Hi there.
I do agree with your point Robert Waite.
I have yet seen no such paper as one that would prove that there is such thing
as scalability based on any mathematical proofs.
So all your points at criticizing the mathematical certainty of the
scalability, is probably 100% right. There is
How long will it be until a computer system reach pro level play ?
(answering Bob Hearn
question)
Maybe that rather than taking the raw speed of hardware as a reference, we
could use the raw number of simulation (per second) as a base of speculation.
Assuming it's a fixed game time with the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gian-Carlo Pascutto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Hi all,
there doesn't seem to be any news from the European Go Congress.
Nevertheless, I see that partial results were posted:
19 x 19
Results
1stCrazy Stone 6/6
2ndLeela 5/6
Hello all
the European Go Congress was a little short of organizers, it seems,
as Sweden is a small country, so some of us who had planned to work
on the web site were shifted to work with registration, info-desk and
other vital tasks. This has led to some delays in reporting the
Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot
This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a
friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the
leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen as a
warm-up before MoGo's game.
I will be back with the review as an
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot
This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a
friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the
leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen
From: Bob Hearn [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Now, my question. Sorry if this has already been beaten to death here. After
the match, one of the MoGo programmers mentioned that doubling the computation
led to a 63% win rate against the baseline version, and that so far this
scaling seemed to continue as
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
When I look at the game record, I see that at the end, the pro has 7:59
left, Leela 4:25. And Black is totally lost: White will capture the d4
group which only has two liberties, connecting her three groups which
already have at least four liberties each, and
-
The review of Xiao Ai Lin vs Leela: http://www.weidemyr.com/egc/cg/
XiaoAiLin_Leela-review.sgf
-
Several people at the congress expressed worries to me about what
would happen to the sport Go, if computer programs became stronger
and threatened to defeat the
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
When I look at the game record, I see that at the end, the pro has 7:59
left, Leela 4:25. And Black is totally lost: White will capture the d4
group which only has two liberties,
Nick Wedd wrote:
Looking at LeelaBot's games on KGS since the tournament, I see only
two: the one I posted, against sestir, and one against egc1p with 0.5
komi, which I cannot open, as it was not finished by the players and
KGS is treating it as escaped.
Nick
The link I sent yesterday
On 11-aug-08, at 08:56, Basti Weidemyr wrote:
However, maybe we do not need to use these kinds of challenges as a
means of getting media attention.
We would like to find a way to cooperate with the traditional go-
community with little friction. What do you think?
We come in peace! ;-)
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:40 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Xiao Ai Lin, 1p vs LeelaBot
This game did happen. It was not meant as a challenge, but as a
friendly game to get an idea of what can be done to develop the
leading programs on 9x9. It was relayed to the cinema-screen as a
On 10-aug-08, at 17:24, Don Dailey wrote:
Of course there is also the possibility of some exciting new hardware
breakthrough around the corner that doesn't just extend Moore's
law, but
blows it out of the water.
Of course there's that possibility. But I'm actually wondering if we
We would like to find a way to cooperate with the traditional go-
community with little friction. What do you think?
We should cooperate with the Go community as it concerns rules and
whether computers are allowed to compete. We should never pressure
players to play against computers.
It's
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 10:19 -0300, Mark Boon wrote:
On 10-aug-08, at 17:24, Don Dailey wrote:
Of course there is also the possibility of some exciting new
hardware
breakthrough around the corner that doesn't just extend Moore's law,
but
blows it out of the water.
Of
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:26 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
this is another game!
The game you posted and the one on KGS are totally different. In the one
on KGS, black played with reduced komi and (as far as I can tell)
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
This was foolish of me because I had resumed the game, and was allowing
LeelaBot's time to pass. I have carelessly destroyed the evidence of
LeelaBot's remaining time. There is now only my word (and perhaps the
operator's) for my claim that LeelaBot had more
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
This was foolish of me because I had resumed the game, and was allowing
LeelaBot's time to pass. I have carelessly destroyed the evidence of
LeelaBot's remaining time. There is now only my word (and perhaps the
operator's) for
Leela had 1 minute, 15 seconds and 919/1000 of a second left,
according to the game-record.
egc1p had 3.82 seconds left. What happened is still unclear and I do
not know.
It seems the professional had never played go on a computer before,
at least not on KGS, so yes, we should
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:14 PM, Basti Weidemyr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
Inspect the log file.
Erik
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:54 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
As long as we're not there, these matches are a great promotion for
the
game of go. Just watch how much publicity the MoGo match got. And
there's
still lots of possibilities for the humans to take revenge, and for
the
computers
Basti Weidemyr wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive.
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Hi all,
I'd like to say first Congratulations! to MoGo team.
I have a question. Why do you all call the game as human vs.
computer? It's obviously a match between Kim 8p and MoGo, a program
developped by MoGo team, running on a supercomputer.
As both MoGo and the supercomputer were developped
On 10-aug-08, at 17:24, Don Dailey wrote:
Of course there is also the possibility of some exciting new hardware
breakthrough around the corner that doesn't just extend Moore's law, but
blows it out of the water. From: Mark Boon [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course there's that possibility. But I'm
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it
was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have
put up more of a fight :-)
If Basti is correct that
On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that the
opponent has resigned (which is a bit annoying because it then
Yes, but exhausitve search does not improve your player by 63% (eg.)
for a doubling in CPU time.
This part was done in an empirical scalability study. Please check the
archives of the list.
In the (inifinite) limit minimax+evaluation-function would find the
perfect move
too, but UCT/MC
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Jason House
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 11, 2008, at 12:02 PM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some time ago I observed that kgsgtp does not tell my program that
Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not
understand it was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it
would have put up more of a fight :-)
How are folks constructing their 3x3 pattern databases? How are they
being used?
If they are being used for playout biases, then I don't think
examining games is the right way to gather data. 90% of the moves
considered in a game of Go are unplayed; the tactical analysis that
is required
Erik van der Werf wrote:
For the final position in the game record any strong human player will
tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be
gained and the result is obvious.
Actually there's one point left to gain in the seki, since the game is
played with Chinese rules.
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Basti Weidemyr wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive.
Yes, and I really hate this. You have a situation where the actual
winner has to resign the
On Aug 11, 2008, at 2:06 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Basti Weidemyr wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive.
Yes, and I really hate this.
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:02 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it
was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing,
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 12:23 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
Yes, but exhausitve search does not improve your player by 63% (eg.)
for a doubling in CPU time.
This part was done in an empirical scalability study. Please check the
archives of the list.
In the (inifinite) limit
I agree with you Jason. I advocate the more modern Fisher clock, where
some fixed amount of time is added to each move and remains yours to
keep. Even 1 or 2 seconds per move is enough since you can build up
time.
- Don
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 14:18 -0400, Jason House wrote:
On Aug 11, 2008,
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don Dailey
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 18:02 +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
She was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand it
was dead lost.
On 11-aug-08, at 15:23, Don Dailey wrote:
But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter
the
domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized.
I don't agree with such an unforgiving attitude at all. It works for
tournaments but not for demonstration games. You
You don't need to know the whole tree, you only need to know some of the
tree and it's a very small fraction of the whole. That's what
alpha/beta pruning is all about.
Certainly we are seeing gains by looking at smaller portions of the tree.
Perfect play and the question of God however seem
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Basti Weidemyr wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive.
Yes, and I really hate this. You have a situation where the actual
winner has
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 15:21 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
You don't need to know the whole tree, you only need to know some of the
tree and it's a very small fraction of the whole. That's what
alpha/beta pruning is all about.
Certainly we are seeing gains by looking at smaller portions
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gian-Carlo Pascutto
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Don Dailey wrote:
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:26 +0200, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Basti Weidemyr wrote:
What would you have done in a case like this? :)
You could not declare that game a win for the computer and survive.
Yes,
I guess we're all different. Last week, I actually did win a 9-stone handicap
game in a simul match against a pro, but I'm not about to claim that this gives
me bragging rights or anything, lol. My guess is that a) I did have a
formidable handicap; b) he was distracted by playing half a dozen
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 16:16 -0300, Mark Boon wrote:
On 11-aug-08, at 15:23, Don Dailey wrote:
But is it really? Now instead of clearly defined rules, you enter
the
domain of judgment calls and these should be minimized.
I don't agree with such an unforgiving attitude at all.
I think the result
computer in hopelessly lost position resigns.
is much more satisfactory than
computer in hopelessly lost position wins by playing 100
additional pointless moves
I think a human who used this tactic in a tournament situation
might win the trophy, but would be unable to
I think the result
computer in hopelessly lost position resigns.
is much more satisfactory than
computer in hopelessly lost position wins by playing 100
additional pointless moves
I think a human who used this tactic in a tournament situation
might win the trophy, but would be unable to
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 11, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be angry if I worked hard to control my time usage, only for
my
opponent to be forgiven at my expense, despite the rules.
Hmmm... This sounds very familiar...
erm.
you guys seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing,
without a clear or precise definition of what you're even
arguing about.
there is a mathematical proof that go, for any fixed sized
board, can be completely solved.
there is a mathematical proof that given a fixed komi and
fixed number
But let's not exaggerate. This was not just a simple matter of filling
empty points.
It was obviously unclear enough to some of us that it required some
analysis. Even the strong Leela did not see this as merely filling in
the empty points.
At the very least the game should not be stopped
The main page now has links to a bayes rated chart for each board
size.
This will be updated periodically, a period to be determined later but
at least a couple of times per day.
http://cgos.boardspace.net/
I am going to only show recently playing bots, but for not I'm showing
ALL bots.
You clearly don't understand the principles of alpha/beta pruning. It
is an admissible technique which means it guarantee's the same result
as searching the entire tree, but only requires a very tiny subset of
the entire tree.
Okay... congratulations... you are right... if you are able to
You clearly don't understand the principles of alpha/beta pruning. It
is an admissible technique which means it guarantee's the same result
as searching the entire tree, but only requires a very tiny subset of
the entire tree.
Okay... congratulations... you are right... if you are able to
Steve,
You mentioned three proofs relating to go... could you post the links to the
papers?
it makes no sense to ask if there is a mathematical proof
of anything related to humans.
I didn't ask for a mathematical proof saying if a computer can beat a human.
I asked in a roundabout way if this
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
But let's not exaggerate. This was not just a simple matter of filling
empty points.
It was.
It was obviously unclear enough to some of us that it required some
analysis. Even the strong Leela did not see this as merely filling in
the empty points.
Robert Waite wrote:
whether or not computers can beat humans at go on a
19x19 board in a reasonable amount of time is unrelated
to mathematics.
Why? Let's say you can prove that the game is solvable so that black
wins. Let's say that you can prove that it is solvable in linear time.
You
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 17:29 -0400, Robert Waite wrote:
Okay... congratulations... you are right... if you are able to
generate a completely pruned tree using alpha/beta pruning... you
don't have to generate the whole game tree. But exactly how are you
going to do this? In chess... you can look
terry mcintyre wrote:
I guess we're all different. Last week, I actually did win a 9-stone
handicap game in a simul match against a pro, but I'm not about to
claim that this gives me bragging rights or anything, lol.
[explanation of how this game made you a better player deleted]
I see.
If
Jason House wrote:
On Aug 11, 2008, at 4:00 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would be angry if I worked hard to control my time usage, only for my
opponent to be forgiven at my expense, despite the rules.
Hmmm... This sounds very familiar...
Yes. Notice how there is a clear
We are in agreement on the general nature of things, but seeing it in
person was just so amazing. I did see comments about the quality of
the pro, but it may have been in the game chat rather than here. I
slept very little over the 10 days in Portland, so things are all
mixed up in my
* whether or not computers can beat humans at go on a
* 19x19 board in a reasonable amount of time is unrelated
* to mathematics.*
Because solving the game is not a prerequesite for beating the humans.
There are very obvious examples(chess)
I never questioned that. The way I read Steve's
On 11, Aug 2008, at 4:56 AM, Basti Weidemyr wrote:
-
The review of Xiao Ai Lin vs Leela:
http://www.weidemyr.com/egc/cg/XiaoAiLin_Leela-review.sgf
-
Several people at the congress expressed worries to me about what
would happen to the sport Go, if computer programs
It is of no consequence what words WE use to describe this. Journalists
will ALWAYS print it that way. If you use too many big words or ideas
that are accurate but convoluted, you will either not get the publicity
or the journalist will make up something even more absurd.
Sorry if I am a bit
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 7:58 PM, Gunnar Farnebäck [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
For the final position in the game record any strong human player will
tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be
gained and the result is obvious.
Actually there's one
You mentioned three proofs relating to go... could you post the links to the
papers?
the first two statements are consequences of the following:
all two-person, finite, zero-sum games have solutions. *
for a more precise statement, see john von neumann's 1928 paper:
Von Neumann, J: Zur
- Original Message
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, 11 Aug 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
It was obviously unclear enough to some of us that it required some
analysis. Even the strong Leela did not see this as merely filling in
the empty points.
That's because it
I am about as strong as the mogos running on kgs. I get a kick out of
trying to learn how to beat the mogos there. It's certainly not as easy
as beating gnu go with a few stones (just surround it) or beating aya
giving it 6 stones (just don't make tactical mistakes, but take
advantage of its
I have a question. Why do you all call the game as human vs.
computer? It's obviously a match between Kim 8p and MoGo, a program
developped by MoGo team, running on a supercomputer.
Quick answer: it is the established term. (human-machine is perhaps
even more common?)
Longer answer: Mogo
[The pro] was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not understand
it
was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have
put up more of a fight :-)
My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was handicapped
by having a handicap.
If we do concentrate for just a moment on how to beat mogo, I can
report that in the 3 blitz games the pro figured out that multistep
kos were the easy way. But in the longer game he presented the same
pattern to mogo to start it, but mogo played differently. I thought
that was a huge
For the final position in the game record any strong human player will
tell you that the game is clearly over. No points are left to be
gained and the result is obvious.
Actually there's one point left to gain in the seki, since the game is
played with Chinese rules. ;-)
You're right, my
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
[The pro] was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not
understand it
was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have
put up more of a fight :-)
My first impression of watching
Hi Darren,
Darren Cook: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have a question. Why do you all call the game as human vs.
computer? It's obviously a match between Kim 8p and MoGo, a program
developped by MoGo team, running on a supercomputer.
Quick answer: it is the established term. (human-machine is
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
[The pro] was also a bit unlucky in the sense that Leela did not
understand it
was dead lost.
I use quotes because had it understood better it was losing, it would have
put up more of a fight :-)
David,
I didn't intend to offend any person in this list, sorry for short
of my words. I'm just trying to prevent people misunderstand the
truth.
Hideki
David Doshay: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It is of no consequence what words WE use to describe this. Journalists
will ALWAYS print it that way. If
On 11, Aug 2008, at 7:23 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:55 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
My first impression of watching the game was that Leela was
handicapped
by having a handicap. By that I mean it would have seen itself so far
ahead for the first few moves that is was
No offense at all taken by your words. I only meant to say that I
have had personal experience with how reporters and journalists
turn what they hear into what they write. It is my opinion that
we could try very hard to fix our words and they will either
change them back or make up something even
Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is
still the right strategy, right?
With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game,
and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a stronger opponent
the assumption is that the weaker player
It does not change the fact MoGo was developped by the programmers.
And the fact the programmers spent many resources, like the people
fighting at Beijing right now, to develop MoGo.
And Kim was developed by his parents, his go teachers, go books, and
each opponent he has played against and
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:50 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is
still the right strategy, right?
With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game,
and low in the endgame. In a handicap game against a
Sorry, but I can't let this statement go past. The go programs in the 90s
did local search, but not much global search. For example Many Faces did a
one ply global search, with a variable depth quiescence search. I added an
alpha-beta search to Many Faces last year, and it made a huge
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Mon, 11 Aug 2008 11:09 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:50 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
Also, if you are
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 20:10 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
Sorry, but I can’t let this statement go past. The go programs in the
90s did local search, but not much global search. For example Many
Faces did a one ply global search, with a variable depth quiescence
search. I added an alpha-beta
Yes, my alpha-beta searcher still has the big slow evaluation function (about
50 to 100 evaluations a second).
When I get some free computer time I'll put it on the 19x19 server. I think it
will be much closer to the 1 cpu uct many faces than to the older version 11
many faces.
Uct also has
Do you believe that they will play the 90% move if they are told they
are not really down 9 stones?
I just did a quick test of Mogo in that same position (black E5, white
E3). (After switching off its opening book, which ironically instantly
plays the same black 3 F4 move I just said was bad.)
On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 20:39 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
Yes, my alpha-beta searcher still has the big slow evaluation function (about
50 to 100 evaluations a second).
When I get some free computer time I'll put it on the 19x19 server. I think
it will be much closer to the 1 cpu uct many
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 11:50 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
Also, if you are down 8 or 9 stones, maximizing your winning chances is
still the right strategy, right?
With MCTS algorithms the error margin is high at the start of the game,
and low in the endgame.
Darren Cook: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It does not change the fact MoGo was developped by the programmers.
And the fact the programmers spent many resources, like the people
fighting at Beijing right now, to develop MoGo.
And Kim was developed by his parents, his go teachers, go books, and
each
Erik van der Werf wrote:
You're right, my reply was sloppy (it seems I'm too much used to
Japanese rules). Also I should have read GCP's email more carefully; I
did not realize that his program, even with a large tree, would not be
able to recognize the seki. I knew of course that the original
89 matches
Mail list logo
