[Computer-go] Programs?

What are good programs for playing go at different sizes? Many Faces has 7x7 - 19x19, including the even-sized sizes, so that covers me for a lot. Whereas when buying CrazyStone HD on the iPad, I was disappointed that only 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 were in there - would it have been that difficult

Re: [Computer-go] Would a larger board (25x25) dramatically reduce AlphaGos skill?

Conv net should be robust. From image processing domian, these are feature detectors (shape in case of go) that are invariant to translations (moving shape left right up down along board). Enlarging board wouldnt put bot at disadvantage in evaluating local positions. On Tuesday, March 22, 2016,

Re: [Computer-go] Would a larger board (25x25) dramatically reduce AlphaGos skill?

On 3/22/2016 5:21 PM, Lukas van de Wiel wrote: It would reduce Alphago, because there is less training material in the form of high-dan-games, to train the policy network. It would also reduce the skill of a human opponent, because (s)he would have less experience on a larger board, just as

Re: [Computer-go] Would a larger board (25x25) dramatically reduce AlphaGos skill?

It would reduce Alphago, because there is less training material in the form of high-dan-games, to train the policy network. It would also reduce the skill of a human opponent, because (s)he would have less experience on a larger board, just as AlphaGo. It would be fun to see which can adapt

Re: [Computer-go] Would a larger board (25x25) dramatically reduce AlphaGos skill?

On 3/22/2016 11:25 AM, Tom M wrote: I suspect that even with a similarly large training sample for initialization that AlphaGo would suffer a major reduction in apparent skill level. i think a human would also. The CNN would require many more layers of convolution; the valuation of

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

FYI. We have translated 3 posts by Li Zhe 6p into English. https://massgoblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/lee-sedols-strategy-and-alphagos-weakness/ https://massgoblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/game-2-a-nobody-could-have-done-a-better-job-than-lee-sedol/

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

> ... > Pro players who are not familiar with MCTS bot behavior will not see this. I stand by this: >> If you want to argue that "their opinion" was wrong because they don't >> understand the game at the level AlphaGo was playing at, then you can't >> use their opinion in a positive way either.

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

Hi Darren, "Darren Cook" > ... But, there were also numerous moves where > the 9-dan pros said, that in *their* opinion, the moves were weak/wrong. > E.g. wasting ko threats for no reason. Moves even a 1p would never make. > > If you want to argue that "their opinion" was wrong

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

"Lucas, Simon M" > my point is that I *think* we can say more (for example > by not treating the outcome as a black-box event, > but by appreciating the skill of the individual moves) * Human professional players were full of praise for some of AlphaGo's moves, for instance

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

> ... we witnessed hundreds of moves vetted by 9dan players, especially > Michael Redmond's, where each move was vetted. This is a promising approach. But, there were also numerous moves where the 9-dan pros said, that in *their* opinion, the moves were weak/wrong. E.g. wasting ko threats for no

Re: [Computer-go] Would a larger board (25x25) dramatically reduce AlphaGos skill?

Ko is what makes this game difficult, from a theoretical point of view. I suspect ko+unresolved groups is where it's at. s. On Mar 22, 2016 11:25 AM, "Tom M" wrote: > I suspect that even with a similarly large training sample for > initialization that AlphaGo would suffer

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

This is somewhat moot - if any moves had been significantly and obviously weak to any observers, the results wouldn't have been 4-1. I.e. One bad move out of 5 games would give roughly the same strength information as one loss out of 5 games; consider that the kibitzing was being done in real

[Computer-go] Would a larger board (25x25) dramatically reduce AlphaGos skill?

I suspect that even with a similarly large training sample for initialization that AlphaGo would suffer a major reduction in apparent skill level. The CNN would require many more layers of convolution; the valuation of positions would be much more uncertain; play in the corner, edges, and center

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

I think you are reinforcing Simon's original point; i.e. using a more fine grained approach to statically approximate AlphaGo's ELO where fine grained is degree of vetting per move and/or a series of moves. That is a substantially larger sample size and each sample will have a pretty high degree

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

I am sorry, but I think this discussion is a bit pointless. While I write these 3 lines and you read them, AlphGo got 20 ELO points stronger. :-) Thomas On Tue, 22 Mar 2016, Lucas, Simon M wrote: Still an interesting question is how one could make more powerful inferences by observing the

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

Given the minimal sample size, bothering over this question won't amount to much. I think the proper response is that no one thought we'd see this level of play at this point in our AI efforts and point to the fact that we witnessed hundreds of moves vetted by 9dan players, especially Michael

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

another interesting question is to judge the bot's strength by watching the facial gestures and body language of Lee Sedol with each move... On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 11:46 AM, Álvaro Begué wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:40 PM, Nick Wedd wrote: > On 22 March 2016 at 17:20, Álvaro Begué wrote: > >> A very simple-minded analysis is that, if the null hypothesis is that >> AlphaGo and Lee Sedol are equally strong, AlphaGo would do as well as we >>

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

Still an interesting question is how one could make more powerful inferences by observing the skill of the players in each action they take rather than just the final outcome of each game. If you saw me play a single game of tennis against Federer you’d have no doubt as to which way the next 100

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

A very simple-minded analysis is that, if the null hypothesis is that AlphaGo and Lee Sedol are equally strong, AlphaGo would do as well as we observed or better 15.625% of the time. That's a p-value that even social scientists don't get excited about. :) Álvaro. On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:48

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

my point is that I *think* we can say more (for example by not treating the outcome as a black-box event, but by appreciating the skill of the individual moves) From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of uurtamo . Sent: 22 March 2016 16:25 To: computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 04:00:41PM +, Lucas, Simon M wrote: > With AlphaGo winning 4 games to 1, from a simplistic > stats point of view (with the prior assumption of a fair > coin toss) you'd not be able to claim much statistical > significance, yet most (me included) believe that > AlphaGo

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

Simon, There's no argument better than evidence, and no evidence available to us other than *all* of the games that alphago has played publicly. Among two humans, a 4-1 result wouldn't indicate any more or less than this 4-1 result, but we'd already have very strong elo-type information about

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AlphaGo (Statistical significance of results)

Hi all, I was discussing the results with a colleague outside of the Game AI area the other day when he raised the question (which applies to nearly all sporting events, given the small sample size involved) of statistical significance - suggesting that on another week the result might have been

Re: [Computer-go] UEC cup 2nd day

sgf files have been made available on the 2nd day Finals games: http://jsb.cs.uec.ac.jp/~igo/results_2ndday/final.zip Tokumoto On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:27 PM, Hideki Kato wrote: > Dear Ingo, > > >Hi Hiroshi, > > > >thanks for the many updates. > > > >On another site