On 13-aug-08, at 00:18, David Fotland wrote:
I don't know that joseki knowledge mad Many Faces stronger. Go
Intellect
always used to turn off the joseki libraries in tournaments against
Many
Faces, since it had a better win rate if it avoided joseki moves.
I suppose
that's some
Here is my take on joseki and fuseki in computer programs.
My older program Viking, had a quite nice patternmatching feature
which matched the entire board or smaller parts of it towards a
database of 50k games or so. It makes it play nice but as far as I
could tell it had no impact on the
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:38 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote:
Here is my take on joseki and fuseki in computer programs.
My older program Viking, had a quite nice patternmatching feature
which matched the entire board or smaller parts of it towards a
database of 50k games or so. It makes it
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 14:38 +0200, Magnus Persson wrote:
Here is my take on joseki and fuseki in computer programs.
My older program Viking, had a quite nice patternmatching feature
which matched the entire board or smaller parts of it towards a
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,
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...
...
I did a bunch of experiments and ALWAYS got a reduced wins when I faked
the komi. But there are a million ways to do this and I may not have
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
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.
I think most programs developed by people who did not write old scool
programs has serious problems with seki. Valkyria detects some basic
seki shapes, but has problems with nakade/seki.
-Magnus
Quoting Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
You're right, my reply was sloppy (it seems I'm
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the
program is still improving so quickly.
I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program
improved substantially, so it was a program. I
On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the
program is still improving so quickly.
I had one that worked effectively, but had to be redone if the program
what happens when the opponent deviates from joseki?
knowing how to punish joseki mistakes can be very,
very tricky.
also knowing which joseki to use where is very, very
sophisticated. the wrong joseki can be worse globally
than a non-joseki move.
s.
On 8/12/08, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Aug 12, 2008, at 11:18 AM, steve uurtamo wrote:
On 8/12/08, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest
of the
From: steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
what happens when the opponent deviates from joseki?
knowing how to punish joseki mistakes can be very, very tricky.
From my observations at the mogo-vs-pro game, given lots of time and CPU
cores, Mogo is able to discover how to punish such deviations. In
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 10:41 -0700, Ian Osgood wrote:
On Aug 12, 2008, at 5:25 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Tue, 2008-08-12 at 08:43 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
I don't like opening books. They are a liability when the rest of the
program is still improving so quickly.
I had one
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ian Osgood
This is a different kind of opening book than I'm thinking of. You
are both talking about cached computation, whereas I consider an
opening book as codified theory and wisdom
I hope that David Fotland can chime in here on value of joseki
libraries on program strength.
Also, which existing classical program is considered the best semeai
player?
Ian
I don't know that joseki knowledge mad Many Faces stronger. Go Intellect
always used to turn off the joseki
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
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
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 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 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
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
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 :-)
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,
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
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...
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
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.
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
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
- 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
[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.
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
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 :-)
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
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
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
-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
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.)
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.
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
62 matches
Mail list logo
