Re: [Computer-go] Training the value network (a possibly more efficient approach)

On 11-01-17 14:33, Kensuke Matsuzaki wrote: > Hi, > > I couldn't get positive experiment results on Ray. > > Rn's network structure of V and W are similar and share parameters, > but only final convolutional layer are different. > I trained Rn's network to minimize MSE of V(s) + W(s). > It uses

Re: [Computer-go] Golois5 is KGS 4d

On 10-01-17 15:05, Hiroshi Yamashita wrote: > Hi, > > Golois5 is KGS 4d. > I think it is a first bot that gets 4d by using DCNN without search. I found this paper: https://openreview.net/pdf?id=Bk67W4Yxl They are using residual layers in the DCNN. -- GCP __

Re: [Computer-go] GTX 1080 benchmark

On 15/12/2016 12:35, Hiroshi Yamashita wrote: > F32F128F256MNIST > GTX 1080 0.48ms 1.45ms 2.38ms 17sec, CUDA 8.0, cuDNN v5.0, Core i7 > 980X 3.3GHz 6core > GTX 1080 0.87ms 1.79ms 2.65ms 19sec, CUDA 8.0, cuDNN v5.1, Core i7 > 980X 3.3GHz 6core > GTX 980 0.60ms 1.51

Re: [Computer-go] Aya reaches pro level on GoQuest 9x9 and 13x13

On 17-11-16 22:38, Hiroshi Yamashita wrote: > Value Net is 32 Filters, 14 Layers. > 32 5x5 x1, 32 3x3 x11, 32 1x1 x1, fully connect 256, fully connect tanh 1 I think this should be: 32 5x5 x1, 32 3x3 x11, 1 1x1 x1, fully connect 256, fully connect tanh 1 Else one has a 361 * 32 * 256 layer with 3

Re: [Computer-go] Aya reaches pro level on GoQuest 9x9 and 13x13

On 20-11-16 11:16, Detlef Schmicker wrote: > Hi Hiroshi, > >> Now I'm making 13x13 selfplay games like AlphaGo paper. 1. make a >> position by Policy(SL) probability from initial position. 2. play a >> move uniformly at random from available moves. 3. play left moves >> by Policy(RL) to the end. (

Re: [Computer-go] Aya reaches pro level on GoQuest 9x9 and 13x13

On 17/11/2016 22:38, Hiroshi Yamashita wrote: > Features are 49 channels. > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2016-February/008606.html ... > Value Net is 32 Filters, 14 Layers. > 32 5x5 x1, 32 3x3 x11, 32 1x1 x1, fully connect 256, fully connect tanh 1 > Features are 50 channels. > http

Re: [Computer-go] Time policy

On 04-11-16 04:45, Billy White wrote: > Hi, > > Our team is working on a computer go system mainly followed alphago. > We try to add time policy to our system but cannot find something > useful. > > I am wondering whether there are some useful material? Take a large games database, and construct

Re: [Computer-go] DarkForest policy network training code is open-source now.

On 04-10-16 23:47, Yuandong Tian wrote: > Hi all, > > DarkForest training code is open source now. Hopefully it will help the > community. > > https://github.com/facebookresearch/darkforestGo > > > With 4 GPUs, the training procedure gives 56.1

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to AyaMC!

On 7/09/2016 21:21, Nick Wedd wrote: > Congratulations to AyaMC, undefeated winner of the September slow KGS > bot tournament, which ended earlier today! > > My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/S16.2/index.html > As usual, I will welcome your comments and corrections. Given that Lee

Re: [Computer-go] Converging to 57%

On 23/08/2016 11:26, Brian Sheppard wrote: > The learning rate seems much too high. My experience (which is from > backgammon rather than Go, among other caveats) is that you need tiny > learning rates. Tiny, as in 1/TrainingSetSize. I think that's overkill, as in you effectively end up doing batc

Re: [Computer-go] Converging to 57%

On 23-08-16 08:57, Detlef Schmicker wrote: > So, if somebody is sure, it is measured against GoGod, I think a > number of other go programmers have to think again. I heard them > reaching 51% (e. g. posts by Hiroshi in this list) I trained a 128 x 14 network for Leela 0.7.0 and this gets 51.1%

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

On 17/07/2016 17:03, Xavier Combelle wrote: > It seems that on my firefox 47.0.1 some html entities are rendered for > example komi 7&freac12; but with the 9times;9 tournament still running, Renders correctly here and also with a clean Firefox profile, so the problem is likely either your addons/

Re: [Computer-go] DarkForest is open-source now.

On 10/06/2016 19:57, Darren Cook wrote: > At 5d KGS, is this the world's strongest MIT/BSD licensed program? ... > actually, is there any other MIT/BSD go program out there? (I thought > Pachi was, but it is GPLv2) Huh, that's interesting, because Darkforest seems to have copy-pasted the pachi pla

Re: [Computer-go] Leela 0.6.2, OpenCL support, including GTP engines

On 5/06/2016 5:36, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > For all who do not know: LeelaBot is active on KGS, > with a very stable 3-dan rating: > http://www.gokgs.com/gameArchives.jsp?user=leelabot For what it's worth, the 3d was established by an older version that played the KGS tournament last month. The ne

[Computer-go] Leela 0.6.2, OpenCL support, including GTP engines

Hi all, I've done a major update of Leela, including integration of DCNN, and optional usage of OpenCL to speed things up via the GPU. https://sjeng.org/leela.html I put a GTP commandline executable on the page. I hope the other people developing engines find this useful - I found the dearth of

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

On 2/06/2016 0:21, David Ongaro wrote: >> Note that the cuDNN license allows you to install and use as many >> copies of the software as you need, for both individual and >> corporate use. This intentionally permissive license is designed >> to allow cuDNN to be useful in conjunction with open-so

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

On 31-05-16 22:56, David Ongaro wrote: > Isn't e.g. TensorFlow Apache 2.0 license and would allow its > inclusion in commercial products? TensorFlow relies on CuDNN for good GPU performance. Almost all libraries do, because CuDNN is hand optimized by NVIDIA, and hence rather hard to beat. (Except

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

On 31/05/2016 20:45, David Ongaro wrote: > I suspect Aja is right and Remi should go the path of integrating the > GPU even if it's just to get more "oomph" for CS. That he tried to > learn GPU programming from scratch is a noble attempt but I guess > it's just to ambitious to accomplish in a reaso

Re: [Computer-go] Commercial Go software and high-end users

On 29/05/2016 13:48, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > In particular, I use game playing software for the purpose of > analysis. It seems that the special (positive) role of the > "ChessBase" company in the Chess world is responsible for my opinion. > ChessBase was founded in 1985 by two guys: the program

Re: [Computer-go] Selfplay Phenomena

On 23-05-16 13:57, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Hi Gian-Carlo, > >> Unsurprisingly, self-play favors extreme selectivity, but this does not >> hold against other opponents. > > is this just your personal experience, or are there systematic experiments on > this? > Is it true "only" for MCTS (and vai

Re: [Computer-go] Hajin Lee will play a live commented game against CrazyStone

On 22/05/2016 23:07, Álvaro Begué wrote: > Disclaimer: I haven't actually implemented MCTS with NNs, but I have > played around with both techniques. > > Would it make sense to artificially scale down the values before the > SoftMax is applied, so the probability distribution is not as > concentra

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

On 10-05-16 16:20, Detlef Schmicker wrote: > OK, this thread is quite long, and I am not sure I saw all posts > :) > > My suggestion, rate the bots on CGOS before the tournament and > take this rating for McMahon or for handicaps. This doesn't work for the reason stated in the exact post you're r

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

On 10-05-16 00:14, Erik van der Werf wrote: > Oh that's silly! IIRC if your bot is not ranked than users can do all > kind of cheating in the scoring phase (e.g., mark all your living stones > dead). I've not observed this behavior so far. Perhaps because in an unranked game there's no rating to l

Re: [Computer-go] KGS bot tournaments: structure

On 10-05-16 11:23, Hideki Kato wrote: > CGOS is better place for those lower programs, isn't it? Not really, the pool of opponents is smaller and contains no humans. It sort of depends on what the goal of the author is. Even if she's only interested in measuring vs other computer opponents, a K

Re: [Computer-go] Rated Bot status on KGS

On 10-05-16 14:39, Adrian Petrescu wrote: > If KGS is indeed still doing that thing where your rating change is > anchored to your opponents' ratings changes long after your game has > finished, then it seems to me the right solution is for wms to simply > disable that anchoring for accounts that a

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

On 10/05/2016 0:01, Erik van der Werf wrote: > Well then why not make that a criterion for entering the tournament? For > any half-decent bot it shouldn't be hard to get a rating. FWIW I requested ranked status for LeelaBot 3 weeks ago and this was not granted. Technically I'm not sure if this is

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

On 9/05/2016 23:16, Erik van der Werf wrote: > Why not McMahon? (possibly with reduced handicap). It works fine in > human Go tournaments. http://senseis.xmp.net/?McMahon How does this work? That page doesn't mention handicaps. Indeed, the idea seems to be to eliminate large strength disparities

Re: [Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

On 09-05-16 16:04, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Another point for discussion: > Although there were only six participants they split in > at least 4 classes, seperated by large gaps in strength: > Zen >> abakus, HiraBot >> LeelaBot >> Imrsel, matilda > Perhaps it makes really sense to think about a tou

Re: [Computer-go] Machine for Deep Neural Net training

On 27-04-16 17:45, David Fotland wrote: > I’d rather just buy another drive than spend time coding and > debugging another Caffe input layer to further compress the inputs. Caffe supports LevelDB as database layer, as an alternative to LMDB. It has built-in compression, enabled by default. -- G

Re: [Computer-go] Go Bot for the Browser?

On 16-03-16 22:17, Clark B. Wierda wrote: > I'm not familiar with emscripten, but there is a process that will > produce Javascript from Golang code that seems to be pretty robust. emscripten is extremely robust and will produce much faster (and hence stronger) results than a golang->JS transpil

Re: [Computer-go] Game Over

On 27/01/2016 18:58, Darren Cook wrote: > P.S. Curiously the BBC ran an article today on how Facebook is getting > close to top pro level too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35419141 http://googleresearch.blogspot.be/2016/01/alphago-mastering-ancient-game-of-go.html "The match was played be

Re: [Computer-go] How about a 39x39 tournament?

On 27-04-15 09:03, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Some years ago, Gian-Carlo Pascutto had provided a large-board version of > Leela. For that he had introduced a "natural" extension of the sgf > board-coordinates. I just followed the official specification, which allow

[computer-go] kgsGtp problems

Hi all, I'm trying to connect Leela to KGS after a period of absence, but I'm running into the following error with kgsGtp 3.4.1: 8-feb-2010 22:30:41 org.igoweb.kgs.client.gtp.GtpClient d SEVERE: Unexpected disconnect: Error "No buffer space available (maximum connections reached?): connect" whil

Re: [computer-go] Fuego parameter question

Ben Lambrechts wrote: > If you really want to test MFOG against Fuego, it is better to run Fuego > on a strong Linux-machine. > The Cygwin-version is significantly slower than the full-build I have on > the same machine with Fedora. Isn't that just a matter of using a cygwin version with the same

Re: [computer-go] Optiizing combinations of flags

Brian Sheppard wrote: > In this strategy, one chooses a random number p, and then select the > strategy with highest historical mean if p > epsilon, and the > strategy taken least often otherwise. If epsilon = C*log(n)/n, where > n is the number of experiments so far, then the strategy has zero

Re: [computer-go] Experimentation

Brian Sheppard wrote: > Running on your development computer, you might be limited by > clock time. Running on competition hardware, you might not be. Only if the algorithm doesn't scale. Which makes it uninteresting to begin with. -- GCP ___ compute

Re: [computer-go] MCTS, 19x19, hitting a wall?

On Thursday 11 June 2009 14:50:14 Magnus Persson wrote: > > Basically, you would run UCT as normal at the top level, and in the > > playouts, use UCT with a small node limit. > > ...but this just cannot work it means a lot of search in order to > update the tree once.. The results from the UCT-i

Re: [computer-go] MCTS, 19x19, hitting a wall?

On Thursday 11 June 2009 13:16:42 Magnus Persson wrote: > Would this be a simple way of using many cores effectively? I don't see what it has to do with multiprocessing. > Otherwise I cannot see how recursive UCT would be anything else than > an ineffective implementation of UCT. Unless it provid

Re: [computer-go] MCTS, 19x19, hitting a wall?

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 18:48:55 Martin Mueller wrote: > Currently, we try to sidestep this fundamental problem by replacing > local search with local knowledge, such as patterns. But that does not > fully use the power of search. So, has anyone tried recursive UCT (using UCT again in the playo

Re: [computer-go] MCTS, 19x19, hitting a wall?

On Wednesday 10 June 2009 22:15:22 Ian Osgood wrote: > We have evidence against going this low: Rybka and several other > modern engines were ported to the dedicated computers Resurrection > (203 MHz StrongArm) and Revelation (500 MHz XScale). Rybka's rating > in the SSDF pool on these platforms

Re: [computer-go] MCTS, 19x19, hitting a wall?

steve uurtamo wrote: >> But here is someting interesting: In the case of computer >> chess it has been estimated that the progress in software >> has been roughly the same as the progress in hardware. >> Modern chess programs are truly amazing, and not just >> a result of faster hardware. Ther

Re: [computer-go] Re: Monte Carlo on GPU

Michael Williams wrote: > Michael Williams wrote: >> See the April 30 2009 posting: http://www.tobiaspreis.de/ >> > > > The CUDA SDK also comes with a sample called "Monte-Carlo Option Pricing" I don't think there is much more relevance to Go than "it also uses random numbers somewhere". --

Re: [computer-go] a ladder example

terry mcintyre wrote: > I promised an example of a monte carlo program mistakenly starting a > ladder; here it is. > > I played white; Leela had a 2 stone handicap and 45 minutes on the clock. > > Leela's move 32 initiates a ladder. Unfortunately for Leela, I have a > ladder breaker at D16. > >

Re: [computer-go] Pseudo liberties: Detect 2 unique liberties?

David Fotland wrote: > Yes, I walk both chains looking for duplicates. This is quite fast if done > efficiently, since group merging is rare enough. I found keeping the > liberty arrays to be slower since they are big, so there is more copy > overhead in the UCT tree, and they are not cache frien

Re: [computer-go] time measurement

Heikki Levanto wrote: > No amount on crypto-mumbo-jumbo will solve the problem that the server will > have to trust the program, and its author. Signing can provide some little > assurance that the program running today is the same as was running > yesterday, but that's about all. As long as we ca

Re: [computer-go] Re: GCP on ICGA Events 2009 in Pamplona

Ingo Althöfer wrote: > What prevents you from freezing in your chess > activities for the next few months and hobbying > full (free) time on computer go. The amount of chess players compared to the amount of go players. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing

Re: [computer-go] Re: Hardware limits

Mark Boon wrote: > Please, don't sneer. ??? I have seen a lot of discussion, but no good reasons that make sense for the decision that was made. What Davy Dyer said IS a good reason, and most likely the real one. But the people in favor of the decision will not like to admit this. So it's good

Re: [computer-go] Re: Hardware limits

Dave Dyer wrote: > I think general hardware limits are good, because they will permit > more teams to be competitive without altering the nature of the > competition. So in effect, it's an admission that the strength of some teams should be crippled in a completely arbitrary way, because they

Re: [computer-go] [Fwd: ICGA Events 2009 in Pamplona]

terry mcintyre wrote: > I notice that the 2008 icga chess tournament is limited to 8 cores. > > David Levy's justification seems curious to me. He mentions that an > early microcomputer held its own against a mighty mainframe, and that > many top chess programs run on PCs, but he wishes to discour

Re: [computer-go] Nullmoves in MCTS and UCT?

Rémi Coulom wrote: > Did you manage to get something to work with null move ? When Leela runs the first simulation in a node, it plays 2 moves for the same side, then does a playout. If the playout loses for the not-passing side, I add x lost games to the RAVE values. I got maybe 10 ELO or so f

Re: [computer-go] Nullmoves in MCTS and UCT?

Rémi Coulom wrote: > Null-move pruning only make sense in alpha-beta. MCTS/UCT are more like > min-max. They do no alpha-beta pruning, so cannot do null-move pruning. Null move works like this: if after passing and a small search the position still looks good, do not do a bigger search. There is

Re: [computer-go] MC programs vs. top commercial programs?

terry mcintyre wrote: >> From: Ian Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> Now that Leela and Many Faces v12 are available for any Windows >> user to purchase > > Thanks for the heads-up, I must have missed the announcement. > > Do either of these worthy programs work with Wine on Linux? You can try th

Re: [computer-go] MC programs vs. top commercial programs?

Ian Osgood wrote: > (For that matter, > it isn't a foregone conclusion that they are better; GNU Go won the 2008 > US computer go tournament against a field MC programs.) Believe me, in match long enough to exclude pure luck, with the MC programs running on something faster than a Pentium 4, it I

Re: [computer-go] Tiebreak 9x9 in Beijing complete

Ingo Althöfer wrote: > This last game is interesting because it was a win for Black. > However, so far it is not completely clear which game it is: > > * Is it game 4 from > http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/round.php?tournament=180&round=10 > > or is it (more likely in my eyes) from > http:

Re: [computer-go] Re: Tiebreak 9x9 in Beijing ?!

Hideki Kato wrote: > I don't know the detail but the cluster (or the connection) had some > trouble and the play-off will be resumed this morning (at Beijing > time; +0800). Leela has been online and ready the whole night but I still see no sign of the Mogo team. Since it is now 9:25 Beijing tim

Re: [computer-go] 7.5-komi for 9x9 in Beijing

Ingo Althöfer wrote: > Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> I'd have some preference for playing the decisive game >> with komi = 6.5, but apparently thats not possible on KGS. > > But that should not be a problem, as long as the operators > do not believe in the final

Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to David Fotland!

Zach Wegner wrote: > On Wed, Oct 1, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Ian Osgood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Congratulations! Both for the gold, and for defeating Mogo. I never >> thought I'd see the day that the Go tournaments would bring heavier hardware >> than the chess championship! > > You realize, of c

Re: [computer-go] On ranks 2 and 3 of 9x9 in Beijing

Ingo Althöfer wrote: > What is done differently in Beijing? In the players meeting the following was agreed instead: 2 games 30 minutes if still draw 2 games 30 minutes if still draw toss for color, then 1 game 15 minutes (If I remember correctly) The idea is to avoid a medal being decide

Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to David Fotland!

Darren Cook wrote: >> Congratulations! > > Yes, well done David. I see Many Faces won even without getting the loss > to Mogo reversed. There was an investigation after my complaint, and the conclusion was this: Mogo did score the game correctly, and Many Faces did not. The server did not go to

Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to David Fotland!

Ingo Althöfer wrote: > Rank 2 for MoGo after tiebreak against Leela. Hello, the tiebreak is not yet finished! Place 2 and 3 are still undecided. -- GCP ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listin

Re: [computer-go] Correct Komi for 6x6 is 2.0

Don Dailey wrote: > 4. I believe Leela, at a higher level and with a "correction" book > would play perfect or very close to perfect on 6x6. This may > depend on seki issues however, it may not be possible for Leela > (or other Go programs) to play perfectly without some minor >

Re: [computer-go] Results of recent Computer Go events

David Fotland wrote: > Mogo and Many Faces played round 3 early, on > KGS. One game was scored by both programs as a win for Many Faces, but the > board has a seki, so the correct score is Mogo wins. I think the monthly > KGS tournaments would give this win to Many Faces since both programs agre

Re: [computer-go] Analysis of 6x6 Go

Don Dailey wrote: > The only thing I know to check is to see if I am sending the proper komi > to the programs.The only other possible glitch is that the version > of leela I am using is ignoring the komi I send - but I don't think this > is the case. The problem was that Leela reset the k

Re: [computer-go] 2008 Olympiad

Ian Osgood wrote: > I no longer see CrazyStone nor GoLois in the list of participants for > 19x19. I do hope Chen Zhixing decides to enter HandTalk. It's surprising CrazyStone is gone, as Remi's talk is still listed. What happened? It should have been a podium candidate. By the way, there is a

Re: [computer-go] Re: Disputes under Japanese rules

> Disputes that beginners get into are another class of disputes that > these rules cannot easily resolve without the beginner feeling as if > they were being "handled."You pretty much have to rely on his good > nature to eventually just accept the result without questioning it. At > some poi

Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas

Christoph Birk wrote: > On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote: >> In 19x19, it's much better, but the MPI parallelization of 9x9 Go is >> challenging. > > The bright side here is that 9x9 is not really important but just > a test bed. If it works for 19x19, that's good. The same problems wil

Re: [computer-go] Goal-directedness of Monte-Carlo

Don Dailey wrote: >> Would a discrepancy on the amount of ELO gained or lost per handicap >> stone, when comparing MC bots to humans & classical computers, be a good >> measure of the maximum possible improvement? > > Maybe. How could you accurately make such a measurement without > thousands of

Re: [computer-go] Goal-directedness of Monte-Carlo

Don Dailey wrote: > That probably just means I have not stumbled on the right ideas or that > I was not able to properly tune it. I would be delighted if someone > was able to show us a workable scheme. I believe if something is found > it will result in a very minor improvement, but that it w

Re: [computer-go] Goal-directedness of Monte-Carlo

> Especially I was able to "reproduce" the > following behaviour of MC in a very clear model: > > MC is playing most "goal-directed" ("zielgerichtet" > in German) when the position is balanced or when > the side of MC is slightly behind. However, when > MC is clearly ahead or clearly behind it is p

Re: [computer-go] Time controls in bots vs human matches

Don Dailey wrote: > In such a case, I think it's better for the human not to have a time > control at all. This is more satisfying than having a human lose on > time, but giving the win to him anyway under the assumption that he > didn't really need all that time even though he used it. I think

Re: [computer-go] Kaori-Crazystone

Rémi Coulom wrote: >> I would like to see MogoTiTan play many rated games on KGS and see how >> it does there. Anyone have a few million dollars lying around to >> sponsor this? :) > > Leela is becoming strong. It has reached 1k now. The gold medal in Beijing will not go to France without a fi

Re: [computer-go] Time controls in bots vs human matches

Andy wrote: > Just to prevent losing a won game on time. By the way, most bots on KGS resign lost games. So most people who lose on time are usually in a lost position themselves. There are exceptions with difficult L&D situations, but really, I expect almost nothing to happen to the bots ratin

Re: [computer-go] Time controls in bots vs human matches

Andy wrote: > I think for bot vs human, the time control should include > byoyomi/overtime of some kind instead of sudden death. I'm afraid in > one of these exhibition matches the human will be winning but lose on > time. It would be especially bad if the bot was playing meaningless > invasions

Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

> One might consider heuristics like AMAF, pattern knowledge, etc. to be > simply a more effective way to guide exploration. The UCB term has no > domain-specific knowledge. It works surprisingly well but it should be > no surprise that one can do better with domain-specific knowledge. The problem

Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

Mark Boon wrote: Not an expert on AB-search or UCT search but there's a subtle difference I think. In AB search, if some processors have been searching in a branch that is subsequently cut off, the work is 100% wasted. In UCT there's no such black-and-white cutting. If you do sampling in what th

Re: [computer-go] What was the specific design of the Mogo version which beat the pro...

steve uurtamo wrote: And what language/platform is Mogo written in; C/C++, Java, Assembly, PHP, etc.? This made coffee spray out of my nose (PHP). I think that C is most likely, based upon how they parallelized it. Did you read the list posting that mentioned (briefly) how they scaled it up?

Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

Don Dailey wrote: Here is an important snippet, but proofs follow in the paper: The critical path length C is the time it would take for the program to run on an infinite-processor machine with no scheduling overheads. Note that it doesn't mention anything about useful WORK, because this is

Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

Jason House wrote: Maybe the best method is to mix the top down style of MTD(f) to drive localized alpha beta searches. MTD(f) *is* a sequence of alpha-beta searches. I definitely don't have all the answers. MTD(f) doesn't parallelize any better than normal alpha-beta. The only "advantag

Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

Don Dailey wrote: We need to define terms so we don't end up arguing about something we probably agree on. Here is my assertion (which I admit needs to be checked): Given perfect move ordering, but not a-priori knowledge of this, a parallel program will search more nodes on average than a

RE: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 15:40 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> Even in the theorethical case of a perfectly ordered game tree? > > I'll have to check my facts, but I remember seeing actual numbers on > this. It has something to do with the minimial tree and it was a p

Re: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

> On 12-aug-08, at 10:40, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > > Well... no. Because if you have a perfectly ordered tree, in theory, > you don't need to search at all. You need to search it to *prove* that it's perfectly ordered :-) -- GCP _

RE: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

> On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 09:15 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >> Aside from that, it's not theorethically necessary for alpha-beta to do >> wasted work (although it will in practise), and more CPUs can make the >> program worse on any practical archite

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

> Mr. Okasaki, a strong amatur, tested MoGo with a 9 stones handicap > game at winning rate around 50% by adjusting komi on each move and > reported it played clearly stronger than others, say, on KGS and the > cluster version at Paris. Unfortunately it sounds rather like a subjective measurement

RE: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

> On Mon, 2008-08-11 at 20:39 -0700, David Fotland wrote: >> Uct also has the advantage that it is much easier to use with multiple >> CPUs. I know parallel alpha-beta exists, but my evaluation function is >> not designed to be thread safe. If I put a big lock around it, there >> will be almost n

RE: [computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!

> Uct also has the advantage that it is much easier to use with multiple > CPUs. I know parallel alpha-beta exists, but my evaluation function is > not designed to be thread safe. If I put a big lock around it, there will > be almost no SMP scaling, since almost all the time is in the evaluation

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

> 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 playing arbitrarily. In fact, Leela thought itself ahead at 80% for most of the game. It's only in the last

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

terry mcintyre wrote: Thank you! At present, computer go programs may be strong relative to each other, and they may actually beat some humans of moderate ability, especially at timescales too quick for amateur humans, but most programs also have high-kyu-sized gaps in their knowledge, including

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

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

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

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 disc

Re: [computer-go] Cultural differences: players vs "programmers"

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

Re: [computer-go] Re: Strength of Monte-Carlo w/ UCT...

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. Yo

[computer-go] Cultural differences: players vs "programmers"

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 to

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

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

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

> It seems the professional had never played go on a computer before, > at least not on KGS, so yes, we should probably have used longer time- > settings, and explained that the robot would play plenty of > unnecessary moves after filling dame. She was also a bit "unlucky" in the sense that Leela

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

> 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

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

> 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 eac

Re: [computer-go] Re: What's happening at the European Go Congress?

> 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 a

[computer-go] What's happening at the European Go Congress?

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 1st Crazy Stone 6/6 2nd Leela 5/6 3rd Many Faces of Go4/6 9 x 9 Results 1st Leela

Re: [computer-go] Monte Carlo evaluation in chess

Álvaro Begué wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 3:40 AM, Rémi Coulom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rybka 3 has Monte-Carlo evaluation: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4772 If I understand the release note correctly, Monte Carlo Analysis is something like a feature of the GUI for analy

Re: [computer-go] EGC 2008 computer go event

Jason House wrote: I wouldn't want to overload volunteer operators. I can bow out to make room for other bots. Nah, you were here first :) But if the sponsor machines come with Java preinstalled, "operating" Leela wouldn't consist of more than copying the program off an USB stick and starti

<    1   2   3   >