Hideki,
Thank you. Your results look quite compelling. Do you allow memory (the number
of nodes in the tree) to grow along with thinking time or is there a fixed
limit?
IIRC Don et. al.'s excellent scaling studies included gnugo but its effect was
probably small. Self play dominated.
dhillism...@netscape.net:
8cc28baed6fbe16-3fc0-16...@webmail-d068.sysops.aol.com:
Hideki,
Thank you. Your results look quite compelling. Do you allow memory (the number
of nodes in
the tree) to grow along with thinking time or is there a fixed limit?
Each node of HA8000 cluster has 32 GB RAM
2009/10/30 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
This may be useful in computer Go. One of the reasons human pros do well is
that they compute certain sub-problems once, and don't repeat the effort
until something important changes. They know in an instant that certain
positions are live or
Yes, this group does not have a consensus at all on this. On the one
hand we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no benefit from
extra CPU power, and on the other hand we have these developers hustling
around for the biggest machines they can muster in order to play matches
2009/10/26 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
... On the one hand we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no
benefit from extra CPU power...
Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on?
Erik
___
computer-go mailing
Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on?
I don't know who claimed it first, and who agreed for it,
but I agree with it :-)
More precisely, I think that increasing time and computational power
makes computers stronger, but not for some particular things like
long-term
2009/10/29 Olivier Teytaud olivier.teyt...@lri.fr
Yes, this group does not have a consensus at all on this. On the one
hand we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no benefit from
extra CPU power, and on the other hand we have these developers hustling
around for the
2009/10/29 Olivier Teytaud olivier.teyt...@lri.fr
Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on?
I don't know who claimed it first, and who agreed for it,
but I agree with it :-)
But you always seek the most hardware when you play against a human it
seems.
I think
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:00:32PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
That is exactly as it should be and is not a barrier. I don't think you
know the difference between a wall and a point that is just far away.
I'd phrase this positively - the point is extremely far away with the
current way MCTS will
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Petr Baudis pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:00:32PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
That is exactly as it should be and is not a barrier. I don't think you
know the difference between a wall and a point that is just far away.
I'd phrase this
Roger Penrose thinks the human brain can do things a Turing machine
cannot. (Note: I don't say 'computer'.) He claims it's due to some
quantum-physical effects used by the brain. I doubt his ideas are
correct, but he did have a few interesting chess-positions to support
his theory.
That sounds to me like a dumb human with a smart algorithm can beat a fast
computer with a dumb algorithm -- which speaks more to Penrose's reluctance to
improve algorithms in his dumbed-down computer models than it does to any
quantum-physical effects.
Stir in some theorem-proving ability
Yes, I agree with you on most of this. However, I believe that Go is a
very simple domain in some sense and that we romanticize it too much. I am
not saying there is not amazing depth to it, but it's represented very
compactly and it's a game of perfect information with very limited
-Original Message-
From: Hideki Kato hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 1:41 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as
black (game of Go, 9x9).
...
BTW, recently I've measured the
What is interesting is not the fact that intrasitivity exists, that is not
in doubt. But it quite interesting that this much intransitivity can be
created with non-trivial and strong programs.
I would like to see the data though, specifically the number of games
between each player at each level
dhillism...@netscape.net:
8cc26e08cfc0f77-5fd0-a...@webmail-m052.sysops.aol.com:
-Original Message-
From: Hideki Kato hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 1:41 am
Subject: Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a
On Oct 27, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
IMHO, Jeff's idea is still very interesting while
the implementation by the staff in Numenta have been going to not
right direction.
That was also my opinion. What I thought was strange is that Numenta's
implementation doesn't have
But is it shown that the score is well done for these properties to
hold in case of RAVE-guided exploration? Since it massively perpetuates
any kind of MC bias...
This only matters for the fact that we don't visit all the tree. For the
consistency (the fact that
asymptotically we will find
If there are people interested in a ph.D. or a post-doc around Monte-Carlo
Tree Search, candidates are welcome (Monte-Carlo Tree Search, and not
necessarily / not only computer-go).
Excuse me, but what press conference and where to ask?
People interested in a ph.D. or a post doc can
Mark Boon: 66913149-592c-426d-b52d-f52f3fa51...@gmail.com:
On Oct 27, 2009, at 7:41 PM, Hideki Kato wrote:
IMHO, Jeff's idea is still very interesting while
the implementation by the staff in Numenta have been going to not
right direction.
That was also my opinion. What I thought was
Am I remembering correctly (maybe not) that Mogo communicates between
nodes three times per second? That isn't a lot of communication
opportunities if each turn lasts a few seconds. Olivier, have you
tested parallel Mogo's ability to scale with core count at blitz
speeds? I might imagine, for
Could you give us at least a general picture of improvements compared to
what was last published as
www.lri.fr/~teytaud/eg.pdfhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Eteytaud/eg.pdf? Is it just
further tuning and small tweaks or are you trying out some exciting new
things? ;-)
There is one important
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:47:41AM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Could you give us at least a general picture of improvements compared to
what was last published as
www.lri.fr/~teytaud/eg.pdfhttp://www.lri.fr/%7Eteytaud/eg.pdf? Is it
just
further tuning and small tweaks or are you
I suspect I am in your camp, Mark, though obviously it would be nice if
we had measurements on this instead of conjectures.
I will offer some anecdotal evidence concerning humans playing other
humans, from club and tournament playing experience: you will find that
shorter time limits
I will offer some anecdotal evidence concerning humans playing other
humans, from club and tournament playing experience: you will find that
shorter time limits amplify the winning probability of stronger players...
Another anecdote. At a Fost Cup (Computer Go tournament) from 10-15
years ago,
I strongly believe that such patterns must not be only spatial
(static) but also temporal, ie, dynamic or sequence of pattens which
allow the player quickly remember the results of local fights or
LD.
Hideki
Darren Cook: 4ae6d9b6.1070...@dcook.org:
I will offer some anecdotal evidence
AIUI, once upon N simulations in a node you take let's say the node with
the lowest value, pick one son of it at random within the tree and start
a simulation?
I'll try to write it clearly (for binary deterministic games, extensions can
be shown but they are too long and out of topic in
On Oct 27, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Hideki Kato wrote:
I strongly believe that such patterns must not be only spatial
(static) but also temporal, ie, dynamic or sequence of pattens which
allow the player quickly remember the results of local fights or
LD.
I think that's exactly right. At least for
I forgot the most important thing around this win against a pro:
this press conference was for the starting of a project, and in this project
we have funding for ph.D. or postdocs.
If there are people interested in a ph.D. or a post-doc around Monte-Carlo
Tree Search, candidates are welcome
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:32:44PM +0200, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
AIUI, once upon N simulations in a node you take let's say the node with
the lowest value, pick one son of it at random within the tree and start
a simulation?
I'll try to write it clearly (for binary deterministic
Olivier Teytaud: aa5e3c330910271105ocd762e8xb283fd386f20b...@mail.gmail.com:
I forgot the most important thing around this win against a pro:
this press conference was for the starting of a project, and in this project
we have funding for ph.D. or postdocs.
If there are people interested in a
Mark Boon: 4ec4bc46-e52f-4ac2-a7ff-edaf17de3...@gmail.com:
On Oct 27, 2009, at 3:39 AM, Hideki Kato wrote:
I strongly believe that such patterns must not be only spatial
(static) but also temporal, ie, dynamic or sequence of pattens which
allow the player quickly remember the results of local
How things changes. You would never hear a comment like Remark c) below
concerning the old alpha-beta chess engines.
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
Dear all,
For information, our Taiwanese partners(**) for a ANR grant have
organized public demonstration games between
MoGoTW (based on MoGo
Hi!
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
For information, our Taiwanese partners(**) for a ANR grant have organized
public demonstration games between
Thanks for the information!
MoGoTW (based on MoGo 4.86.Soissons + the TW modifications developped
2009/10/26 Richard J. Lorentz lore...@csun.edu
How things changes. You would never hear a comment like Remark c) below
concerning the old alpha-beta chess engines.
Yes, this group does not have a consensus at all on this. On the one hand
we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there
Peter, did your comment get cut off?
Anyway, I agree with you on this. Humans are not stronger on short time
settings. I believe that SOME humans could be better if they have a
problem staying interested for a longer period of time and the longer time
control upsets their rhythm or
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:20:24PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Peter, did your comment get cut off?
Oops, indeed. Prone to tactical mistakes in high time pressure is what
I meant to say.
Anyway, I agree with you on this. Humans are not stronger on short time
settings. I believe that
2009/10/26 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
2009/10/26 Richard J. Lorentz lore...@csun.edu
Yes, this group does not have a consensus at all on this. On the one hand
we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no benefit from extra
CPU power, and on the other hand we have these
Yes, you understood me right. I disagree with Olivier on this one.To
me it is self-evident that humans are more scalable than computers because
we have better heuristics. When that is not true it is usually because the
task is trivial, not because it is hard.
- Don
On Mon, Oct 26, 2009
2009/10/26 Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com:
Yes, you understood me right. I disagree with Olivier on this one. To
me it is self-evident that humans are more scalable than computers because
we have better heuristics. When that is not true it is usually because the
task is trivial, not
Congratulations. Can you put it on cgos 9x9 so we can see what cgos rating
it takes to beat a pro? Maybe zen can return at the same time so we can get
a comparison.
David
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org
[mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
41 matches
Mail list logo
