Re: [computer-go] Big board
One question for both of you: Are these the result of one random playout or are they from one MC player playing against another (each using many playouts to determine its move)? Also one MC playout, for the same reason as Chris :-). Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board
The difference is small, and only the renormalizations that would show any real differences. http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_0.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_1.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_2.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_3.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_4.pbm so do you see something? Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] documentation for the IGS protocol ?
On 2/22/07, Unknown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 17:50 +, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > Does anyone know of a document outlining the IGS protocol? > > There are a number of programs and servers which support the IGS > protocol, including the IGS server. I am trying write a tool to > interact with these servers and would prefer not to have to reverse > engineer the protocol from the programs, especially since most > implement only a very small handful of commands. This one looks reasonable complete and original (though a bit verbose): http://www.koders.com/noncode/fid2C78D24147B76E1CF1196C20428DC7BC62715F38.aspx This looks excellent. Thank you very much. cheers stuart ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board. Torus ?
Magnus Persson wrote: > ... it is impossible to make eyes when attacks on the eyes > has so many directions to escape. Every reasonable well > played game will end in seki. I totally agree. In 2D a free stone has 4 liberties. In 3D, 6. In nD, 2n. The higher n, the less interesting. You could give 8 liberties to a stone by including the diagonal neighbors, but that would just produce that everything "reasonable" survives in seki. All games are a draw. 4 liberties is the "magic" number, but playing without edges mat be fun. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board. Torus ?
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 07:19:52PM -0600, Matt Gokey wrote: > Here is a thought experiment to test: define the board only logically > using a graph (nodes and neighbor nodes). No topological shape and no > mesh layout over any shape is needed. If all nodes have exactly four > neighbors, there is no method or algorithm that you can run to find an > edge. All nodes will look equivalent. Sure, but not all such boards are equivalent anyway! Add a stone to the board. Add another stone to one of its liberties. Add a third stone to any (empty) liberty of the last stone. There are three possibilities. Choose the one that maximises the liberties of the string. You have now defined a straight line. Continue this line until you meet a black stone (which must be part of the original line). I guess you meet the beginning of the line, where it all started. How big portion of the board is now filled with black stones? That can vary depending on the properties of the grid. In the simple case you have drawn a circle of a fairly small size (say 19). In another simple case you have filled the whole board, and used many more stones (say 361). In some cases you have filled half the available points, or some other fraction. How big will this fraction be on a totally random grid? -H -- Heikki Levanto "In Murphy We Turst" heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
Ray Tayek wrote: it's also hard to see why 21x21 would be boring (i can see 17x17 being too simple in some sense). There is also the length of a game. 21x21 is 22% bigger in terms of cells. Professional players can work two days on a 19x19 game. Making the board bigger would probably make the game weaker for humans. I presume the day a computer is world champion, increasing board size would give the computer even more advantage. (Against the common search-width based intuition.) Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board. Torus ?
The number of liberties is not the same measure as dimensionality. You need to look at a area/boundary ratio. At some point I adapted libEGO to hexagonal topology, and the game - Hex Go ( Ho? :-) ) was actually very interesting. Major features are: - almost no capture tactics - no ko - a lot of cut/connect tactics - a high ration strategy/tactics - interesting nakade :) Best, Łukasz On 2/23/07, Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Magnus Persson wrote: > ... it is impossible to make eyes when attacks on the eyes > has so many directions to escape. Every reasonable well > played game will end in seki. I totally agree. In 2D a free stone has 4 liberties. In 3D, 6. In nD, 2n. The higher n, the less interesting. You could give 8 liberties to a stone by including the diagonal neighbors, but that would just produce that everything "reasonable" survives in seki. All games are a draw. 4 liberties is the "magic" number, but playing without edges mat be fun. Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
> Making the board bigger would probably make the game weaker for humans. > I presume the day a computer is world champion, > increasing board size would give the computer even more advantage. > (Againstthe common search-width based intuition.) I presume exact the opposite way. The day a computer is world champion at 19x19, increasing boardsize would give human advantage. because computer has mechanical power, but human has wisdom. igo ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 22:17 +0900, igo wrote: > > Making the board bigger would probably make the game weaker for humans. > > I presume the day a computer is world champion, > > increasing board size would give the computer even more advantage. > > (Againstthe common search-width based intuition.) > > I presume exact the opposite way. > > The day a computer is world champion at 19x19, > increasing boardsize would give human advantage. > because computer has mechanical power, but human has wisdom. This is a tricky question. My guess is that if computers ever do get to this point in GO, they will have the advantage in bigger boards too, but this is just a hypothesis.I agree that in practice it's the other way around so you might easily be correct. - Don > igo > ___ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board
On 23, Feb 2007, at 1:44 AM, Sylvain Gelly wrote: The difference is small, and only the renormalizations that would show any real differences. http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_0.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_1.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_2.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_3.pbm http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/res_4.pbm so do you see something? Sylvain I see that it is still hot, and very close to Chris Fant's simulations. If there is a slight bias towards larger clusters in the renormalized lattices in your playout, it is very small and probably would not be statistically significant. Cheers, David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board
I've started playing with this too. It may be a missing piece to a puzzle that interests me. I doubt anyone with a background in fractals could look at a go board and not see something there. I'm comparing "light" MC playouts (pure random, non-eyefilling) and "heavy" (it tries to find a move in the vicinity of the opponent's last move that makes a "good" 3x3 pattern, failing that, it makes a random, non-eyefilling move). The heavy version is similar to the one in my go engine but without the tactics. Adding the tactics might change the scaling effects (picture a ladder hundreds of stones long). The games are played on a 512x512 normal board. When I look at the final states, I can't visually distinguish them. I tested the fractal (box counting) dimension on a small sample and any difference would seem to be very small. Unlike the final states, intermediate states look very different. I'm temporarily posting some images: http://mysite.verizon.net/antminder/ Dave Hillis Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
> >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: computer-go@computer-go.org >Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:03 AM >Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics > >Your analogy with physics encourage me to share other physical analogies. >1/ Cooling the simulation could be done by controlling the mixing rate >and the density of stones. >-Beginners'games are too cold, not enought mixed (=overconcentrated or > very high viscosity, nearly solid state, not ignitable) >-Professionnal games are probably near critical state (explosive conditions, > gaz state) >-MC-players are nearly random = too hot, too mixed, plasma state. > >2/ Soap Bubbles = potential territory >In addition to previous fluid state, i see hypothetical bubbles: >- beginners makes some (less than 10) big bubbles, and their size and place > are early known. (still too cold and too high viscosity) >- professional can makes lots of bubbles (20+), but they are changing and > turning very often and quickly >- nearly-random makes a foam > >3/ Solidification and cristal growth often comes to mind. >Cristal growth need a "seed" to begin, generally it is a defect or some >impurity. In go the defect are the corners: >- they need less material to build a frontier (like soap bubbles) so corners > are the beginning of the process of "solidification" or cristal growth. >- the topology of the corner (2 libs, 3 libs and 4 libs) imposes the > size and shape of a living group. >- impurity is a captured stone/group > >4/ shape/size resonance >(un)fortunately the 19x19 size is just the critical size to have problems. >-17x17 is too small, corners influence is too strong, it is quickly > possible to take the border. (= 3 bubbles) >-21x21 is too wide, it is not possible to quickly prevent easy invasion. > (= 4 bubbles) (a strong go player told me: both are boring to play) >-19x19 is critical, just in between, that's why it's fun (=3.1415 bubbles ;) > > 5/ Percolation: I tend to think of some dynamical systems (like spin-glasses) as naturally moving toward a static end-state where every cell is frozen (e.g up or down, black or white). (This is generally a good property for go games to have too.) But some systems just keep going. As you bring water to a boil, first you get tiny bubbles too widely spread to intact; later they start to merge; there is an edge of chaos/complexity region; and then you wind up with a chaotic boiling mess. If you removed any go rules against suicide or eye filling and made passing illegal (any empty space is legal-although it might be suicide), then a playout game would boil away forever. Just what my go engine needs ;) By tuning the playout rules, you might get different scaling effects. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 12:03 AM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics Le jeudi 22 février 2007 01:16, David Doshay a écrit : > It is pretty clear to me that, if the analogy to MC simulations in > magnets > is of any value, the temperature of the Go game you show is hotter than > optimal. > > If the temperature were at the transition temperature, then each of the > renormalized lattices would look just like a piece that size cut from > the > original. Because the details all get smaller, the original lattice > is on the > random, or hotter, side of the transition. > > Thank you very much for this work. I am mulling this over ... how to > cool the Go simulation slightly from the pure MC that you did. > Your analogy with physics encourage me to share other physical analogies. 1/ Cooling the simulation could be done by controlling the mixing rate and the density of stones. -Beginners'games are too cold, not enought mixed (=overconcentrated or very high viscosity, nearly solid state, not ignitable) -Professionnal games are probably near critical state (explosive conditions, gaz state) -MC-players are nearly random = too hot, too mixed, plasma state. 2/ Soap Bubbles = potential territory In addition to previous fluid state, i see hypothetical bubbles: - beginners makes some (less than 10) big bubbles, and their size and place are early known. (still too cold and too high viscosity) - professional can makes lots of bubbles (20+), but they are changing and turning very often and quickly - nearly-random makes a foam 3/ Solidification and cristal growth often comes to mind. Cristal growth need a "seed" to begin, generally it is a defect or some impurity. In go the defect are the corners: - they need less material to build a frontier (like soap bubbles) so corners are the beginning of the process of "solidification" or cristal growth. - the topology of the corner (2 libs, 3 libs and 4 libs) imposes the size and shape of a living group. - impurity is a captured stone/group 4/ shape/size resonance (un)fortunately the 19x19 size is just the critical size to have problems. -17x17 is too small, corner
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
5/ Percolation: I tend to think of some dynamical systems (like spin-glasses) as naturally moving toward a static end-state where every cell is frozen (e.g up or down, black or white). (This is generally a good property for go games to have too.) But some systems just keep going. As you bring water to a boil, first you get tiny bubbles too widely spread to intact; later they start to merge; there is an edge of chaos/complexity region; and then you wind up with a chaotic boiling mess. If you removed any go rules against suicide or eye filling and made passing illegal (any empty space is legal-although it might be suicide), then a playout game would boil away forever. Just what my go engine needs ;) By tuning the playout rules, you might get different scaling effects. I wonder if a large board would ever boil away to a single stone. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
This looks like the only plausible precondition: given a board of n points, n-1 are filled with the same color, and the opposing player plays the nth point, capturing the lot. Hopefully, any player of modest skill would not fill the penultimate eye of his own group. Terry McIntyre From: Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I wonder if a large board would ever boil away to a single stone. Never miss an email again! Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics
But note that I said passing was disallowed so he would have no choice. In a percolation simulation, you can have quasi-stable regions. To follow the analogy for go, you could have situations where each color was trading small regions back and forth, like trading kos or 2 for 1 trades. Even with super-ko enforcement, you could still have some very long sequences where most of the board was stable. In principle, you could tune the playout rules to get the dynamic properties that you want. - Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 23 Feb 2007 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Big board, ++physics This looks like the only plausible precondition: given a board of n points, n-1 are filled with the same color, and the opposing player plays the nth point, capturing the lot. Hopefully, any player of modest skill would not fill the penultimate eye of his own group. Terry McIntyre From: Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I wonder if a large board would ever boil away to a single stone. Don't pick lemons. See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Big board
Interesting. I'm currently trying to find some correlation between playing strength and average chain size. I'm using random player as a baseline and then doing very weak MC as the stronger player. To get anything more than two chains at the end of almost every game, you have to go up to about 30x30. At that size, even 1 playout per option for the MC player (900 playouts, each lasting around 1300 moves, to decide the first move of the game) is taking a long time -- 30 minutes per game. On such a large board, 1 playout per choice is unlikely to be much stronger than random (it is much stronger on small boards), so I'm really not expecting to see a correlation. But it keeps my machine busy while I go have some brews :) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
