Chris may be right with his implication that I talk too much these
days, but just to keep things honest, the quote below is not exactly
what I said. I said that others were wondering how much time it will
be before the programs are beating the pros. My thought was that
programs have
Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim
did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour
game. He said after the match that using more time would not have
helped him.
This is an interesting property of Monte Carlo Go. At the risk of
Yes, MoGo gained much more from the longer time setting than Mr. Kim
did. Note that Mr. Kim used very little of his time in the one-hour
game. He said after the match that using more time would not have helped
him.
I imagine that is typical as white in a handicap game; you play solid,
good
I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the
high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it
may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to
test this hypothesis. I know that we duffers can always ruin a
First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team.
As some have remarked already, the difference in level between the
fast games and the slow games was considerable. I didn't think the
level of the fast games was anything to boast about. And my opinion
is more informed than many other
I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a couple
after. I was very surprised by the result as many were.
There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For example,
when Kim said that the computer plays at maybe 2 or 3 dan... does he mean
professional or
Dear all,
The machine that was used by MoGo yesterday is the Dutch supercomputer
Huygens, situated in Amsterdam. Huygens was provided by SARA (www.sara.nl)
and NCF(http://www.nwo.nl/nwohome.nsf/pages/ACPP_4X6R5C_Eng). Huygens was
upgraded on August 1 to 60 Teraflops (Peak), so porting MoGo
Wow! I've been radio silent for a long time now working on other things
some years now, but watching the successes of the new approaches. What
incredible validation them...
Fantastic!
Jeffrey Greenberg
www.jeffrey-greenberg.com
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Yeah.. the misclick question is another fuzzy point. There was a lot of
debate in the actual game about what was happening... but there is the
difficulty of having weak players and strong players commenting. The only
person who really knew what was happening and the direction of play is Mr.
Kim.
The supercomputer nodes did not have shared memory. Mogo uses shared memory
within a node, but between nodes it uses MPI message passing. The
supercomputer has low latency connections between nodes, and the Mogo team
has said that the strength scales better on systems with this kind of
Thanks for posting the game Eric.
When I look back at it it's obvious to me S1 was much better. After
the likely sequence of R1, T3, T2, T4, S7, Q1, R7 Black still has a
serious weakness at N4.
I also still question W's play in the upper-right. I doubt W S15 was
a good move and think S19
not something he would necessarily do in a professional tournament.
perhaps true. money is a great motivating force, even small amounts
of money (as don has pointed out in the past).
s.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah.. the misclick question is
okay, thanks, david.
s.
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:08 AM, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The supercomputer nodes did not have shared memory. Mogo uses shared memory
within a node, but between nodes it uses MPI message passing. The
supercomputer has low latency connections between
Fantastic, as a long time list lurker I shall delurk for a minute to add my
congratulations to the Mogo team.
Ashley Rolleston.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Oh yeah... I downloaded the final game from KGS and the sgf file seems to be
missing the small review that Mr. Kim gave at the end. He did not write
comments... he seemed to be doing it for those that were in the room. It
might be of interest to those that are interested in what he was thinking...
On Aug 8, 2008, at 7:13 AM, Robert Waite wrote:
I was in the KGS room for a couple of hours before the match and a
couple after. I was very surprised by the result as many were.
There still is a lack of clear information about the event. For
example, when Kim said that the computer plays
On 8, Aug 2008, at 7:29 AM, Eric Boesch wrote:
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 8:04 AM, Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
First of all, congratulations to the MoGo team.
Ditto!
Absolutely an amazing achievement!
Where I do differ in opinion from most is the remarks from the pro.
He
played
On Aug 8, 2008, at 7:57 AM, Robert Waite wrote:
Yeah.. the misclick question is another fuzzy point. There was a lot
of debate in the actual game about what was happening... but there
is the difficulty of having weak players and strong players
commenting. The only person who really knew
I will put up GNU Go when I get home.
Cheers,
David
On 8, Aug 2008, at 8:20 AM, David Fotland wrote:
All three anchors have been off-line since yesterday.
David
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Kim applauded once when Mogo made a good move in a blitz game.
I believe that the comment about not using more time, which was in
response to my question, applied only to high handicap games.
Cheers,
David
On 8, Aug 2008, at 9:15 AM, Peter Drake wrote:
One person who seemed to be in
Yes... I do hope that more interest is sparked by this match. I had heard
that one of the big guys from Deep Blue now works for MS Research in Asia.
He had written a paper that I am sure most here have already read.. a title
similar to Cracking Go. I am sure he would be delighted by these results.
I think events like this are great. They generate interest and
excitement and are great fun.
But they have very little scientific value. They are wide open for
speculation, non-objective analysis, etc. Often strong players fail to
take matches like this seriously because they are
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 09:44 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
One point not discussed much in this thread is the consistency issue.
I think that if Kim were able to play a dozen games against mogo with
this same handicap he would win the last 6 ... people manage to adapt
and the computers do
On 8-aug-08, at 14:16, Don Dailey wrote:
Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to
heavily
handicap them. What's with that?
Actually, that's not so silly. I think a case can be made that super
strong players tend to have a more consistent level than weaker
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 14:35 -0300, Mark Boon wrote:
On 8-aug-08, at 14:16, Don Dailey wrote:
Also, it seems silly to me to find super strong players only to
heavily
handicap them. What's with that?
Actually, that's not so silly. I think a case can be made that super
strong
(This is about the computer-computer tournament, not the Kim-MoGo
match.)
Results of the Computer Go tournament at the 2008 US Go Congress in
Portland, OR, USA can temporarily be found at:
http://svcs.cs.pdx.edu/cgo2008
I would like to thank: Hierarchical Systems Research Foundation for
don,
thanks for your thoughtful comments.
9 handicap is still a real game, in the sense that
the handicapping isn't arbitrary -- it definitely
measures some skill difference. i think that even
a match of 3 games would give quite a bit more
information, although i thought that Mr. Kim had
said
Well.. I disagree that too much significance is being made of it.
It is quite clearly a record. Handicap stones are a fundamental part of go.
It is uninteresting for human players to play an even game where one player
is incredibly stronger. There might be some recreational value.. but
I might come off as being strongly opinionated on the topic.. but I have
been of the opinion for a while that maybe playing go is a problem that
can't be solved by computers. I kinda want p != np and for us to be confined
by mathematics (sorry).The general taunt from my side is that A computer
can
well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed
boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose
algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to work
for all boardsizes in some measurable, scalable way.
s.
On 8/8/08, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED]
well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed
boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose
algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to work
for all boardsizes in some measurable, scalable way.
I don't necessarily think that go is
go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete.
s.
On 8/8/08, Robert Waite [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
well, in opposition to the p neq np problem, this is a fixed
boardsize. it's an engineering, optimization, and special-purpose
algorithm issue at this point. no need for any solution to
go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete.
s.
I thought it was even worse than that ;)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 11:07 PM, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i don't think that it's known to be exptime-complete.
http://www.ics.uci.edu/~eppstein/cgt/hard.html
E.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
go is worse than np-complete, it's pspace-complete.
Well.. it would really depend on what you mean by solve go. If you mean to
solve it like they have with 5x5 for all possible moves... I don't know if
it is clear that 19x19 has the same properties. Ole Wikipedia, which very
well may be
On Fri, 2008-08-08 at 17:19 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
If you mean that beating all human opponents would be solving go...
then I think it is certain that we will.
I would think the distance between perfect play and top human play is
quite far off.Beating the best human players is a good
2008/8/9 Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
This HAS (or is) happening in checkers. The best programs have only
tiny room for improvement. Play 100 games to get a score of 2 wins, 1
loss 97 draws (or something like that.) A major improvement is being
able to win 1 more game in 100. It's so
Yes, I know about Chinook and Jonathan Schaeffer is a friend of mine.
The PC programs also come with endgame databases, I think 6 piece is
real common and you can get up to 8 piece databases for your PC or
perhaps even more.
There is still a little life left in the top PC programs. Once in a
Besides... solving a
pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't that correct?
nope.
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
* Besides... solving a
** pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't
that correct?
*
nope.
I flipped memory and time there. If pspace-complete is not in p, then it
will be a big problem trying to solve it without infinite time. That doesn't
seem like an ideal situation for
* Besides... solving a
** pspace-complete problem would require infinite memory... isn't
that correct?
*
nope.
I flipped memory and time there. If pspace-complete is not in p, then it
will be a big problem trying to solve it without infinite time. That doesn't
seem like an ideal
I flipped memory and time there. If pspace-complete is not in p, then it
will be a big problem trying to solve it without infinite time. That doesn't
seem like an ideal situation for solving it.
You only need an infinite amount of time for undecidable problems.
np-complete, pspace, exptime,
At worst we will just have to wait until robots take over the world in 20
years.
I would hope there wouldn't be a war... I'll join the robots. No need
for a body.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
44 matches
Mail list logo
