Re: [computer-go] Go + code + environment
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 7:33 PM, David Fotland fotl...@smart-games.com wrote: GPL is not infectious through looking at source code, but I didn't want any appearance of wrongdoing. And I was put off a little by Stallman's rhetoric. David I have mostly stayed away from GPL projects for the same reasons. Instead I preferred discussing things on the list here, occasionally asking how others do things instead of looking at source-code that is under license. Looking is not infectious. But taking code and re-write it is, even if there's little to no resemblance with the original. It's a very slippery slope what is the difference between the two and very hard to prove. I don't know Stallman myself, but I have heard from several people who had beef with him. It's not something I'd want to get into. There are probably good cases where GPL is appropriate, but most of the time it has always seemed a bit childish to me. Mark ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go + code + environment
Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading, but isn't Mogo a clusterized and highly tuned version of gnugo? Things like that made me want to make this post. As I find the Go programming community more open to sharing ideas and code than my chess world counter part. Will gladly stand corrected w/ Mogo if i'm wrong. Though curious to hear everyones input. As already pointed out by other people, MoGo is absolutely not a development based on Gnugo's code. Perhaps it should, as Gnugo is probably more clean :-) Some related points: - MoGo's early developments were based on CrazyStone. Without looking at the code of CrazyStone, but with many help from Rémi Coulom. The main initial difference, I guess, was the patterns introduced by Yizao Wang, and then the RAVE values by Sylvain and David. - Some inclusion of other software inside MoGo was tested, but none of these inclusions was kept, neither used in official games - these inclusions were never beneficial. The only exception is the use of code from Mango (done by me and the author of Mango together), but Mango was never participating the same competition as MoGo. - Even if nobody has included code from Gnugo, I guess that all of us have used Gnugo intensively for testing and tuning. From this point of view, the authors of Gnugo are indirectly the authors of MoGo, and probably also CrazyStone, ManyFaces, Zen, etc. I guess the binaries of MoGo have been used a lot also, even if only early versions are freely available. I guess binaries are much more used that codes and therefore MoGo has been used as much as Gnugo even if the source code is only given on request and not as open source. - Also, we used the Tsumego provided by Yamato and others on this mailing list, as well as e.g. the comments by David Fotland around nakade. The scaling study by Don and others was also helpful. The Rave values were influenced by early papers on Amaf values. I've forgotten many helpful hints from many people - the fact that it's so long to list all contributors probably means that computer-go is friendly and collaborative :-) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go + code + environment
Joshua Shriver wrote: Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading, but isn't Mogo a clusterized and highly tuned version of gnugo? Things like that made me want to make this post. As I find the Go programming community more open to sharing ideas and code than my chess world counter part. You are mistaken. You may have mixed things up with SlugGo, which at least at some time could be loosely described as a clusterized GNU Go, although I don't believe highly tuned fits. I don't know what the current status of SlugGo is. MoGo is based on entirely other ideas than classical GNU Go and it's rather MoGo that has inspired the newer parts of the GNU Go algorithms than the other way round. /Gunnar ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go + code + environment
On May 23, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Joshua Shriver wrote: I know with the Chess community, it's looked down upon to use others code w/ respect to competing in tournaments. I'm curious, how is it with Go? Even more so. A decade ago, a couple of North Korean programs were alleged to have been plagiarized from the successful Chinese program Handtalk. The stigma was so strong that a decade later one of the programs, KCC Igo, was refused entry to the 2008 Computer Olympiad. From my understanding, many projects are inter-linked, and even some of the highest programs are derivatives of other engines. In the chess world that would be considered a clone and instantly banned and looked down upon. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading, but isn't Mogo a clusterized and highly tuned version of gnugo? Things like that made me want to make this post. As I find the Go programming community more open to sharing ideas and code than my chess world counter part. You are thinking of the cluster research program SlugGo. That developer and the GNU Go team have the friendly agreement not to both compete in the same tournament at the same time. GNU Go only participated in the 2008 US computer Go championship when SlugGo could not get its new cluster working in time to participate. MoGo itself was inspired by French compatriot Crazy Stone. Both of these programs are academic research projects which publish their research (though they don't share code as far as I know). The field of Computer Go owes them and the Indigo team a great debt for publishing their Monte Carlo tree search results. Early Go programmers Bruce Wilcox, David Fotland, and Mark Boon were also very generous to explain the internals of their programs in great detail. Will gladly stand corrected w/ Mogo if i'm wrong. Though curious to hear everyones input. -Josh ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go + code + environment
MoGo was inspired by Crazy Stone? I've never heard that before. Ian Osgood wrote: On May 23, 2009, at 3:17 AM, Joshua Shriver wrote: I know with the Chess community, it's looked down upon to use others code w/ respect to competing in tournaments. I'm curious, how is it with Go? Even more so. A decade ago, a couple of North Korean programs were alleged to have been plagiarized from the successful Chinese program Handtalk. The stigma was so strong that a decade later one of the programs, KCC Igo, was refused entry to the 2008 Computer Olympiad. From my understanding, many projects are inter-linked, and even some of the highest programs are derivatives of other engines. In the chess world that would be considered a clone and instantly banned and looked down upon. Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading, but isn't Mogo a clusterized and highly tuned version of gnugo? Things like that made me want to make this post. As I find the Go programming community more open to sharing ideas and code than my chess world counter part. You are thinking of the cluster research program SlugGo. That developer and the GNU Go team have the friendly agreement not to both compete in the same tournament at the same time. GNU Go only participated in the 2008 US computer Go championship when SlugGo could not get its new cluster working in time to participate. MoGo itself was inspired by French compatriot Crazy Stone. Both of these programs are academic research projects which publish their research (though they don't share code as far as I know). The field of Computer Go owes them and the Indigo team a great debt for publishing their Monte Carlo tree search results. Early Go programmers Bruce Wilcox, David Fotland, and Mark Boon were also very generous to explain the internals of their programs in great detail. Will gladly stand corrected w/ Mogo if i'm wrong. Though curious to hear everyones input. -Josh ___ 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] Go + code + environment
On May 23, 2009, at 8:21 AM, Michael Williams wrote: MoGo was inspired by Crazy Stone? I've never heard that before. From Sensei's Library: Warm thanks to Rémi Coulom who participated in Yizao's internship. MoGo's early development benefited a lot from his sharing the experience of programming CrazyStone. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Go + code + environment
On 23, May 2009, at 4:03 AM, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: Joshua Shriver wrote: Perhaps I'm mistaken in my reading, but isn't Mogo a clusterized and highly tuned version of gnugo? You are mistaken. You may have mixed things up with SlugGo, which at least at some time could be loosely described as a clusterized GNU Go, although I don't believe highly tuned fits. I don't know what the current status of SlugGo is. /Gunnar Gunnar is correct. SlugGo is not highly tuned, but rather has additional heuristics for combining the multiple lines of play that are spread over the cluster. The point of SlugGo is not to clusterize GNU Go, but to see what can be done with multiple brains working on the same problem. We just started with GNU Go because it is open source. SlugGo moves in fits and starts ... Grad students come and go, and I have been dealing with heart problems lately, so progress has been slow, when there has been progress at all. Because my background is physics I have been bothered by MC methods. My thesis was on MC methods to investigate phase transitions, so I am fine with MC methods, but in physics we have theory that gives us the correct probability distributions. I am impressed with the MCTS methods that do so well without a prior distribution, but we spent the last 2 years trying different methods of extracting distributions from Go games. We had no success. We are trying to figure out an appropriate way to publish our negative results. On 23, May 2009, at 8:15 AM, Ian Osgood wrote: You are thinking of the cluster research program SlugGo. That developer and the GNU Go team have the friendly agreement not to both compete in the same tournament at the same time. GNU Go only participated in the 2008 US computer Go championship when SlugGo could not get its new cluster working in time to participate. Yes, I ask the GNU Go folks if they will compete, and if they do, SlugGo does not. I entered and operated GNU Go in Portland for the reason stated by Ian. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
