience (not with
> MC) of computer go with handicap and I can tell:
> Waiting for the opponent to blunder is only a good 
> strategy if the handicap is lower than it should.
> E.g. 7 kyu difference & Handi 3. If the handicap
> approaches its real value, that does not work.
> I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
> win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
> weaker. That happens because it had to invade
> unclear positions. The more the invasion is 
> postponed, the worse. The weaker player simply
> does defensive uninteresting play and so does the
> stronger player (with better yose, but that's not
> enough). If I (manually) use two or three turns 
> just to invade, GnuGo tries to save the invading 
> stones and that's more than enough to win the game.
> 
> As I said before, its a different game and the 
> more accurate you determine the handicap, the 
> worse. If at all, handicap should always be 
> underestimated by a factor of 1/2.
> 
> Handicap is used to make the game interesting
> enough to white (but usually white still wins)
> to honor a lower player with a learning game.
> I hope weaker bots will learn at lot from the
> games played against the stronger. ;-)
> 
> Jacques.
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

On 12/25/06, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Hideki Kato wrote:
Nevertheless, I have certain experience (not with
MC) of computer go with handicap and I can tell:
Waiting for the opponent to blunder is only a good
strategy if the handicap is lower than it should.
E.g. 7 kyu difference & Handi 3. If the handicap
approaches its real value, that does not work.
I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
weaker. That happens because it had to invade
unclear positions. The more the invasion is
postponed, the worse. The weaker player simply
does defensive uninteresting play and so does the
stronger player (with better yose, but that's not
enough). If I (manually) use two or three turns
just to invade, GnuGo tries to save the invading
stones and that's more than enough to win the game.


Hi,

This depends on your definitions. If the position is unclear and GnuGo
doesn't invade, then I'd say *that* is a blunder (especially when
being behind). The idea is to play the best move available, and let
the weaker player make suboptimal ones -- in the end, if the handicap
is correct, the net result should be zero and the result would be the
same as in an even game with an equal partner.

The best move may be a somewhat risky invasion - of course one has to
assume the partner will not play perfectly, but everybody does that
every time anyway, right? Otherwise nobody would have any hope to win
and so nobody would play ;-)

best regards,
Vlad
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Jacques Basaldúa]

Hideki Kato wrote:


In Nihon Kiin's ELO system(1), 1000 ELO is 1 rank,


The Elo rating is based on two assumptions:

a. The performance of each player in each game is a 
  normally distributed random variable.

b. All players performance have the same standard
  deviation. (This is controversial, and other
  rating systems modify this.)

Anything else is arbitrary! Including how many Elo
points produce a given probability.

Elo *tradition* (from chess) has always used the
convention:

100 points = 1/(1+10^.25) = 0.3599 approx = 1/3
200 points = 1/(1+10^.50) = 0.3204 approx = 1/4

1000 Elo points give a probability of 1/317

It is obvious that Nihon Kiin's use a different
scale (may be 1000 Nihon Kiin's = 100 traditional).

On the handicap subject:

I am very happy to have a 19x19 server either with
or without handicap, so I welcome it as it is.

Nevertheless, I have certain experience (not with
MC) of computer go with handicap and I can tell:
Waiting for the opponent to blunder is only a good 
strategy if the handicap is lower than it should.

E.g. 7 kyu difference & Handi 3. If the handicap
approaches its real value, that does not work.
I have seen (many times) GnuGo not being able to
win a H7 game to an opponent more than 10 kyu
weaker. That happens because it had to invade
unclear positions. The more the invasion is 
postponed, the worse. The weaker player simply

does defensive uninteresting play and so does the
stronger player (with better yose, but that's not
enough). If I (manually) use two or three turns 
just to invade, GnuGo tries to save the invading 
stones and that's more than enough to win the game.


As I said before, its a different game and the 
more accurate you determine the handicap, the 
worse. If at all, handicap should always be 
underestimated by a factor of 1/2.


Handicap is used to make the game interesting
enough to white (but usually white still wins)
to honor a lower player with a learning game.
I hope weaker bots will learn at lot from the
games played against the stronger. ;-)

Jacques.


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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Hideki Kato]

Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

>On the web I see that some ELO based GO servers assume 100 ELO is 1
>rank, and do exactly what I proposed, when they handicap they fold
>this into the ELO rating of the players for rating purposes.

In Nihon Kiin's ELO system(1), 1000 ELO is 1 rank, ex 25kyu is 
[1000,1999], 1 kyu is [25000,25999], pro is [34000,infinitive](2)
(1)  (J)
(2)  (J)
#Unfortunatelly, Nihon Kiin has no English page.

>I would like to do better than that, so what I need is a formula that
>can be gradually adjusted by the server.  Something more sophisticated
>than just an ELO to stones formula that takes more into consideration
>than just the rating difference.
>
>I'm glad you brought this to my attention.
>
>- Don
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

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.

If I want to use ELO and also expect the handicaps to be fair, then
I will need to account for this curve.  

On the web I see that some ELO based GO servers assume 100 ELO is 1
rank, and do exactly what I proposed, when they handicap they fold
this into the ELO rating of the players for rating purposes.

I would like to do better than that, so what I need is a formula that
can be gradually adjusted by the server.  Something more sophisticated
than just an ELO to stones formula that takes more into consideration
than just the rating difference.

I'm glad you brought this to my attention.

- Don





> David
> 
> > -Original Message-
> > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> > Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:04 PM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player
> > 
> > 
> > So really, what I want to be able to do is:
> > 
> >   1. Use the ELO rating system.
> >   2. Determine how many ELO points 1 stone handicap is worth.
> >   3.  " "   """2 stones are worth
> >   4.  " "   """3 stones are worth,
> 
> 

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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[David Fotland]

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.

David

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 2:04 PM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player
> 
> 
> So really, what I want to be able to do is:
> 
>   1. Use the ELO rating system.
>   2. Determine how many ELO points 1 stone handicap is worth.
>   3.  " "   """2 stones are worth
>   4.  " "   """3 stones are worth,


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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Ray Tayek]

At 07:12 AM 12/22/2006, you wrote:

Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 14:50, Don Dailey a écrit :
[...]
> It seems that playing the best move possible (best in the sense of
> maximizing your territory gain) is not the best strategy when playing
> a handicap game.  You literally have to play foolishly in order to
> dupe your opponent into losing.

I strongly disagree with this. One player need handicap because his plays
are inferior  ,,,

White does not need to overplay to win. Just keep calm, play normal ...


this going to vary with on the ability of players 
aand the size of the handicap.


at weaker levels of play and smaller handicaps, 
keep calm, play good moves works fine.


at stronger levels of play and higher handicaps, this will not work.

thanks

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


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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 23:30 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> Don,
> 
> I will cite it here:
> "If the players have agreed to use area counting to score the game
> (Rule 12), White receives an additional point of compensation for each
> Black handicap stone after the first."
> 
> So AGA rules just do compensation.

This is a way to do a handicap system, but I wasn't asking about that.

The question that I was asking is how do we inform the computer of the
handicap system?  Is there a gtp command to inform the program of the
type of compensation since there is more than 1 possibility?

So when you sent this off I was expecting an answer.  I feel like you
might actually be responding to some earlier post I made.

- Don


> What I consider graceful is that AGA rules support both area and
> territory scoring, giving the same result. (last paragraph from the
> web page)


> Best Regards,
> Łukasz 

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Łukasz Lew]

On 12/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 20:20 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> On 12/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Based on some research I've done, it does make some sense to give some
> > compensation for handicap stones,  because it makes it match Japanese
> > and without it, the kyu system is not balanced.   I have doubts that
> > it's
> > perfectly balanced anyway,  but that's a different subject.
> >
> > So I think we will include this in our handicap server.   I want to make
> > it as unambiguous as possible.   There are some ways to handle
> > this:
> >
> >1.  The program must know how to make the compensation.
> >   OR
> >2.  The server adds the stones to komi and the program pretends
> >there is no such thing as compensation - it's just built in
> >to komi.
> >   OR
> >3.  We have a GTP command to handle it.  (presumably there is no
> >specific gtp command to deal with it.
> >   OR
> >  any suggestions?
>
> AGA rules solve the problem gracefully.
>
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.concise.html
>
> I suggest to use them.
>

Łukasz,

There is nothing on that site that addresses this issue,  in fact the
site
seems geared towards human play and not computer play.

Not only that, but the rules are different than CGOS uses.  In fact the
rules
don't even specify a standard,  lot's of options like which kind of
scoring
system to use, etc.

There is a paragraph on scoring disputes and how to handle them,  but
nothing
that I would consider "graceful" and elegant.

The problem I'm trying to address is how to communicate, or not
communicate to
the programs what handicap system is in place, and whether handicap
stones are
"compensated."I'm not trying to figure out which handicap system to
use,  I've already decided to go with the KGS system that Magnus is
advocating.

The simplest thing is to just explain it on a web page, but there is no
explicit
way to tell the programs that white is being compensated (or not) for
the
handicap stones and that bothers me.

- Don


Don,

I will cite it here:
"If the players have agreed to use area counting to score the game
(Rule 12), White receives an additional point of compensation for each
Black handicap stone after the first."

So AGA rules just do compensation.

What I consider graceful is that AGA rules support both area and
territory scoring, giving the same result. (last paragraph from the
web page)

Best Regards,
Łukasz







> Łukasz Lew
>
> >
> > The basic idea (which matches KGS) is that if you give a 4 stone
> > handicap, white gets 4 stones of compensation,  as if komi has
> > increased by 4.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 09:28 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> > > Quoting Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> > > > you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> > > > extra strength/stability.
> > > >
> > > > One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> > > > sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> > > > tromp-taylor rules says about it.
> > >
> > > Please, do use this compensation because KGS use it (correct me if I am 
wrong)
> > > and it would be very silly to make all programs buggy on at least on 
server.
> > > The compensation is there to make japanese and chinese give the same 
result in
> > > handicap games, which is very important to make the game consistent for 
all
> > > players no matter what background they have.
> > >
> > > -Magnus
> > > ___
> > > 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I think what I will do is see if there is an existing gtp command,  if
not
I will see if there is a kgs extension for it - if there is I will
imitate
it with a cgos extension.

If a program doesn't honor the extension I'll just document how it works
and
what to expect.   

I'm not going to fake handicap - there is already GTP command in place
for that.

Will have to slightly extend the CGOS client to handle it though. 

Will make a web page that clearly explains how everything works.

- Don


On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 22:37 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> Quoting Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > The simplest thing is to just explain it on a web page, but there is no
> > explicit
> > way to tell the programs that white is being compensated (or not) for
> > the
> > handicap stones and that bothers me.
> 
> The first step is to inform future programmers of the compensation. KGS uses a
> special command for playing and placing free handicap. Right now I do not
> remember if this is part of the GTP protocol or if it is an extension of KGS.
> The only hard problem I can see would be if the server would "fake" 
> handicap by
> playing black moves with white passes. Then it would be impossible to know for
> sure if it is a handicap game or not. But as long as there are explicit
> commands for the handicap given it is not hard to implement and it would also
> work later because as far as I know all important servers and programs 
> uses the
> compensation.
> 
> -Merry christmas!
> Magnus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Magnus Persson]

Quoting Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


The simplest thing is to just explain it on a web page, but there is no
explicit
way to tell the programs that white is being compensated (or not) for
the
handicap stones and that bothers me.


The first step is to inform future programmers of the compensation. KGS uses a
special command for playing and placing free handicap. Right now I do not
remember if this is part of the GTP protocol or if it is an extension of KGS.
The only hard problem I can see would be if the server would "fake" 
handicap by

playing black moves with white passes. Then it would be impossible to know for
sure if it is a handicap game or not. But as long as there are explicit
commands for the handicap given it is not hard to implement and it would also
work later because as far as I know all important servers and programs 
uses the

compensation.

-Merry christmas!
Magnus
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 20:20 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
> On 12/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Based on some research I've done, it does make some sense to give some
> > compensation for handicap stones,  because it makes it match Japanese
> > and without it, the kyu system is not balanced.   I have doubts that
> > it's
> > perfectly balanced anyway,  but that's a different subject.
> >
> > So I think we will include this in our handicap server.   I want to make
> > it as unambiguous as possible.   There are some ways to handle
> > this:
> >
> >1.  The program must know how to make the compensation.
> >   OR
> >2.  The server adds the stones to komi and the program pretends
> >there is no such thing as compensation - it's just built in
> >to komi.
> >   OR
> >3.  We have a GTP command to handle it.  (presumably there is no
> >specific gtp command to deal with it.
> >   OR
> >  any suggestions?
> 
> AGA rules solve the problem gracefully.
> 
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.concise.html
> 
> I suggest to use them.
> 

Łukasz,

There is nothing on that site that addresses this issue,  in fact the
site
seems geared towards human play and not computer play.

Not only that, but the rules are different than CGOS uses.  In fact the
rules
don't even specify a standard,  lot's of options like which kind of
scoring
system to use, etc.

There is a paragraph on scoring disputes and how to handle them,  but
nothing
that I would consider "graceful" and elegant.

The problem I'm trying to address is how to communicate, or not
communicate to
the programs what handicap system is in place, and whether handicap
stones are
"compensated."I'm not trying to figure out which handicap system to
use,  I've already decided to go with the KGS system that Magnus is
advocating.

The simplest thing is to just explain it on a web page, but there is no
explicit
way to tell the programs that white is being compensated (or not) for
the 
handicap stones and that bothers me.

- Don
 




> Łukasz Lew
> 
> >
> > The basic idea (which matches KGS) is that if you give a 4 stone
> > handicap, white gets 4 stones of compensation,  as if komi has
> > increased by 4.
> >
> >
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 09:28 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> > > Quoting Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > > Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> > > > you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> > > > extra strength/stability.
> > > >
> > > > One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> > > > sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> > > > tromp-taylor rules says about it.
> > >
> > > Please, do use this compensation because KGS use it (correct me if I am 
> > > wrong)
> > > and it would be very silly to make all programs buggy on at least on 
> > > server.
> > > The compensation is there to make japanese and chinese give the same 
> > > result in
> > > handicap games, which is very important to make the game consistent for 
> > > all
> > > players no matter what background they have.
> > >
> > > -Magnus
> > > ___
> > > 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] Anchor Player

[Łukasz Lew]

On 12/23/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Based on some research I've done, it does make some sense to give some
compensation for handicap stones,  because it makes it match Japanese
and without it, the kyu system is not balanced.   I have doubts that
it's
perfectly balanced anyway,  but that's a different subject.

So I think we will include this in our handicap server.   I want to make
it as unambiguous as possible.   There are some ways to handle
this:

   1.  The program must know how to make the compensation.
  OR
   2.  The server adds the stones to komi and the program pretends
   there is no such thing as compensation - it's just built in
   to komi.
  OR
   3.  We have a GTP command to handle it.  (presumably there is no
   specific gtp command to deal with it.
  OR
 any suggestions?


AGA rules solve the problem gracefully.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~wjh/go/rules/AGA.concise.html

I suggest to use them.

Łukasz Lew



The basic idea (which matches KGS) is that if you give a 4 stone
handicap, white gets 4 stones of compensation,  as if komi has
increased by 4.



- Don



On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 09:28 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> Quoting Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> > you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> > extra strength/stability.
> >
> > One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> > sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> > tromp-taylor rules says about it.
>
> Please, do use this compensation because KGS use it (correct me if I am wrong)
> and it would be very silly to make all programs buggy on at least on server.
> The compensation is there to make japanese and chinese give the same result in
> handicap games, which is very important to make the game consistent for all
> players no matter what background they have.
>
> -Magnus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Based on some research I've done, it does make some sense to give some
compensation for handicap stones,  because it makes it match Japanese
and without it, the kyu system is not balanced.   I have doubts that
it's
perfectly balanced anyway,  but that's a different subject.

So I think we will include this in our handicap server.   I want to make
it as unambiguous as possible.   There are some ways to handle
this:

   1.  The program must know how to make the compensation.
  OR
   2.  The server adds the stones to komi and the program pretends
   there is no such thing as compensation - it's just built in
   to komi.
  OR
   3.  We have a GTP command to handle it.  (presumably there is no
   specific gtp command to deal with it.
  OR
 any suggestions?

The basic idea (which matches KGS) is that if you give a 4 stone
handicap, white gets 4 stones of compensation,  as if komi has
increased by 4.



- Don



On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 09:28 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> Quoting Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> > you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> > extra strength/stability.
> >
> > One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> > sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> > tromp-taylor rules says about it.
> 
> Please, do use this compensation because KGS use it (correct me if I am wrong)
> and it would be very silly to make all programs buggy on at least on server.
> The compensation is there to make japanese and chinese give the same result in
> handicap games, which is very important to make the game consistent for all
> players no matter what background they have.
> 
> -Magnus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

It seems odd to me that there is no way to tell a program what system
is being used for compensation.   

But there is still the issue of which compensation system to use.  I
think
one system gives the handicap stone to the other side and the other just
deducts it.

I see a potential source of a lot of confusion.

- Don


On Sat, 2006-12-23 at 09:28 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> Quoting Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 
> > Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> > you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> > extra strength/stability.
> >
> > One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> > sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> > tromp-taylor rules says about it.
> 
> Please, do use this compensation because KGS use it (correct me if I am wrong)
> and it would be very silly to make all programs buggy on at least on server.
> The compensation is there to make japanese and chinese give the same result in
> handicap games, which is very important to make the game consistent for all
> players no matter what background they have.
> 
> -Magnus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Magnus Persson]

Quoting Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:


Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
extra strength/stability.

One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
tromp-taylor rules says about it.


Please, do use this compensation because KGS use it (correct me if I am wrong)
and it would be very silly to make all programs buggy on at least on server.
The compensation is there to make japanese and chinese give the same result in
handicap games, which is very important to make the game consistent for all
players no matter what background they have.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 21:44, Don Dailey a écrit :
[...]
> 
> I still have a hard time believing that the system scales very well
> across a 9 kyu range.
Handicap system works incredibly well, from very weak kyu to strong dan.
Moreover, the problem of the black players are the same whatever his
 "absolute" strenght is! That's why some josekis are seen mainly in handicap
games: they are simple, a little slow locally, but works perfectly with the
others handicap stones, with no variation. As the handicap decrease, things
are getting more complex, more variations are possible, global understanding
is needed ...

9 handi means black is beginner and understand nearly nothing compared to
white. Typical 9 handi problems are:
- B corner is surrounded an die!
- Black is so scared for his corners that it plays only pure defense move
 and makes no points.
- W takes control of the center and kills a huge group.

That's part of the magic of go.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

So really, what I want to be able to do is:

  1. Use the ELO rating system.
  2. Determine how many ELO points 1 stone handicap is worth.
  3.  " "   """2 stones are worth
  4.  " "   """3 stones are worth,

etc.

When two players are matched, the server gives the handicap that 
most closely matches them up.   For rating purposes when the
game is over their ratings are adjusted to reflect the handicap.
For example if 2 players a 400 ELO apart, they may get
rated as if they are only 50 ELO different.   It may even turn out
that the weaker player has a higher expectancy of winning due to
the handicap.

We start with an initial estimation of what a stone is worth in ELO
points,  and let the server make small adjustments over time to 
make it match up with reality.   Each extra stone of handicap is
tracked separately because it's not likely the ELO gap is uniform.

The adjustment to ELO is simple, we have an expectancy based on the
ELO rating of both players (along with the handicap ELO compensation)
and we have the actual results.   We make a proportionate adjustment
based on the difference between what we expected to happen and what
actually did happen, which I think is exactly the same thing the
ELO formula does!

And it doesn't really matter which handicap system we use.

I think I slightly prefer fixed placement handicaps, as I believe
the weaker programs will benefit less from handicaps otherwise, 
which is the opposite of what we want.
 
I don't plan to add compensation for the handicap stones.

- Don





On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 16:01 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> I'm glad you bring it up.
> 
> >From the same site, it appears there is no standard way of handling
> this.
> I will look to see what Tromp/Taylor says if anything.
> 
> It would be nice if we could simple equate handicap with ELO points,  I
> think it would be more accurate.   We may find that 1 stone per kyu 
> doesn't hold up forever.   Then we just use ELO (converting in a 
> straightforward way to kyu if we want this) and have a formula 
> (or table) for compensating ELO.For instance we may determine
> that 400 ELO can be compensated by 4 stones and this effectively
> changes the ELO calculation.
> 
> This seems more mathematically logical to me.Perhaps the server
> itself can converge on the right formula.
> 
> - Don
>  
> 
> On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:46 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> > Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> > you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> > extra strength/stability.
> > 
> > One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> > sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> > tromp-taylor rules says about it.
> > 
> > On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'm trying to figure this out.  If you get a 9 stone handicap,  you have
> > > to give back those 9 stones?   So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
> > > much
> > > as it seems although it's still pretty good.
> > >
> > > - Don
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:24 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> > > > There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
> > > > because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
> > > > komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
> > > > setting it would break those who does not use that rule.
> > > >
> > > > How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at 
> > > > all?
> > > >
> > > > Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> > > > what I'm talking about..
> > > >
> > > > //Christian
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Ok,
> > > > >
> > > > > Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
> > > > > around
> > > > > from the last time I polled.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now the question:  How to set it up?
> > > > >
> > > > > Here are the options:
> > > > >
> > > > >   1.  Use GTP handicap commands to set up game.
> > > > >
> > > > >   2.  Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup
> > > > >   to accommodate programs that have not implemented handicap.
> > > > >
> > > > >   3.  Do both - send handicap to programs that can handle it, 
> > > > > otherwise
> > > > >   guide them through it by sending play commands with passes.
> > > > >
> > > > > In any case, I would make the game records (SGF) look correct, doing
> > > > > whatever
> > > > > that takes.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Don
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 20:48 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> > > > > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any 
> > > > > > > evidence
> > > > > > > that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap 
> > > > > > > games.
> > > > > > > In fac

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I'm glad you bring it up.

>From the same site, it appears there is no standard way of handling
this.
I will look to see what Tromp/Taylor says if anything.

It would be nice if we could simple equate handicap with ELO points,  I
think it would be more accurate.   We may find that 1 stone per kyu 
doesn't hold up forever.   Then we just use ELO (converting in a 
straightforward way to kyu if we want this) and have a formula 
(or table) for compensating ELO.For instance we may determine
that 400 ELO can be compensated by 4 stones and this effectively
changes the ELO calculation.

This seems more mathematically logical to me.Perhaps the server
itself can converge on the right formula.

- Don
 

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:46 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
> you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
> extra strength/stability.
> 
> One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
> sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
> tromp-taylor rules says about it.
> 
> On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm trying to figure this out.  If you get a 9 stone handicap,  you have
> > to give back those 9 stones?   So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
> > much
> > as it seems although it's still pretty good.
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:24 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> > > There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
> > > because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
> > > komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
> > > setting it would break those who does not use that rule.
> > >
> > > How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at 
> > > all?
> > >
> > > Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> > > what I'm talking about..
> > >
> > > //Christian
> > >
> > >
> > > On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Ok,
> > > >
> > > > Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
> > > > around
> > > > from the last time I polled.
> > > >
> > > > Now the question:  How to set it up?
> > > >
> > > > Here are the options:
> > > >
> > > >   1.  Use GTP handicap commands to set up game.
> > > >
> > > >   2.  Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup
> > > >   to accommodate programs that have not implemented handicap.
> > > >
> > > >   3.  Do both - send handicap to programs that can handle it, otherwise
> > > >   guide them through it by sending play commands with passes.
> > > >
> > > > In any case, I would make the game records (SGF) look correct, doing
> > > > whatever
> > > > that takes.
> > > >
> > > > - Don
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 20:48 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> > > > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > > > >
> > > > > > on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence
> > > > > > that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap 
> > > > > > games.
> > > > > > In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well*
> > > > > > suited to handicap games compared to territory based algorithms. 
> > > > > > When
> > > > > > it finds itself behind, it goes for the swindle. Against an equal
> > > > > > opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a weaker foe, it's
> > > > > > wise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have to add to this. My opinion about Valkyrias play as white with
> > > > > handicap on
> > > > > 9x9 is that it plays excellent handicap go (given its strength at 
> > > > > even). In my
> > > > > view I do not have to change anything. But this is of course just my
> > > > > impression.
> > > > >
> > > > > It is true that MC-programs plays randomly in the end of the game but 
> > > > > in the
> > > > > opening the handicap stones are just a burden and does not really 
> > > > > make it play
> > > > > random.
> > > > >
> > > > > -Magnus
> > > > > ___
> > > > > 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/
> >
> ___
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[terry mcintyre]

My reading of http://homepages.cwi.nl/~tromp/go.html is that komi is only 
supported among equal players, as agreed upon. However, this goes against the 
practice in Chinese and Ing rulesets, where white does recieve a komi to 
counterbalance the scoring of the additional stones placed by black. One 
rationale for this would be that it keeps the score comparable to the Japanese 
rulesets, where stones on the board do not count as territory.

The server would have to make and enforce some particular rule.

Regarding handicap stones, I'd suggest "free placement", for consistency with 
Chinese scoring. 

Terry McIntyre
UNIX for hire
software development / systems administration / security
- Original Message 
From: Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go 
Sent: Friday, December 22, 2006 12:46:40 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
extra strength/stability.

One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
tromp-taylor rules says about it.

On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'm trying to figure this out.  If you get a 9 stone handicap,  you have
> to give back those 9 stones?   So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
> much
> as it seems although it's still pretty good.
>
> - Don
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:24 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> > There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
> > because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
> > komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
> > setting it would break those who does not use that rule.
> >
> > How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at all?
> >
> > Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> > what I'm talking about..
> >
> > //Christian
> >






__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Nick Wedd]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don 
Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes

I'm trying to figure this out.  If you get a 9 stone handicap,  you have
to give back those 9 stones?   So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
much
as it seems although it's still pretty good.


You might want a Chinese-rules handicap stone to have the same value as 
a Japanese-rules handicap stone.  But as things stand, it doesn't - N 
handicap stones are worth N more points at the end of the game in a 
Chinese game than in a Japanese game.  So you can adjust for this by 
deducting N from Black's score at the end of a Chinese game.


Nick
--
Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[House, Jason J.]

 


>Yes, in Chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
>you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
>extra strength/stability.

To be slightly more specific, the extra compensation is specific to
area scoring rule systems.  In a game with only two passes, and black
passes first, area scoring matches other systems.  In a game with N
handicap, however, an area scoring will give an extra (N-1) points to
black.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Christian Nilsson]

Yes, in chinese rules you need to compensate white for the extra area
you gain from the actual stones. The handicap is only meant to be the
extra strength/stability.

One can of course ignore this for the server. I just wanted to make
sure all programs use the same rules. I don't know what the
tromp-taylor rules says about it.

On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I'm trying to figure this out.  If you get a 9 stone handicap,  you have
to give back those 9 stones?   So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
much
as it seems although it's still pretty good.

- Don





On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:24 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
> because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
> komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
> setting it would break those who does not use that rule.
>
> How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at all?
>
> Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> what I'm talking about..
>
> //Christian
>
>
> On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok,
> >
> > Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
> > around
> > from the last time I polled.
> >
> > Now the question:  How to set it up?
> >
> > Here are the options:
> >
> >   1.  Use GTP handicap commands to set up game.
> >
> >   2.  Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup
> >   to accommodate programs that have not implemented handicap.
> >
> >   3.  Do both - send handicap to programs that can handle it, otherwise
> >   guide them through it by sending play commands with passes.
> >
> > In any case, I would make the game records (SGF) look correct, doing
> > whatever
> > that takes.
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 20:48 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > >
> > > > on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence
> > > > that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games.
> > > > In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well*
> > > > suited to handicap games compared to territory based algorithms. When
> > > > it finds itself behind, it goes for the swindle. Against an equal
> > > > opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a weaker foe, it's
> > > > wise.
> > >
> > > I have to add to this. My opinion about Valkyrias play as white with
> > > handicap on
> > > 9x9 is that it plays excellent handicap go (given its strength at even). 
In my
> > > view I do not have to change anything. But this is of course just my
> > > impression.
> > >
> > > It is true that MC-programs plays randomly in the end of the game but in 
the
> > > opening the handicap stones are just a burden and does not really make it 
play
> > > random.
> > >
> > > -Magnus
> > > ___
> > > 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/


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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I'm wondering if the kyu system is screwed up without the compensation.

I still have a hard time believing that the system scales very well
across
a 9 kyu range.   Would the extra compensation make the extreme handicaps
work better?

- Don



On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 13:36 -0700, Markus Enzenberger wrote:
> On Friday 22 December 2006 13:24, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> > How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at
> > all?
> >
> > Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> > what I'm talking about..
> 
> is there any logical explanation for this rule? I mean, White gives Black an 
> advantage in the form of handicap stones, why should Black give White a 
> compensation for a small part of this advantage in return?
> 
> Since CGOS already uses Tromp-Taylor, which are IMO the most logical and 
> cruft-free rules existing, I would vote for not using the compensation.
> 
> - Markus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I'm trying to figure this out.  If you get a 9 stone handicap,  you have
to give back those 9 stones?   So a 9 stone handicap is not quite as
much
as it seems although it's still pretty good.

- Don





On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 21:24 +0100, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
> because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
> komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
> setting it would break those who does not use that rule.
> 
> How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at all?
> 
> Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> what I'm talking about..
> 
> //Christian
> 
> 
> On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ok,
> >
> > Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
> > around
> > from the last time I polled.
> >
> > Now the question:  How to set it up?
> >
> > Here are the options:
> >
> >   1.  Use GTP handicap commands to set up game.
> >
> >   2.  Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup
> >   to accommodate programs that have not implemented handicap.
> >
> >   3.  Do both - send handicap to programs that can handle it, otherwise
> >   guide them through it by sending play commands with passes.
> >
> > In any case, I would make the game records (SGF) look correct, doing
> > whatever
> > that takes.
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 20:48 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> > > Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> > >
> > > > on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence
> > > > that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games.
> > > > In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well*
> > > > suited to handicap games compared to territory based algorithms. When
> > > > it finds itself behind, it goes for the swindle. Against an equal
> > > > opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a weaker foe, it's
> > > > wise.
> > >
> > > I have to add to this. My opinion about Valkyrias play as white with
> > > handicap on
> > > 9x9 is that it plays excellent handicap go (given its strength at even). 
> > > In my
> > > view I do not have to change anything. But this is of course just my
> > > impression.
> > >
> > > It is true that MC-programs plays randomly in the end of the game but in 
> > > the
> > > opening the handicap stones are just a burden and does not really make it 
> > > play
> > > random.
> > >
> > > -Magnus
> > > ___
> > > 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] Anchor Player

[Markus Enzenberger]

On Friday 22 December 2006 13:24, Christian Nilsson wrote:
> How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at
> all?
>
> Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
> what I'm talking about..

is there any logical explanation for this rule? I mean, White gives Black an 
advantage in the form of handicap stones, why should Black give White a 
compensation for a small part of this advantage in return?

Since CGOS already uses Tromp-Taylor, which are IMO the most logical and 
cruft-free rules existing, I would vote for not using the compensation.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Christian Nilsson]

There's also the small issue of the compensation given to white
because of the extra black stones on the board. Setting a modified
komi would break (MC-)programs with an internal rule for it. Not
setting it would break those who does not use that rule.

How is this compensation handled by the various programs on cgos, if at all?

Check http://www.britgo.org/rules/compare.html#comp if you don't know
what I'm talking about..

//Christian


On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Ok,

Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
around
from the last time I polled.

Now the question:  How to set it up?

Here are the options:

  1.  Use GTP handicap commands to set up game.

  2.  Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup
  to accommodate programs that have not implemented handicap.

  3.  Do both - send handicap to programs that can handle it, otherwise
  guide them through it by sending play commands with passes.

In any case, I would make the game records (SGF) look correct, doing
whatever
that takes.

- Don




On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 20:48 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
>
> > on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence
> > that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games.
> > In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well*
> > suited to handicap games compared to territory based algorithms. When
> > it finds itself behind, it goes for the swindle. Against an equal
> > opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a weaker foe, it's
> > wise.
>
> I have to add to this. My opinion about Valkyrias play as white with
> handicap on
> 9x9 is that it plays excellent handicap go (given its strength at even). In my
> view I do not have to change anything. But this is of course just my
> impression.
>
> It is true that MC-programs plays randomly in the end of the game but in the
> opening the handicap stones are just a burden and does not really make it play
> random.
>
> -Magnus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Ok,

Well I'm inclined to go with the majority which seems to have turned
around
from the last time I polled.

Now the question:  How to set it up?

Here are the options:

  1.  Use GTP handicap commands to set up game.

  2.  Send the appropriate pass commands to get the initial setup
  to accommodate programs that have not implemented handicap.

  3.  Do both - send handicap to programs that can handle it, otherwise
  guide them through it by sending play commands with passes.

In any case, I would make the game records (SGF) look correct, doing
whatever
that takes.

- Don




On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 20:48 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
> Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
> 
> > on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence 
> > that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games. 
> > In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well* 
> > suited to handicap games compared to territory based algorithms. When 
> > it finds itself behind, it goes for the swindle. Against an equal 
> > opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a weaker foe, it's 
> > wise.
> 
> I have to add to this. My opinion about Valkyrias play as white with 
> handicap on
> 9x9 is that it plays excellent handicap go (given its strength at even). In my
> view I do not have to change anything. But this is of course just my
> impression.
> 
> It is true that MC-programs plays randomly in the end of the game but in the
> opening the handicap stones are just a burden and does not really make it play
> random.
> 
> -Magnus
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Magnus Persson]

Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]:

on 9x9 boards. To make a long story short, I didn't see any evidence 
that this algorithm is fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games. 
In fact, I agree with Remi's view that it is particularly *well* 
suited to handicap games compared to territory based algorithms. When 
it finds itself behind, it goes for the swindle. Against an equal 
opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a weaker foe, it's 
wise.


I have to add to this. My opinion about Valkyrias play as white with 
handicap on

9x9 is that it plays excellent handicap go (given its strength at even). In my
view I do not have to change anything. But this is of course just my
impression.

It is true that MC-programs plays randomly in the end of the game but in the
opening the handicap stones are just a burden and does not really make it play
random.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[dhillismail]

  I would like to see handicap games on CGOS.
 
  AntIgo-4, playing on CGOS, uses MC/UCT and considers only win vs. loss, 
ignoring margin of victory. I used a faster, dumber version of it to play a 
number of handicap games against even weaker engines on 9x9 boards. To make a 
long story short, I didn't see any evidence that this algorithm is 
fundamentally disadvantaged in handicap games. In fact, I agree with Remi's 
view that it is particularly *well* suited to handicap games compared to 
territory based algorithms. When it finds itself behind, it goes for the 
swindle. Against an equal opponent, that's obnoxious and futile. Against a 
weaker foe, it's wise.
 
 To take the most extreme experiment, I played it against a random 
non-eyefilling opponent with 9 handicap stones in an 'X' on the 9x9 board. For 
the first couple of turns, Antigo predicted its odds of winning at between 0 
and 1% for any move. But it still preferred some moves over others and did not 
play randomly. And every turn brought a pleasant surprise. It won 46 out of 50 
games.
 
 Is the handicap problem more or less severe on 19x19 boards?
 
Dave Hillis
antminder on KGS
 

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam 
and email virus protection.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 17:25, Rémi Coulom a écrit :
> Here is the winning percentage I get with Crazy Stone at 
> various handicaps, with a komi of 0.5, over 1 random simulations:
> 
> 9 Stones: 0.74
> 8 Stones: 0.73
> 7 Stones: 0.69
> 6 Stones: 0.67
> 5 Stones: 0.63
> 4 Stones: 0.61
> 3 Stones: 0.57
> 2 Stones: 0.54
> 

4 stones is supposed equivalent to 40 points komi
8 stones = more than 100 points
9 stones = 120-150

Do you have the distribution of scores (with even beginning), to check
what CrazyStones think of this equivalence ?

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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I think as a test, I would go with the full handicap system,  I would
just refuse to match players that need more than 9 stones.   I can
always cut it back to 4 or 6 later.

Why don't we view it as an experiment to gather a lot of statistics.
I can change back to ELO later.

The only question, and will need peoples advice on this,  how to set
this
up?   Do you require 3 consecutive wins in a row to advance?

I'll throw this idea out:

  1.  If you win increase opponent kyu by 0.1, lower yours by 0.1

  2.  Pair more or less randomly.  Round the difference in ranks of
  your opponent to the nearest kyu and handicap accordingly.

  3.  We could also scale the rank win/loss a little by the fractional
  difference in rank.  For instance if you are exactly 1 kyu
different,
  you get the 1 stone handicap (black stones) but if you are only .6
  kyu stronger, and have to take the handicap,  you scale the rank
win/loss
  accordingly, in linear fashion.

Is this reasonable?
  

- Don




On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 12:17 -0500, House, Jason J. wrote:
>  
> >I personally think small handicaps in 19x19 might be reasonable
> because
> >I think playing good moves is still a dominant factor - at least at
> the
> >levels our programs can handle.   I would be reluctant to go beyond a 
> >few stones.  I don't know what a good number is, but I'll take a
> >somewhat
> >educated guess and say 4 stones, because it supposedly corresponds to
> >almost
> >400 ELO points - which I have come to think of as a conceptual 
> >"barrier" of superiority.   If you are 400 ELO superior your losses 
> >will be rare and in the linear version of the ELO formula 400 is
> >considered
> >certain victory (you can't win ELO points from beating someone 400
> >points
> >weaker or more.   The linear formula therefore cuts off at 350, so
> that
> >you
> >still get a little bit for beating a weak player.)
> 
> Just as an FYI, KGS refuses to do rated games with more than 6 stones.
> I feel like as I get better at playing go, handicap stones mean more.
> As a 4k, playing a 10k with 6 stones is rather daunting.  When I was a
> 10k playing a 16k with 6 stones, I didn't worry too much.
> 
> It may be reasonable to only rate games with up to 4 stones like you
> suggest, but maybe have higher handicap games occur occasionally just
> so people can see the conceptual superior barrier at work ;)

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Thanks for sending the statistics.   I'll try them out later on my
programs too.

There is only 1 way to resolve this - maybe we should test it out
on a 19x19 handicap server.   We can play a few weeks and then take
a look at the statistics later.   I predict that gnugo will perform
better on handicap games relative to non-handicap games and monte
carlo players.

I agree that monte carlo program will do very well when they are
given the advantage.   My fear is that the weak monte carlo program
will do better than they should against the stronger ones when give
the advantage of handicap games.

I will also predict that your 9 stone 0.74 score will very quickly
degrade to close to 1.0 after a few moves.9 stones is a dead
won game and the score is far from accurate at 0.74.   Can you try
playing a couple of reasonable moves against crazy stone at this
handicap and see what happens to the score?

- Don



On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 17:25 +0100, Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > Hi Steve,
> >
> > What you fail to take into considerations is that a monte/carlo
> > player may ruin it's chances before the weaker player has a 
> > chance to play a bad move.  The monte carlo player sees all
> > moves as losing and will play almost randomly.
> I don't agree.  Here is the winning percentage I get with Crazy Stone at 
> various handicaps, with a komi of 0.5, over 1 random simulations:
> 
> 9 Stones: 0.74
> 8 Stones: 0.73
> 7 Stones: 0.69
> 6 Stones: 0.67
> 5 Stones: 0.63
> 4 Stones: 0.61
> 3 Stones: 0.57
> 2 Stones: 0.54
> 
> My program still plays reasonable moves at these winning rates.
> 
> I tend to believe MC programs would handle handicap better than pure 
> territory-based programs, because they know how to play safe when they 
> are ahead, and risky when behind.
> 
> If my program is much stronger than its opponent, then it will not play 
> blunders that the opponent can easily take advantage of, whatever the 
> handicap.
> 
> This being said, I don't believe my program can give handicap to any 
> other on 19x19 ;-)
> 
> Rémi

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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[House, Jason J.]

 

>I personally think small handicaps in 19x19 might be reasonable
because
>I think playing good moves is still a dominant factor - at least at
the
>levels our programs can handle.   I would be reluctant to go beyond a 
>few stones.  I don't know what a good number is, but I'll take a
>somewhat
>educated guess and say 4 stones, because it supposedly corresponds to
>almost
>400 ELO points - which I have come to think of as a conceptual 
>"barrier" of superiority.   If you are 400 ELO superior your losses 
>will be rare and in the linear version of the ELO formula 400 is
>considered
>certain victory (you can't win ELO points from beating someone 400
>points
>weaker or more.   The linear formula therefore cuts off at 350, so
that
>you
>still get a little bit for beating a weak player.)

Just as an FYI, KGS refuses to do rated games with more than 6 stones.
I feel like as I get better at playing go, handicap stones mean more.
As a 4k, playing a 10k with 6 stones is rather daunting.  When I was a
10k playing a 16k with 6 stones, I didn't worry too much.

It may be reasonable to only rate games with up to 4 stones like you
suggest, but maybe have higher handicap games occur occasionally just
so people can see the conceptual superior barrier at work ;)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Rémi Coulom]

Don Dailey wrote:

Hi Steve,

What you fail to take into considerations is that a monte/carlo
player may ruin it's chances before the weaker player has a 
chance to play a bad move.  The monte carlo player sees all

moves as losing and will play almost randomly.
I don't agree.  Here is the winning percentage I get with Crazy Stone at 
various handicaps, with a komi of 0.5, over 1 random simulations:


9 Stones: 0.74
8 Stones: 0.73
7 Stones: 0.69
6 Stones: 0.67
5 Stones: 0.63
4 Stones: 0.61
3 Stones: 0.57
2 Stones: 0.54

My program still plays reasonable moves at these winning rates.

I tend to believe MC programs would handle handicap better than pure 
territory-based programs, because they know how to play safe when they 
are ahead, and risky when behind.


If my program is much stronger than its opponent, then it will not play 
blunders that the opponent can easily take advantage of, whatever the 
handicap.


This being said, I don't believe my program can give handicap to any 
other on 19x19 ;-)


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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[steve uurtamo]

what i'm saying is that monte carlo is not
evaluating the game-theoretical value of the
board.  what it is doing is looking for best
moves with respect to the function: "maximize
probability of win".  probability of win is
not zero at the start, even with 6h.  it is
lower than without handi, but not zero.  to
see this, imagine a zero komi game where you
play as white.  MC should still play decent
moves in this case.  

neither player plays anything close to game-theoretic
best moves in any games -- if they did, or even
had an evaluation function that was capable of
making such an evaluation, they could quite easily
beat any professional player.

i think that the main objection to this is really
that they don't have an opening library in a
handicap game.  in reality, opening libraries don't
make much sense in go, unless you can pick josekis
that work together from opposite sides of the board
to satisfy some larger goal, which would not happen
in general with an MC program that didn't know about
influence, etc.

s.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 16:03, Don Dailey a écrit :
> So it becomes far more important to play the opponent, not the board.
> All your hopes and dreams depend on your opponent, not the brilliancy
> of your moves (all of which lose.)

This is a problem of knowledge and estimation. In the beginning of 9 handi
game , the ration of stones is 1 white / 9 black, so position looks
bad for W. But knowledge says : play normal moves, wait and see.

Just play the board is a winning strategy if handicap is correct.
Play opponent = play trick moves, overplay, this is usually losing strategy.

> 
> So it makes a great deal of sense to understand your opponent and
> to play in such a way that your opponent is more likely to go wrong.
> I'm not aware of any computers that think in these terms.   However,
> humans do!
It seems that strong chess programs play like this, or are tuned like
this for a specific opponent.

> 
> I remember seeing a game annotated where a good player beat a program
> with some huge number of handicap stones.   The annotations made
> it very clear that the human player was far more concerned with
> his opponent than the board.
This is true for exceptional games, where the aim is to demonstrate
how stupid the go programs are :(
http://gailly.net/go.html in section "Computer Go" contains many links
to human/computer games with huge handi (up to 29 Martin Mueller/ManyFaces)

But no human rated near 6-9 k (like GNU Go, Aya, ManyFaces, HandTalk ...)
could lose a game against a 5dan with 29 handi !

> 
> I'm fairly confident that in low handicap games where there is not
> a great deal of strength difference between players,  this can be 
> ignored without too many side effects.   The same issues I 
> describe exist, but we may be able to safely ignore them.   I can't
> say that for sure since I am not a strong player.
> 
> - Don
>  

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 16:21, Don Dailey a écrit :
> Hi Steve,
> 
>
> In a high handicap game,  a monte carlo program is
> likely to play the first few move randomly.   Statistically
> they won't be able to see how C3 is any better than A19
> and so they will inadvertently give the weaker opponent the
> win.   Presumably the handicap gives both player equal chances,
> so  the stronger player, despite his superiority, cannot be
> doing this.
> 
> - Don
> 

This is an MC issue, that need to be fixed, like a decent endgame, where
taking safe points does not hurt.

As you know GNU Go does not suffers from this (because it tries to maximise
territory) but this give another weakness : manage to lose a won game due
to greedyness.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Hi Steve,

What you fail to take into considerations is that a monte/carlo
player may ruin it's chances before the weaker player has a 
chance to play a bad move.  The monte carlo player sees all
moves as losing and will play almost randomly.

In botnoids game against mogo,  once mogo achieved 
a "hopelessly won" position,  it conceded a lot of
territory.  Mogo only won by 1 or 2 stones because
winning big either conflicted with the goal of winning,
or at best didn't matter.

But the converse also applies.  Had Mogo been in a 
hopelessly LOST position,  it would not have cared
about saving face and a random move again would have
sufficed (in a lost position only losing moves exist,
so one is as good as another.)   

In a high handicap game,  a monte carlo program is
likely to play the first few move randomly.   Statistically
they won't be able to see how C3 is any better than A19
and so they will inadvertently give the weaker opponent the
win.   Presumably the handicap gives both player equal chances,
so  the stronger player, despite his superiority, cannot be
doing this.

- Don



On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 06:46 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > IMHO if I give handicap it is because the other
> > player is weaker, so I
> > don't *have* to play foolishly - he will make
> > mistakes that I can see
> > and exploit. If I still can't win, it means the
> > handicap should be
> > lowered...
> 
> and any go program would operate the same way.
> it would look hopeless at the first move (as it
> does to any white player who is giving a handicap),
> but as soon as a mistake was made, white would
> exploit it and his probability to win (or whatever
> measure he's using) would increase.  yes, it
> would look entirely desperate until those inefficient
> moves were played by his opponent, but it always
> does to humans as well.
> 
> in a 9-stone game, you can expect a move *that you,
> as white, can see is inefficient* in, say, the first
> 5 moves.  in a 2-stone game, perhaps the first 50.
> to a "probability of win" program, this would just
> look like a massive jump in white's probability to
> win.  which is good news for white.
> 
> depending upon when you see them and how bad these
> moves are, the handicap should be effectively
> negated before or just after the start of yose.
> 
> MC (for instance) shouldn't have any trouble with
> this.
> 
> s.
> 
> __
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le vendredi 22 décembre 2006 14:50, Don Dailey a écrit :
[...]
> It seems that playing the best move possible (best in the sense of 
> maximizing your territory gain) is not the best strategy when playing
> a handicap game.  You literally have to play foolishly in order to
> dupe your opponent into losing.

I strongly disagree with this. One player need handicap because his plays
are inferior (overconcentrated, paranoiac defense, unefficient moves...),
his understanding of global position and urgency is much weaker, his
reading skill is poorer, knowledge (tesuji, life...) smaller
and he makes more blunders than opponent (each additionnal
blunder can be seen as a need for one more handicap stone).

White does not need to overplay to win. Just keep calm, play normal
move and punish every mistake is very often enough for winning. I often
play handi games with white, and i am always surprised that i can win
without overplay (sometimes mistakes but not voluntary overplay).

Overplaying (or trying trick moves) is always dangerous and this is not
the good way for improving. This may have some teaching virtue, but it's
a kind of "stealing" the victory, so not a glorious one ;-)

Handicap stones gives global advantage, and help for simplifying position
and not being crushed in an difficult corner sequence.
(9 handi strategy for black is just "avoid local disaster")

And i m pretty sure that MC bots will correctly use the handicap stones,
either free placement or ala japanese (on star points)

> And the sentiment of the group  
> seems to be that they would rather focus on programs that play the
> best moves.   I agree, as playing GO is difficult enough for computers
> and playing this other "side game" in addition imposes too much of a 
> burden.   
> 
> Having said all of that,  if I felt the sentiment of most of the CGOS
> participants were in favor of handicapping,  I would do it but I don't
> get that feeling.
> 
> I personally think small handicaps in 19x19 might be reasonable because
> I think playing good moves is still a dominant factor - at least at the
> levels our programs can handle.   I would be reluctant to go beyond a 
> few stones.  I don't know what a good number is, but I'll take a
> somewhat educated guess and say 4 stones, because it supposedly 
> corresponds to almost 400 ELO points - which I have come to think of
> as a conceptual  "barrier" of superiority.
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/statev.html gives 20% victory for
even games against a 4-stones-stronger opponent (in the range 15k-5k)
so this seems closer to 250 ELO.
Maybe 5 handi could be considered too, as the additional center stone
is very helpfull (breaks many ladders and help escape ...) without
changing too much the game on the borders (6 and above is really
a different game)

According to pro, 4 stones handi (on star points) is equivalent to
40 points komi, but for computers it is probably different.

> 
> In fact, I am curious about this - and have a question for all the 
> monte carlo authors.   What kind of expectancy is reported when your
> program is handicapped by 4 stones in 19x19 games?
> 
> - Don
> 

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

> This is the strategy that one uses even in even games, right? One
> plays what one thinks is best given the position, and if the
> opponent's reply is less than optimal one tries to punish it (with
> various degrees of success, but that's another issue :-))

It's the strategy in even games, but not in handicap games.

Let me put it like this.  For simplification, in an even position
we assume that if you play the objectively best move you will win
the game (not entirely true but for all practical purposes we can
assume this is true.)In other words,  the quality of your 
opponents moves do not need to concern you.   You have a simple
strategy, just play the best move irregardless of what your opponent
does.

As the handicap grows, you become far more dependent on how your
opponent plays.   In fact, playing the very best move is a losing
proposition from a game theoretic point of view,  because there is
no best move - they all lose! In fact, this is the crux of the
matter.  You say "play the best move" but in a losing position 
that is meaningless.This isn't just theoretical, it's practical,
ALL moves are losing moves.   

So it becomes far more important to play the opponent, not the board.
All your hopes and dreams depend on your opponent, not the brilliancy
of your moves (all of which lose.)

So it makes a great deal of sense to understand your opponent and
to play in such a way that your opponent is more likely to go wrong.
I'm not aware of any computers that think in these terms.   However,
humans do!   

I remember seeing a game annotated where a good player beat a program
with some huge number of handicap stones.   The annotations made
it very clear that the human player was far more concerned with
his opponent than the board. 

I'm fairly confident that in low handicap games where there is not
a great deal of strength difference between players,  this can be 
ignored without too many side effects.   The same issues I 
describe exist, but we may be able to safely ignore them.   I can't
say that for sure since I am not a strong player.

- Don
 



On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 15:33 +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> Hi Don,
> 
> On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It's easy to adapt monte carlo programs to have the goal of trying to
> > win as much space or territory as possible but many of us have studied
> > this as see that it seriously weakens monte carlo programs.
> 
> My (jokingly serious) point was that if you succeed solving the
> "normal" game of Go, fixing it for this additional constraing should
> be trivial (i.e. possibly only some 6 to 8 orders of magnitude
> simpler)
> 
> > But this is not the real problem.  It seems that the handicap system
> > is not reasonable in general for computers. [...] It seems that playing the
> > best move possible (best in the sense of maximizing your territory gain) is
> > not the best strategy when playing a handicap game.  You literally have to
> > play foolishly in order to dupe your opponent into losing.
> 
> I would beg to partially disagree. The above is true if giving
> handicap to a player of equal strength, or at least stronger than the
> handicap would be fair for.
> 
> IMHO if I give handicap it is because the other player is weaker, so I
> don't *have* to play foolishly - he will make mistakes that I can see
> and exploit. If I still can't win, it means the handicap should be
> lowered...
> 
> This is the strategy that one uses even in even games, right? One
> plays what one thinks is best given the position, and if the
> opponent's reply is less than optimal one tries to punish it (with
> various degrees of success, but that's another issue :-))





> Best regards,
> Vlad

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[steve uurtamo]

> IMHO if I give handicap it is because the other
> player is weaker, so I
> don't *have* to play foolishly - he will make
> mistakes that I can see
> and exploit. If I still can't win, it means the
> handicap should be
> lowered...

and any go program would operate the same way.
it would look hopeless at the first move (as it
does to any white player who is giving a handicap),
but as soon as a mistake was made, white would
exploit it and his probability to win (or whatever
measure he's using) would increase.  yes, it
would look entirely desperate until those inefficient
moves were played by his opponent, but it always
does to humans as well.

in a 9-stone game, you can expect a move *that you,
as white, can see is inefficient* in, say, the first
5 moves.  in a 2-stone game, perhaps the first 50.
to a "probability of win" program, this would just
look like a massive jump in white's probability to
win.  which is good news for white.

depending upon when you see them and how bad these
moves are, the handicap should be effectively
negated before or just after the start of yose.

MC (for instance) shouldn't have any trouble with
this.

s.

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

Hi Don,

On 12/22/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

It's easy to adapt monte carlo programs to have the goal of trying to
win as much space or territory as possible but many of us have studied
this as see that it seriously weakens monte carlo programs.


My (jokingly serious) point was that if you succeed solving the
"normal" game of Go, fixing it for this additional constraing should
be trivial (i.e. possibly only some 6 to 8 orders of magnitude
simpler)


But this is not the real problem.  It seems that the handicap system
is not reasonable in general for computers. [...] It seems that playing the
best move possible (best in the sense of maximizing your territory gain) is
not the best strategy when playing a handicap game.  You literally have to
play foolishly in order to dupe your opponent into losing.


I would beg to partially disagree. The above is true if giving
handicap to a player of equal strength, or at least stronger than the
handicap would be fair for.

IMHO if I give handicap it is because the other player is weaker, so I
don't *have* to play foolishly - he will make mistakes that I can see
and exploit. If I still can't win, it means the handicap should be
lowered...

This is the strategy that one uses even in even games, right? One
plays what one thinks is best given the position, and if the
opponent's reply is less than optimal one tries to punish it (with
various degrees of success, but that's another issue :-))

Best regards,
Vlad
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Vlad and Stuart,

I'm not completely closed on this issue - but there is lot going
against it 

It's easy to adapt monte carlo programs to have the goal of trying to
win as much space or territory as possible but many of us have studied
this as see that it seriously weakens monte carlo programs.

But this is not the real problem.  It seems that the handicap system 
is not reasonable in general for computers.

As has been stated a few times on this group - the player with the 
handicap starts from a losing position and must play a different 
kind of game in order to win.   

It seems that playing the best move possible (best in the sense of 
maximizing your territory gain) is not the best strategy when playing
a handicap game.  You literally have to play foolishly in order to
dupe your opponent into losing.And the sentiment of the group 
seems to be that they would rather focus on programs that play the
best moves.   I agree, as playing GO is difficult enough for computers
and playing this other "side game" in addition imposes too much of a 
burden. 

Having said all of that,  if I felt the sentiment of most of the CGOS
participants were in favor of handicapping,  I would do it but I don't
get that feeling.

I personally think small handicaps in 19x19 might be reasonable because
I think playing good moves is still a dominant factor - at least at the
levels our programs can handle.   I would be reluctant to go beyond a 
few stones.  I don't know what a good number is, but I'll take a
somewhat
educated guess and say 4 stones, because it supposedly corresponds to
almost
400 ELO points - which I have come to think of as a conceptual 
"barrier" of superiority.   If you are 400 ELO superior your losses 
will be rare and in the linear version of the ELO formula 400 is
considered
certain victory (you can't win ELO points from beating someone 400
points
weaker or more.   The linear formula therefore cuts off at 350, so that
you
still get a little bit for beating a weak player.)

In fact, I am curious about this - and have a question for all the 
monte carlo authors.   What kind of expectancy is reported when your
program is handicapped by 4 stones in 19x19 games?

- Don

 

On Fri, 2006-12-22 at 09:59 +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 12/22/06, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 12/21/06, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Handicap play is a *different* problem.
> > The rules of go include rules for handicapping.
> > It seems to me that this implies that a complete solution for the game of go
> > must include the ability to play such games.
> 
> Yes, of course. But is it that difficult? The goal would 'just' have
> to change from "winning" to "getting the best possible result". Now if
> one has already solved the game for the former goal, it should be
> trivial to adapt it for the latter, right?
> 
> As a matter of fact, after solving the game for any goal, almost any
> computer science related matter would become rather trivial, I think
> :-) I.e. if the NP complete problems are solved, only easy ones
> remain!
> 
> best regards,
> Vlad
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Vlad Dumitrescu]

Hi,

On 12/22/06, Stuart A. Yeates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

On 12/21/06, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Handicap play is a *different* problem.
The rules of go include rules for handicapping.
It seems to me that this implies that a complete solution for the game of go
must include the ability to play such games.


Yes, of course. But is it that difficult? The goal would 'just' have
to change from "winning" to "getting the best possible result". Now if
one has already solved the game for the former goal, it should be
trivial to adapt it for the latter, right?

As a matter of fact, after solving the game for any goal, almost any
computer science related matter would become rather trivial, I think
:-) I.e. if the NP complete problems are solved, only easy ones
remain!

best regards,
Vlad
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Stuart A. Yeates]

On 12/21/06, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Handicap play is a *different* problem.



The rules of go include rules for handicapping.

It seems to me that this implies that a complete solution for the game of go
must include the ability to play such games.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Jacques Basaldúa]

Hideki Kato wrote:

Increasing KOMI is much easier than placing stones, right?


Stuart A. Yeates wrote:
Increasing komi is much easier than placing stores, but a 
much weaker representation of how go games are actually 
played in the real world.


A very huge komi >30 points, apparently solves the database
lookup problem, but that's not really true. The josekis that
are useful for equal play are way too slow if you are 30 
points below.


Playing handicap or unbalanced komi correctly requires taking 
risks. You *have* to underestimate your opponent. If you 
don't, if he is as strong as you are, you won't catch up

30 points unless he blunders.

Handicap play is a *different* problem. Surely fascinating 
and some authors may love to deal with it, but some others 
may think that creating a balanced engine (one which expects 
its opponent to play with its own strength) is hard enough.


Pairing programs with a difference of more than 3 or 4 kyu
should be done very infrequently. In this range, winning
probabilities should not exceed 80% or so. I think the 
most interesting comparison is between similar kyu programs.
Knowing that A beats B 3 times of 4 is precise enough. 


Jacques.

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Again, this stuff doesn't work so well with Monte Carlo programs which
would
be totally frustrated starting from a losing position - they are all
about
finding moves that might win the game - not increase the territory
count.

Also, komi is like a fine tuning knob,  stone handicap can be used to
make
up huge differences in strength.

It seems that any kind of handicap is less practical for computers.


- Don




On Thu, 2006-12-21 at 05:19 +0900, Hideki Kato wrote:
> Stuart A. Yeates‚³‚ñ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Increasing komi is much easier than placing stores, but a much weaker
> >representation of how go games are actually played in the real world.
> 
> Agree. But we'd better not to be bothered by fixed stones now, I 
> believe.
> 
> >cheers
> >stuart
> >
> >On 12/15/06, Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> Increasing KOMI is much easier than placing stones, right?
> >>
> >> Jacques Basaldúa‚³‚ñ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >I would like to take part in the 19x19 competition.
> >> >I also prefer kyu rating to Elo, but I got the impression that
> >> >you were relating kyu rating with handicap games (that is
> >> >usually done by human players).
> >> >
> >> >I think handicap is a bad idea for computers. Handicap
> >> >requires human intelligence to understand how the playing
> >> >style must be changed. It completely ruins fuseki databases
> >> >and may also make josekis that are good under equal play
> >> >too slow. Of course, if you pretend to ruin fuseki database
> >> >programs, its a good idea. But I think dan/pro level fuseki
> >> >is not only legitimate, but probably the best possible fuseki
> >> >and it can be played in ultrablitz which preserves computing
> >> >time for later moves. The only drawback is 10 Mb of
> >> >disk space. Any silly welcome video is heavier than that.
> >> >
> >> >I suggest, if handicap is implemented, it should be optional.
> >> >
> >> >Jacques.
> >> >___
> >> >computer-go mailing list
> >> >computer-go@computer-go.org
> >> >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >> --
> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
> >> ___
> >> computer-go mailing list
> >> computer-go@computer-go.org
> >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >>
> > inline file
> >___
> >computer-go mailing list
> >computer-go@computer-go.org
> >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Hideki Kato]

Stuart A. Yeates‚³‚ñ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Increasing komi is much easier than placing stores, but a much weaker
>representation of how go games are actually played in the real world.

Agree. But we'd better not to be bothered by fixed stones now, I
believe.

>cheers
>stuart
>
>On 12/15/06, Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Increasing KOMI is much easier than placing stones, right?
>>
>> Jacques Basaldúa‚³‚ñ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >I would like to take part in the 19x19 competition.
>> >I also prefer kyu rating to Elo, but I got the impression that
>> >you were relating kyu rating with handicap games (that is
>> >usually done by human players).
>> >
>> >I think handicap is a bad idea for computers. Handicap
>> >requires human intelligence to understand how the playing
>> >style must be changed. It completely ruins fuseki databases
>> >and may also make josekis that are good under equal play
>> >too slow. Of course, if you pretend to ruin fuseki database
>> >programs, its a good idea. But I think dan/pro level fuseki
>> >is not only legitimate, but probably the best possible fuseki
>> >and it can be played in ultrablitz which preserves computing
>> >time for later moves. The only drawback is 10 Mb of
>> >disk space. Any silly welcome video is heavier than that.
>> >
>> >I suggest, if handicap is implemented, it should be optional.
>> >
>> >Jacques.
>> >___
>> >computer-go mailing list
>> >computer-go@computer-go.org
>> >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
>> ___
>> computer-go mailing list
>> computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>>
> inline file
>___
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@computer-go.org
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Stuart A. Yeates]

Increasing komi is much easier than placing stores, but a much weaker
representation of how go games are actually played in the real world.

cheers
stuart

On 12/15/06, Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Increasing KOMI is much easier than placing stones, right?

Jacques Basaldúa‚³‚ñ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I would like to take part in the 19x19 competition.
>I also prefer kyu rating to Elo, but I got the impression that
>you were relating kyu rating with handicap games (that is
>usually done by human players).
>
>I think handicap is a bad idea for computers. Handicap
>requires human intelligence to understand how the playing
>style must be changed. It completely ruins fuseki databases
>and may also make josekis that are good under equal play
>too slow. Of course, if you pretend to ruin fuseki database
>programs, its a good idea. But I think dan/pro level fuseki
>is not only legitimate, but probably the best possible fuseki
>and it can be played in ultrablitz which preserves computing
>time for later moves. The only drawback is 10 Mb of
>disk space. Any silly welcome video is heavier than that.
>
>I suggest, if handicap is implemented, it should be optional.
>
>Jacques.
>___
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@computer-go.org
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
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] Anchor Player

[Hideki Kato]

Increasing KOMI is much easier than placing stones, right?

Jacques Basaldúa‚³‚ñ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I would like to take part in the 19x19 competition.
>I also prefer kyu rating to Elo, but I got the impression that
>you were relating kyu rating with handicap games (that is
>usually done by human players).
>
>I think handicap is a bad idea for computers. Handicap
>requires human intelligence to understand how the playing
>style must be changed. It completely ruins fuseki databases
>and may also make josekis that are good under equal play
>too slow. Of course, if you pretend to ruin fuseki database
>programs, its a good idea. But I think dan/pro level fuseki
>is not only legitimate, but probably the best possible fuseki
>and it can be played in ultrablitz which preserves computing
>time for later moves. The only drawback is 10 Mb of
>disk space. Any silly welcome video is heavier than that.
>
>I suggest, if handicap is implemented, it should be optional.
>
>Jacques.
>___
>computer-go mailing list
>computer-go@computer-go.org
>http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[steve uurtamo]

> Handicap seems to be an integral part of the game of
> GO,  however I
> won't be implementing it right away.Perhaps at a
> later time I will
> add it.
> 
> When and if the time comes I will solicit
> suggestions, as this server is
> primarily for the use of developers.

for future consideration:

chinese handicap might be useful for programs --
as each handicap stone is played, the board is simply
going to look better and better.  sure, you won't
be able to consult an opening library, but it
might be interesting to see where your code thinks
that the first 4 (for instance) stones on an empty
board should go.  there are lots of good options,
so the play might not be as bad as it sounds.

joseki in the hands of anyone, including a computer
player, is hard to do correctly.

s.


 

Any questions? Get answers on any topic at www.Answers.yahoo.com.  Try it now.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

There are two basically different handicap systems, right?   One of them
allows free placement of the handicap stones and the other is fixed.   

I would probably do the fixed version for consistency.   To accommodate
programs that haven't implemented handicps I could just send play
commands along with the appropriate passes to start the game.


- Don



On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 14:22 -0500, House, Jason J. wrote:
> I'd really like to see a way to work out the issue of handicap stones
> so that they can enter into computer go competitions.  In the past,
> there's been strong complaints about stronger bots playing against
> weaker bots.  Would giving handicap make such match ups at least seem
> more interesting?
> 
> I think that if we can find a way to make the winning probability for
> any given game close to 50%, all both authors will get more useful
> information.  If 19x19 shows a clear leader like MogoBot on 9x9, I'd
> bet the authors would take pride saying they were 4 stones ahead of the
> competition.  As a weak bot author, I'd take pride in being able to
> beat Gnu Go with 6 stones given to my bot.  
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Handicap seems to be an integral part of the game of GO,  however I
won't be implementing it right away.Perhaps at a later time I will
add it.

When and if the time comes I will solicit suggestions, as this server is
primarily for the use of developers.


- Don





On Thu, 2006-12-14 at 19:05 +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> I would like to take part in the 19x19 competition.
> I also prefer kyu rating to Elo, but I got the impression that
> you were relating kyu rating with handicap games (that is
> usually done by human players).
> 
> I think handicap is a bad idea for computers. Handicap
> requires human intelligence to understand how the playing
> style must be changed. It completely ruins fuseki databases
> and may also make josekis that are good under equal play
> too slow. Of course, if you pretend to ruin fuseki database
> programs, its a good idea. But I think dan/pro level fuseki
> is not only legitimate, but probably the best possible fuseki
> and it can be played in ultrablitz which preserves computing
> time for later moves. The only drawback is 10 Mb of
> disk space. Any silly welcome video is heavier than that.
> 
> I suggest, if handicap is implemented, it should be optional.
> 
> Jacques.
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[House, Jason J.]

I'd really like to see a way to work out the issue of handicap stones
so that they can enter into computer go competitions.  In the past,
there's been strong complaints about stronger bots playing against
weaker bots.  Would giving handicap make such match ups at least seem
more interesting?

I think that if we can find a way to make the winning probability for
any given game close to 50%, all both authors will get more useful
information.  If 19x19 shows a clear leader like MogoBot on 9x9, I'd
bet the authors would take pride saying they were 4 stones ahead of the
competition.  As a weak bot author, I'd take pride in being able to
beat Gnu Go with 6 stones given to my bot.  
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Jacques Basaldúa]

I would like to take part in the 19x19 competition.
I also prefer kyu rating to Elo, but I got the impression that
you were relating kyu rating with handicap games (that is
usually done by human players).

I think handicap is a bad idea for computers. Handicap
requires human intelligence to understand how the playing
style must be changed. It completely ruins fuseki databases
and may also make josekis that are good under equal play
too slow. Of course, if you pretend to ruin fuseki database
programs, its a good idea. But I think dan/pro level fuseki
is not only legitimate, but probably the best possible fuseki
and it can be played in ultrablitz which preserves computing
time for later moves. The only drawback is 10 Mb of
disk space. Any silly welcome video is heavier than that.

I suggest, if handicap is implemented, it should be optional.

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

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I think probably I just go with ELO,  much simpler.   I think later we
will want to have handicaps.Even at 9x9 Mogo is all by itself
although I expect other programs to eventually catch up or get close
later.

For the Anchor, I think I will take David suggestion and start with
AnchorMan.   There is nothing that prevents us from experimenting with
this later and finding a better Anchor.

Now the question is:  What initial rating to give AnchorMan?   It's
rather arbitrary anyway,  so I probably stay with 1500.0

An interesting thing we could do is set up each player to have 2
identities,  one of them is just the player with a 1 stone handicap.
They would be identical in every way except that they would receive
separate ratings.   They would never be paired against each other and of
course a 1 handicap player would never be paired against another 1
handicap player since this is impossible.

Just a thought.

- Don



On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 11:32 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> Le mercredi 13 décembre 2006 05:53, Don Dailey a écrit :
> 
> > Does a 1 kyu difference mean I can give you 1 stone if I am better and
> > expect to come out about even?
> yes, 1 handi is 0.5 komi.
> > 
> > Does this all work out in a transitive way?  If a 6 kyu can give a 7
> > kyu 1 stone, and the 7 kyu can give an 8 kyu 1 stone, can the 6 kyu
> > expect to play even with the 8 kyu player giving 2 stones?
> yes, and it works surprisingly well.
> 
> > Would this simple system work:
> > 
> >1. Start all players out at the same kyu rating.
> > 
> >2. Pair randomly.
> > 
> >3. If you win your match, modify kyu rating slightly down.
> > 
> >4. If you lose your match, slighly change kyu upward.
> 
> Kgs works like this (with more subttle algorithm).
> > 
> >
> > All this is applied on top of handicaps of course.
> > 
> > But unless 2 players  are an integer kyu apart, a handicap would be
> > slighly
> > unfair to one side or the other.  Is it sufficient to modify the
> > ratings in linear proportion to the amount of "unfairness?"
> 
> Less than 1k difference is nothing for weak players. It is only
> meaningful for strong players (several dans or pro)
> The link below is stats on even games from European Go Federation
>  http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/statev.html
> 
> As GNU Go is rated 6k on kgs , this should give more than 30%
> for a 9k to beat gnugo in even games.
> 
> The traditional way for adjusting handicap needs 3 win in a row (this
> is rather difficult)
> The fun way is changing handicap after each game (for human
> the psychlogical part is very important, one can manage to lose
> with many handi due to emotive factor or desire of revenge ...)
> 
> Maybe for computer the handicap could be remembered between 2 oppononents,
> and the global rank estimated from this ?
> 
> GNU Go does not eat memory, even at level 10 it is small and rather fast.
> At level 0 it is very poor in reading (rated 2k below level10 gnugo on kgs)
> but level 8 should be rather good.
> On cgos 9X9 i checked the first 100 000 games of GNU Go 3.7.4 and found
> less than 10 nearly nearly identical games (against viking) and less than 5
> were rigorously identical. So i bet on 19X19 this will not happen at all.
> 
> my 2 cents.
> alain

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

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

I run wine on my own computer,  but it's not on the server computer and
I believe it to be a resource hog.I want to keep it lean and simple
on Dave Dyers server.

- Don


On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 16:46 +0800, Cai Qiang wrote:
> Hi,
> Many win32 binary(such as Fritz) can run in linux with help of Wine(a 
> free implementation of Windows on Unix) without noticeable performance loss.
> 
> Best regards!
> 
> - Original Message - 
> From: "Don Dailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "computer-go" 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:47 AM
> Subject: [computer-go] Anchor Player
> 
> 
> > If I set up a 19x19 server,  we will need an Anchor player.  Here is
> > what I need from an Anchor player:
> > 
> > 
> >  3.  Linux binary - because it runs on the server itself.
> > 

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

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player

[alain Baeckeroot]

Le mercredi 13 décembre 2006 05:53, Don Dailey a écrit :

> Does a 1 kyu difference mean I can give you 1 stone if I am better and
> expect to come out about even?
yes, 1 handi is 0.5 komi.
> 
> Does this all work out in a transitive way?  If a 6 kyu can give a 7
> kyu 1 stone, and the 7 kyu can give an 8 kyu 1 stone, can the 6 kyu
> expect to play even with the 8 kyu player giving 2 stones?
yes, and it works surprisingly well.

> Would this simple system work:
> 
>1. Start all players out at the same kyu rating.
> 
>2. Pair randomly.
> 
>3. If you win your match, modify kyu rating slightly down.
> 
>4. If you lose your match, slighly change kyu upward.

Kgs works like this (with more subttle algorithm).
> 
>
> All this is applied on top of handicaps of course.
> 
> But unless 2 players  are an integer kyu apart, a handicap would be
> slighly
> unfair to one side or the other.  Is it sufficient to modify the
> ratings in linear proportion to the amount of "unfairness?"

Less than 1k difference is nothing for weak players. It is only
meaningful for strong players (several dans or pro)
The link below is stats on even games from European Go Federation
 http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/statev.html

As GNU Go is rated 6k on kgs , this should give more than 30%
for a 9k to beat gnugo in even games.

The traditional way for adjusting handicap needs 3 win in a row (this
is rather difficult)
The fun way is changing handicap after each game (for human
the psychlogical part is very important, one can manage to lose
with many handi due to emotive factor or desire of revenge ...)

Maybe for computer the handicap could be remembered between 2 oppononents,
and the global rank estimated from this ?

GNU Go does not eat memory, even at level 10 it is small and rather fast.
At level 0 it is very poor in reading (rated 2k below level10 gnugo on kgs)
but level 8 should be rather good.
On cgos 9X9 i checked the first 100 000 games of GNU Go 3.7.4 and found
less than 10 nearly nearly identical games (against viking) and less than 5
were rigorously identical. So i bet on 19X19 this will not happen at all.

my 2 cents.
alain
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Cai Qiang]

Hi,
Many win32 binary(such as Fritz) can run in linux with help of Wine(a free 
implementation of Windows on Unix) without noticeable performance loss.

Best regards!

- Original Message - 
From: "Don Dailey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "computer-go" 
Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 2:47 AM
Subject: [computer-go] Anchor Player


> If I set up a 19x19 server,  we will need an Anchor player.  Here is
> what I need from an Anchor player:
> 
> 
>  3.  Linux binary - because it runs on the server itself.
> 
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[sylvain . gelly]

> I suggest you use anchorman.  It will be weaker on 19x19, but so will the
> other programs.
It depends on the programs. Gnugo or Aya scale very well on 19x19. Then 
anchorMan would be far too weak for Aya and gnugo, and certainly other 
programs. But we can try some experiments, and perhaps change the anchor?

Sylvain

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

RE: [computer-go] Anchor Player

[David Fotland]

I suggest you use anchorman.  It will be weaker on 19x19, but so will the
other programs.

It lets you get set up quickly.

David

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 10:48 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: [computer-go] Anchor Player
> 
> 
> If I set up a 19x19 server,  we will need an Anchor player.  
> Here is what I need from an Anchor player:
> 
>   1.  Non-deterministic - should not play same game every time.
> 
>   2.  Consistent - plays at the same strength at a level that is not
>   based on the power of the hardware.  For instance AnchorMan is
>   set to a fixed level that does not depend on time.  Lazarus,
>   however, players weaker when other jobs are running on the
>   computer - something we don't want in an anchor.
> 
>   3.  Linux binary - because it runs on the server itself.
> 
>   4.  Low resource usage - I run AnchorMan on the server at a high
>   nice level and it takes less than 1 second per move even if it
>   isn't niced.
> 
>   If the Anchor runs on the server, it must be a good citizen.
> 
>   5.  Should play as strong as possible given the above constraints.
>   If possible it should be in the upper 50-60 percentile - but it
>   should not be significantly below median strength.
> 
> 
> It does not absolutely have to run on the server but it must 
> be heavily available - pretty much 24 hours a day.  It should 
> be a non-changing entity - not something being constantly 
> upgraded - although we could from time to time explicitly 
> upgrade the Anchor player.
> 
> It's better if the Anchor player is a known quantity on 9x9, 
> then we could actually assign it the same rating and attempt 
> to extrapolate, but we can do that anyway - not a big deal.
> 
> The very best candidate may actually be "AnchorMan", a 
> program that may fit all the above criteria.  It's an old 
> fashioned Monte/Carlo program that plays about as well is at 
> can and uses little memory given about 1 second per move - at 
> least on 9x9.  So it doesn't use much resources.
> 
> At 19x19 AnchorMan would be weaker.  At this boardsize, 
> AnchorMan would benefit greatly from increased time control 
> but then I'm starting to get away from constraint 4 - low 
> resource usage - unless it was run remotely.
> 
> GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a 
> well known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the 
> criteria above such as being too deterministic and using 
> heavy resources.
> 
> If someone wants to host an Anchor player remotely or has a 
> resource friendly candidate that meets the above criteria, 
> let me know.
> 
> - Don
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Anchor Player

[sylvain . gelly]

Le Mercredi 13 Décembre 2006 05:56, Don Dailey a écrit :
> On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 04:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well
> > > known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above
> > > such as being too deterministic and using heavy resources.
>
> But GnuGo uses a lot of memory, or perhaps that can be controlled but
> does that slow it down a lot?

On my computer, gnugo at level 0 takes 13 Mbytes of memory and plays around 2 
moves a second. I think it is ok no?

> I'm pretty sure gnugo is deterministic, need to check this out - maybe
> it would be ok to use gnugo if it isn't.
>
> Another way is to modify it to play more randomly during first few moves
> but I'm sure this weakens it and it wouldn't really represent gnugo.

At least at the beginning gnugo is not deterministic whereas there are not so 
many variations. I think however it is "random enough" for an anchor.

Of course gnugo for an anchor has also drawbacks, for example as the "true" 
version of gnugo would also play on the server.

Sylvain

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

RE: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player

[David Fotland]

1 kyu difference means 1 handicap stone for an even game.  3 kyu 
difference is 3 handicap stones for an even game.  It is not transitive or
linear.  1 handicap stone means no komi, so the 1 stone difference is half
as
big as the step between 2 stones and 3 stones.  Larger handicap give larger
advantages.  9 stones handicap is fair for something like 12 ranks apart.
Games with large handicaps require different strategy, playing tricky moves
rather than
sound moves, so programs that play well evenly won't play so well at large
handicaps.

There is more ELO difference for one handicap stone among stronger players
(since there
is less variance in their play).

I think it would be best to continue to use ELO, since it is really hard to
calibrate the
kyu scale without playing handicap games.  In human play it is traditional
to change the handicap
after 3 consecutive wins against the same player, one one person's rank is
measured against 
the pool of people at the same rank.  

David

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Tuesday, December 12, 2006 8:54 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player
> 
> 
> Hi Sylvain,
> 
> I'm not worried about the ELO situation but you are right.  
> When skill is measured by ELO you are talking about the 
> probability of winning a game against any given opponent, we 
> just have to be careful how we interpret or compare to other 
> board sizes.
> 
> If 2 opponents are 50 ELO rating points apart in 9x9, they 
> will be much farther apart in the 19x19 game assuming their 
> absolute strength (whatever that means) stays the same at 
> other board sizes.
> 
> The idea of changing the server to accommodate the kyu system 
> intrigues me.  I might need a little help understanding this 
> however since I don't fully understand the kyu system.
> 
> Does a 1 kyu difference mean I can give you 1 stone if I am 
> better and expect to come out about even?
> 
> Does this all work out in a transitive way?  If a 6 kyu can 
> give a 7 kyu 1 stone, and the 7 kyu can give an 8 kyu 1 
> stone, can the 6 kyu expect to play even with the 8 kyu 
> player giving 2 stones?
> 
> Of course internally I would use fractions of a kyu or even 
> ELO and convert.  I would probably need some help determining 
> the right formula.
> 
> At any rate, I am not willing yet to change CGOS to 
> accommodate this, I would have to add code to get the rating 
> system working correctly as well as code for setting up 
> handicap games.  If the 19x19 CGOS becomes popular I would 
> eventually change it over - especially since it would allow 
> pairing with handicaps to make all matches roughly equal.
> 
> Would this simple system work:
> 
>1. Start all players out at the same kyu rating.
> 
>2. Pair randomly.
> 
>3. If you win your match, modify kyu rating slightly down.
> 
>4. If you lose your match, slighly change kyu upward.
> 
>
> All this is applied on top of handicaps of course.
> 
> But unless 2 players  are an integer kyu apart, a handicap 
> would be slighly unfair to one side or the other.  Is it 
> sufficient to modify the ratings in linear proportion to the 
> amount of "unfairness?"
>  
> 
> - Don
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 04:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of 
> being a well 
> > > known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the 
> criteria above 
> > > such as being too deterministic and using heavy resources.
> > 
> > Hello,
> > 
> > GnuGo at level 0 met almost all requirement I think. Perhaps too
> > deterministic, but I even not sure. It is already 
> relatively strong and plays 
> > very quickly.
> > 
> > By the way, I have concern about the 19x19 no one 
> mentionned I think. 
> > In 19x19
> > the probability of winning between two players will be very 
> often close to 0 
> > or 1. As the game is longer, if a player is better then his 
> probability of 
> > winning is very big because he can repair his mistakes. 
> Then the ELO could 
> > not be sufficent. Am I wrong? Perhaps you can use kyu 
> rating, setting 
> > handicaps (and one advantage is that then the pairing 
> system is simpler).
> > 
> > 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: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 04:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well
> > known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above
> > such as being too deterministic and using heavy resources.

But GnuGo uses a lot of memory, or perhaps that can be controlled but
does that slow it down a lot?

I'm pretty sure gnugo is deterministic, need to check this out - maybe
it would be ok to use gnugo if it isn't.

Another way is to modify it to play more randomly during first few moves
but I'm sure this weakens it and it wouldn't really represent gnugo.

- Don


> Hello,
> 
> GnuGo at level 0 met almost all requirement I think. Perhaps too 
> deterministic, but I even not sure. It is already relatively strong and plays 
> very quickly.
> 
> By the way, I have concern about the 19x19 no one mentionned I think. In 
> 19x19 
> the probability of winning between two players will be very often close to 0 
> or 1. As the game is longer, if a player is better then his probability of 
> winning is very big because he can repair his mistakes. Then the ELO could 
> not be sufficent. Am I wrong? Perhaps you can use kyu rating, setting 
> handicaps (and one advantage is that then the pairing system is simpler).
> 
> Sylvain
> 

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

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

Hi Sylvain,

I'm not worried about the ELO situation but you are right.  When skill
is measured by ELO you are talking about the probability of winning a
game against any given opponent, we just have to be careful how we
interpret or compare to other board sizes.

If 2 opponents are 50 ELO rating points apart in 9x9, they will be much
farther apart in the 19x19 game assuming their absolute strength
(whatever that means) stays the same at other board sizes.

The idea of changing the server to accommodate the kyu system
intrigues me.  I might need a little help understanding this however
since I don't fully understand the kyu system.

Does a 1 kyu difference mean I can give you 1 stone if I am better and
expect to come out about even?

Does this all work out in a transitive way?  If a 6 kyu can give a 7
kyu 1 stone, and the 7 kyu can give an 8 kyu 1 stone, can the 6 kyu
expect to play even with the 8 kyu player giving 2 stones?

Of course internally I would use fractions of a kyu or even ELO and
convert.  I would probably need some help determining the right
formula.

At any rate, I am not willing yet to change CGOS to accommodate this,
I would have to add code to get the rating system working correctly as
well as code for setting up handicap games.  If the 19x19 CGOS becomes
popular I would eventually change it over - especially since it would
allow pairing with handicaps to make all matches roughly equal.

Would this simple system work:

   1. Start all players out at the same kyu rating.

   2. Pair randomly.

   3. If you win your match, modify kyu rating slightly down.

   4. If you lose your match, slighly change kyu upward.

   
All this is applied on top of handicaps of course.

But unless 2 players  are an integer kyu apart, a handicap would be
slighly
unfair to one side or the other.  Is it sufficient to modify the
ratings in linear proportion to the amount of "unfairness?"
 

- Don




On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 04:48 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well
> > known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above
> > such as being too deterministic and using heavy resources.
> 
> Hello,
> 
> GnuGo at level 0 met almost all requirement I think. Perhaps too 
> deterministic, but I even not sure. It is already relatively strong and plays 
> very quickly.
> 
> By the way, I have concern about the 19x19 no one mentionned I think. In 
> 19x19 
> the probability of winning between two players will be very often close to 0 
> or 1. As the game is longer, if a player is better then his probability of 
> winning is very big because he can repair his mistakes. Then the ELO could 
> not be sufficent. Am I wrong? Perhaps you can use kyu rating, setting 
> handicaps (and one advantage is that then the pairing system is simpler).
> 
> Sylvain
> 

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

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Anchor Player

[sylvain . gelly]

> GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well
> known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above
> such as being too deterministic and using heavy resources.

Hello,

GnuGo at level 0 met almost all requirement I think. Perhaps too 
deterministic, but I even not sure. It is already relatively strong and plays 
very quickly.

By the way, I have concern about the 19x19 no one mentionned I think. In 19x19 
the probability of winning between two players will be very often close to 0 
or 1. As the game is longer, if a player is better then his probability of 
winning is very big because he can repair his mistakes. Then the ELO could 
not be sufficent. Am I wrong? Perhaps you can use kyu rating, setting 
handicaps (and one advantage is that then the pairing system is simpler).

Sylvain

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

[computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

If I set up a 19x19 server,  we will need an Anchor player.  Here is
what I need from an Anchor player:

  1.  Non-deterministic - should not play same game every time.

  2.  Consistent - plays at the same strength at a level that is not
  based on the power of the hardware.  For instance AnchorMan is
  set to a fixed level that does not depend on time.  Lazarus,
  however, players weaker when other jobs are running on the
  computer - something we don't want in an anchor.

  3.  Linux binary - because it runs on the server itself.

  4.  Low resource usage - I run AnchorMan on the server at a high
  nice level and it takes less than 1 second per move even if it
  isn't niced.

  If the Anchor runs on the server, it must be a good citizen.

  5.  Should play as strong as possible given the above constraints.
  If possible it should be in the upper 50-60 percentile - but it
  should not be significantly below median strength.


It does not absolutely have to run on the server but it must be
heavily available - pretty much 24 hours a day.  It should be a
non-changing entity - not something being constantly upgraded -
although we could from time to time explicitly upgrade the Anchor
player.

It's better if the Anchor player is a known quantity on 9x9, then we
could actually assign it the same rating and attempt to extrapolate,
but we can do that anyway - not a big deal.

The very best candidate may actually be "AnchorMan", a program that
may fit all the above criteria.  It's an old fashioned Monte/Carlo
program that plays about as well is at can and uses little memory
given about 1 second per move - at least on 9x9.  So it doesn't use
much resources.

At 19x19 AnchorMan would be weaker.  At this boardsize, AnchorMan
would benefit greatly from increased time control but then I'm
starting to get away from constraint 4 - low resource usage - unless
it was run remotely.

GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well
known quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above
such as being too deterministic and using heavy resources.

If someone wants to host an Anchor player remotely or has a resource
friendly candidate that meets the above criteria, let me know.

- Don


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

[computer-go] Anchor Player

[Don Dailey]

If I set up a 19x19 server,  we will need an Anchor player.  Here is
what I need from an Anchor player:

  1.  Non-deterministic - should not play same game every time.

  2.  Consistent - plays at the same strength at a level that is not
based on
  the power of the hardware.  For instance AnchorMan is set to a
fixed level
  that does not depend on time.   Lazarus, however, players weaker
when other
  jobs are running on the computer - something we don't want in an
anchor.

  3.  Linux binary - because it runs on the server itself.

  4.  Low resource usage - I run AnchorMan on the server at a high nice
level
  and it takes less than 1 second per move even if it isn't niced.  

  If the Anchor runs on the server, it must be a good citizen.

  5.  Should play as strong as possible given the above constraints.
If 
  possible it should be in the upper 50-60 percentile - but it
should not
  be significantly below median strength.  


It does not absolutely have to run on the server but it must be heavily
available - pretty much 24 hours a day.   It should be a non-changing
entity - not something being constantly upgraded - although we could
from time to time explicitly upgrade the Anchor player.

It's better if the Anchor player is a known quantity on 9x9, then we
could actually assign it the same rating and attempt to extrapolate, but
we can do that anyway - not a big deal.  

The very best candidate may actually be "AnchorMan", a program that may
fit all the above criteria.   It's an old fashioned Monte/Carlo program
that plays about as well is at can and uses little memory given about 1
second per move - at least on 9x9.   So it doesn't use much
resources.

At 19x19 AnchorMan would be weaker.   At this boardsize, AnchorMan would
benefit greatly from increased time control but then I'm starting to get
away from constraint 4 - low resource usage - unless it was run
remotely.

GnuGo is another possibility and has the advantage of being a well known
quantity, but Gnugo fails to meet some of the criteria above such as
being too deterministic and using heavy resources.  

If someone wants to host an Anchor player remotely or has a resource
friendly candidate that meets the above criteria, let me know.   

- Don






  

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