On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 04:35:18PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:23:35PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Having said that, I am interested in this. Is there something that
totally prevents the program from EVER seeing the best move?
You probably don't understand how UCT works. UCT balances exploration
with exploitation. The UCT tree WILL explore B1, but will explore it
with low frequency.That is unless the tree actually throws out 1
point eye moves (in which case it is not properly scalable and broken in
some
Dave Hillis wrote:
I've noticed this in games on KGS; a lot of people lose games
with generous time limits because they, rashly, try to keep up
with my dumb but very fast bot and make blunders.
What Don says about humans scaling applies to humans making
an effort to use the time they have,
Dave,
I really thought about mentioning that in my original post because it
does affect the ability of human players. In fact one technique I
use when I'm losing badly in chess is to start playing instantly.I
have actually salvaged a few games that way - the opponent starts
playing fast
Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
Dave Hillis wrote:
I've noticed this in games on KGS; a lot of people lose games
with generous time limits because they, rashly, try to keep up
with my dumb but very fast bot and make blunders.
What Don says about humans scaling applies to humans making
an
I
would
agree
at
100%
if
it
wasn't
for
the
known
limitations:
Nakade,
not
filling
own
eyes,
etc.
Because
the
program
is
blind
to
them
it
is
blind
in
both
senses:
it
does
not
consider
those
moves
when
defending,
but
it
does
not
consider
them
when
I am, sadly, in the 9 kyu AGA range, yet can regularly create situations which
Mogo cannot read on a 19x19 board. Harder to do on a 9x9 board, but I have done
it.
Don asks how significant a jump of 3 kyu is. On a 19x19 board, one with a 3 kyu
advantage can give a 3 stone handicap to the weaker
I am concerned that the current study is, as Jacques has so ably described, a
study of a restricted game where nakade and certain other moves are
considered to be illegal; this restricted game approaches the game of Go, but
the programs have certain blind spots which humans can and do
Don Dailey wrote:
If a nakade fixed version of mogo (that is truly scalable) was in the
study, how much higher would it be in your estimation?
You do realize that you are asking how much perfect life and death
knowledge is worth?
--
GCP
___
I changed bayeselo to use the prior command as Rémi suggested I could do.
It raised the ELO rating of the highest rated well established player by
about 60 ELO!
I set prior to 0.1
http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/
- Don
Rémi Coulom wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
They seem under-rated to me
Is nakade actually a problem in mogo? Are there positions it could
never solve or is merely a general weakness.
I thought the search corrected such problems eventually.
- Don
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
If a nakade fixed version of mogo (that is truly scalable) was in
]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS study
Is
nakade
actually
a
problem
in
mogo
-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:10:01 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS study
Is
nakade
actually
a
problem
in
mogo?
Are
there
positions
it
could
never
solve
or
is
merely
a
general
weakness.
I
thought
the
search
Don Dailey wrote:
I must not understand the problem. My program has no trouble with
nakade unless you are talking about some special case position.My
program immediately places the stone on the magic square to protect it's
2 eyes.
Can your program identify sekis? Nice examples in
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
I must not understand the problem. My program has no trouble with
nakade unless you are talking about some special case position.My
program immediately places the stone on the magic square to protect it's
2 eyes.
Can your program
computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:22:16 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS study
I
must
not
understand
the
problem.
My
program
has
no
trouble
with
nakade
unless
you
are
talking
about
On Jan 30, 2008 2:48 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So are you saying that if mogo had this position:
| # # # # # #
| O O O O O #
| + + + + O #
a b c d e
That mogo would not know to move to nakade point c1 with either color?
That's not nakade... Even if it was one shorter,
in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874]
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:22:16 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS
study
I
must
,
2008
11:10:01
AM
Subject:
Re:
[computer-go]
19x19
Study
-
prior
in
bayeselo,
and
KGS
study
Is
nakade
actually
a
problem
in
mogo?
Are
there
positions
it
could
never
solve
or
is
merely
a
general
weakness.
I
According to Sensei's Library, nakade is:
It refers to a situation in which a group has a single large
internal, enclosed space that can be made into two eyes by the right
move--or prevented from doing so by an enemy move.
Several examples are shown that where there are exactly 3
Don Dailey wrote:
So I think this is nakade.
Yes. Leela 0.2.x would get it wrong [1].
[1] Not eternally, but it would still take unreasonably long.
--
GCP
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Does mogo have a play-out rule that says, don't move into self-atari?
If so, then I can see how the play-out would miss this.
But the tree search would not miss this.I still don't see the
problem. I can see how a play-out strategy would delay the
understanding of positions, but that's
While bigger examples exist, 4 in a line (with both ends enclosed) is not
nakade because the two center points are miai (b and c in your example). It
requires two moves (both b and c) to reduce your example to a single eye.
Because of that, it is not nakade.
A comprehensive list of nakade shapes
] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:18 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS
study
I wish I knew how that translates to win expectancy (ELO rating.)Is
3 kyu at this level a pretty
It would get it eventually, which means this doesn't inhibit scalability.
I don't expect every aspect of a program to improve at the same rate -
but if a program is properly scalable, you can expect that it doesn't
regress with extra time. It only moves forward, gets stronger with
more
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
Hi Don,
On Jan 30, 2008 9:02 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Sensei's Library, nakade is:
It refers to a situation in which a group has a single large
internal, enclosed space that can be made into two eyes by the right
move--or
Don Dailey wrote:
Yes, the tree generates pass moves and with 2 passes the game is scored
without play-outs.
How do you detect dead groups after 2 passes? Static analysis? All is
alive/CGOS?
I can't believe mogo doesn't do this, it would be very weak
if it didn't.
That's just an
Hi Don,
On Jan 30, 2008 9:02 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to Sensei's Library, nakade is:
It refers to a situation in which a group has a single large
internal, enclosed space that can be made into two eyes by the right
move--or prevented from doing so by an
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 12:15:04 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS study
While bigger examples exist, 4 in a line (with both ends enclosed) is not
nakade because the two
-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 11:53:57 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS study
You're not crazy. Gmail shows it that way too.
On Jan 30, 2008 2:49 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is is just my email client or does Terry's post have one word
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I wish I knew how that translates to win expectancy (ELO rating.)Is
3 kyu at this level a pretty significant improvement?
in the order of 90%
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS
study
I wish I knew how that translates to win expectancy (ELO rating.)Is
3 kyu at this level a pretty significant improvement?
- Don
Hiroshi Yamashita wrote:
Instead of playing UCT bot vs UCT
On Jan 30, 2008 3:51 PM, terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There are other shapes which are known to be dead. For example, four
points in a square shape make one eye, not two. If the defender plays one
point, trying to make two eyes, the opponent plays the diagonally opposite
point,
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:23:35PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Having said that, I am interested in this. Is there something that
totally prevents the program from EVER seeing the best move?I don't
mean something that takes a long time, I mean something that has the
theoretical property
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:23:35PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Having said that, I am interested in this. Is there something that
totally prevents the program from EVER seeing the best move?I don't
mean something that takes a long time, I mean something that has
On Jan 30, 2008 4:35 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Heikki Levanto wrote:
On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:23:35PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Having said that, I am interested in this. Is there something that
totally prevents the program from EVER seeing the best move?I don't
Regardless of the exact example, _if_ pruning rules exclude a move,
then an engine will never play it. That means that for that
situation, they're not scalable. That may be a big if but will
definitely affect some bot implementations. Progressive widening and
soft-pruning rules probably
Don Dailey wrote:
I am concerned that the current study is, as Jacques has so ably
described, a study of a restricted game where nakade and certain
other moves are considered to be illegal; this restricted game
approaches the game of Go, but the programs have certain blind
spots which humans can
I agree with this completely. If fixing this problem was just a simple
matter of course, then I'm sure the mogo team would have done so very
quickly.The cure could be worse than the disease in this case.
But I think what we forget is that this discussion has been hijacked in
a sense,
Don, welcome to my battle last week (or was it the week before?). It was the exact same discussion. I don't know if people are assuming that a typical UCT
reference implementation does not consider all moves or if they just don't understand the difference between a playout policy and a tree
I believe you COULD improve as fast as that young guy you are talking
about, but you would need to do serious study. Not read some books
while watching television, but putting yourself in a quiet room and
being totally focused.A 3 dan teacher would help enormously.
Agreed. It
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
About Don's arguments on self testing:
I would agree at 100% if it wasn't for the known limitations:
Nakade, not filling own eyes, etc. Because the program is blind
to them it is blind in both senses: it does not consider those
moves when defending, but it
Are you kidding? That's based on only 10 games.
Hideki Kato wrote:
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
About Don's arguments on self testing:
I would agree at 100% if it wasn't for the known limitations:
Nakade, not filling own eyes, etc. Because the program is blind
to them it is blind in both
...
That mogo would not know to move to nakade point c1 with either color?
Mogo tends to get confused on nakade positions when there are still
external liberties. Here is my report on this with a couple of examples:
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-October/011327.html
If I've
2008/1/30, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
It would get it eventually, which means this doesn't inhibit scalability.
Having said that, I am interested in this. Is there something that
totally prevents the program from EVER seeing the best move?I don't
mean something that takes a long
Don Dailey wrote:
They seem under-rated to me also. Bayeselo pushes the ratings together
because that is apparently a valid initial assumption. With enough
games I believe that effect goes away.
I could test that theory with some work.Unless there is a way to
turn that off in bayelo (I
Instead of playing UCT bot vs UCT bot, I am thinking about running a
scaling experiment against humans on KGS. I'll probably start with 2k,
8k, 16k, and 32k playouts.
I have a result on KGS.
AyaMC 6k (5.9k) 16po http://www.gokgs.com/graphPage.jsp?user=AyaMC
AyaMC2 9k (8.4k) 1po
Rémi Coulom wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
They seem under-rated to me also. Bayeselo pushes the ratings together
because that is apparently a valid initial assumption. With enough
games I believe that effect goes away.
I could test that theory with some work.Unless there is a way to
What are the time controls for the games?
- Don
Hiroshi Yamashita wrote:
Instead of playing UCT bot vs UCT bot, I am thinking about running a
scaling experiment against humans on KGS. I'll probably start with
2k, 8k, 16k, and 32k playouts.
I have a result on KGS.
AyaMC 6k (5.9k)
What are the time controls for the games?
Both are 10 minutes + 30 seconds byo-yomi.
Hiroshi Yamashita
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
I don't feel like searching for it right now, but not too long ago someone posted a link to a chart that gave the winrates and equivalent rankings for different
rating systems.
Don Dailey wrote:
I wish I knew how that translates to win expectancy (ELO rating.)Is
3 kyu at this level a
Hiroshi Yamashita wrote:
What are the time controls for the games?
Both are 10 minutes + 30 seconds byo-yomi.
Hiroshi Yamashita
Good. I think that is a good way to test.
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
We can say with absolute statistical certainty that humans when playing
chess improve steadily with each doubling of time.This is not a
hunch, guess or theory, it's verified by the FACT that we know exactly
how much computers improve with extra time and we also know for sure
that humans play
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
Rémi Coulom wrote:
...
Instead of playing UCT bot vs UCT bot, I am thinking about running a
scaling experiment against humans on KGS. I'll probably start with 2k,
8k, 16k, and 32k playouts.
That would be a great experiment. There is only 1
54 matches
Mail list logo
