Re: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
If someone will check out the old perl version and bring it up to date if needed, I will post it on the web page. - Don Álvaro Begué wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Raymond Wold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Don Dailey wrote: >> >>> No. cgos does not use GTP protocol for communicating with server. >>> Also, I have eventual plans to extend what is communicated to the >>> client and this is not compatible with the current GTP set. >>> >> The more you add as requirements on the client side, the more those bot >> coders who can't or don't want to run third party interface code will >> have to implement. >> >> Christoph Birk wrote: >> >>> That's similar to what I did. I implemented the CGOS protocol >>> directly into my Go-programm. It's very straight forward and I don't >>> have to run a separate client that way. >>> >>> Christoph >>> >> It would be a lot more straight forward if there was just /one/ protocol >> to implement. But I guess it's true what they say about standards being >> nice. >> > > > In case anyone didn't understand this, I think Don is talking about an old > joke said: "Standards are great, that's why everyone has one." > > I like the current scheme where a little program talks GTP to the engine and > then something else (I don't care what) to the server. It would be better if > the little client were written in Perl (there used to be a Perl version but > I don't know if it's up to date) so I wouldn't have to install another > interpreter (TCL). > > Álvaro. > > > > > ___ > 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/
[computer-go] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
Gian-Carlo Pascutto has graciously prepared a version of Leela for use in the 13x13 scalability study. There is already some data available on the web site and a graph. http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/13/index.html - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
Regarding use GTP for the CGOS communication protocol: At one point I actually seriously considered using GTP as the communication protocol for CGOS.It seemed rather cool that it might be possible to hook up a program directly without needing a separate client. It seems like we may have even discussed it on this group. I did discuss this with the gogui people I believe. A couple of issues made me change my mind. One of them is exactly what Álvaro mentions, the authentication issue.There is nothing in the GTP protocol to cover this and it seemed to be outside the scope of the protocol. You could separate authentication and consider it just a separate step in the process, but this is certainly no simplification. The other issue is that GTP is normally done over pipes, not sockets. It doesn't really matter how you send and receive the messages of course, but it certainly doesn't make most programs immediately usable. It's easy enough in unix based systems using unix tools but at this point you already using an external program anyway. A third issue is that I wanted the flexibility to add things not covered by GTP, such as informational messages.I did not want to require people to constantly be modifying their GTP implementations to accommodate CGOS. A fourth issue is that wanted to minimize the number of messages passing back and forth. So the CGOS protocol is less verbose in that sense. If I stayed with strict GTP I would be sending a more tiny message back and forth. Every few months, I get a private email asking why I didn't use GTP. I think this is the first one sent to the computer-go list. Each time the person believes he is the first to think of the idea. - Don Álvaro Begué wrote: > On Sun, Feb 24, 2008 at 4:22 PM, Raymond Wold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> Don Dailey wrote: >> >>> No. cgos does not use GTP protocol for communicating with server. >>> Also, I have eventual plans to extend what is communicated to the >>> client and this is not compatible with the current GTP set. >>> >> The more you add as requirements on the client side, the more those bot >> coders who can't or don't want to run third party interface code will >> have to implement. >> >> Christoph Birk wrote: >> >>> That's similar to what I did. I implemented the CGOS protocol >>> directly into my Go-programm. It's very straight forward and I don't >>> have to run a separate client that way. >>> >>> Christoph >>> >> It would be a lot more straight forward if there was just /one/ protocol >> to implement. But I guess it's true what they say about standards being >> nice. >> > > > In case anyone didn't understand this, I think Don is talking about an old > joke said: "Standards are great, that's why everyone has one." > > I like the current scheme where a little program talks GTP to the engine and > then something else (I don't care what) to the server. It would be better if > the little client were written in Perl (there used to be a Perl version but > I don't know if it's up to date) so I wouldn't have to install another > interpreter (TCL). > > Álvaro. > > > > > ___ > 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] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
It's still too early to say, but at least at the moment, Leela looks more scalable. This is one of the things a study like this is good for and probably benefits the authors of the programs participating more than the rest of us! The graph currently shows Leela as weaker than mogo at a given number of simulations, but Leela appears to be catching up at higher levels. Of course this may all prove to be nonsense after a few hundred more games are complete. - Don Don Dailey wrote: > Gian-Carlo Pascutto has graciously prepared a version of Leela for use > in the 13x13 scalability study. There is already some data available > on the web site and a graph. > >http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/13/index.html > > > - Don > > > > ___ > 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: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:51:40PM +1300, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > Adding authentication to GTP is a stunning bad idea. If we really need > an authenticated GTP, wrap the GTP we have in an SSH connection. What a stunningly bad idea! So anyone running a server would either have to take the trouble to exchange keys and set things up manually for everyone who wants to play, or give strangers a login access. And every go program would have to add the ssh libraries and the trouble of establishing such connections. Some platforms may have easily usable libraries for that, but can you guarantee that all do? I have so little time for go programming that I would not like to waste my time on unnecessary 'security'! - Heikki -- 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: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
Heikki Levanto wrote: > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 07:51:40PM +1300, Stuart A. Yeates wrote: > >> Adding authentication to GTP is a stunning bad idea. If we really need >> an authenticated GTP, wrap the GTP we have in an SSH connection. >> > > What a stunningly bad idea! > Heikki, What I got out of that was his main point that building authentication into GTP is a bad idea. I don't really think of the CGOS protocol as authentication, it's certainly not secure and no encryption is involved.It's just a simple mechanism to prevent name-space conflicts.But I guess technically it is an authentication protocol. It's probably not hard using existing packages and libraries (cgos is written in tcl) to build a secure protocol into the server.It would probably be gross overkill - all it would do is prevent someone from sniffing your password, as if anyone really cared about your CGOS password. - Don > So anyone running a server would either have to take the trouble to exchange > keys and set things up manually for everyone who wants to play, or give > strangers a login access. > > And every go program would have to add the ssh libraries and the trouble of > establishing such connections. Some platforms may have easily usable > libraries for that, but can you guarantee that all do? > > I have so little time for go programming that I would not like to waste my > time on unnecessary 'security'! > > > - Heikki > > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:57:28PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > What I got out of that was his main point that building authentication > into GTP is a bad idea. Agreed! And slapping on a security library, be it SSH, SSL, GPG, or something else, without much though is only going to add hazzle and give no extra security for anyone. Sorry, I am in a bad mood today. -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] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote: The graph currently shows Leela as weaker than mogo at a given number of simulations, but Leela appears to be catching up at higher levels. Of course this may all prove to be nonsense after a few hundred more games are complete. We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm currently creates leela-vs-leela games only. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Christoph Birk wrote: We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm currently creates leela-vs-leela games only. May I recommend removing most of the Leela instances ASAP and add them one-by-one later. This way the alorithm would be forced to mix up the pairing better. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
Christoph Birk wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote: >> The graph currently shows Leela as weaker than mogo at a given number of >> simulations, but Leela appears to be catching up at higher levels. >> Of course this may all prove to be nonsense after a few hundred more >> games are complete. > > We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm > currently creates leela-vs-leela games only. No it doesn't. At the moment that is much more likely only because they all start with the same rating - but that will quickly change. There are already 136 Lela vs mogo games and 32 leela vs gnugo games. - Don > > Christoph > > ___ > 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] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
examples: playing Mogo_13_06 vs Leela_05 K10 J10 D4 D6 D10 C9 K4 K9 J9 K11 L10 H9 J8 H8 H10 J11 G7 H7 E6 F6 E7 E5 D5 C7 H6 D9 J7 F5 E9 G10 G6 J6 K6 J5 G8 G9 K7 F8 F7 E8 G5 F3 F4 D7 F9 D8 L11 E10 G3 E3 E4 C3 D3 D2 F2 E2 G2 L12 B4 B3 M12 C4 C5 B5 K12 J12 K13 J13 L13 M13 L12 A4 E1 F1 G1 H2 M2 M3 L2 N2 L3 M1 K5 C6 M6 C2 H3 G11 H5 H4 J4 L4 M4 K2 J2 K3 L5 J1 H1 D11 E11 C10 B6 B8 A7 A8 A6 F11 L9 L8 K8 N3 N4 M7 N7 M8 M9 N9 N10 M11 N11 N12 M10 L1 N1 B+Resign playing Mogo_13_07 vs Leela_10 K10 H10 D4 G4 K4 K8 D10 E9 J9 D9 J7 K6 G5 F5 F6 E5 D5 E6 H5 J8 H8 H9 K7 H7 G8 L7 J6 K9 L10 J10 L6 D6 B6 C6 C5 B7 G7 E10 J12 J11 K11 H12 K12 M6 L8 L5 L9 L3 G11 G12 G9 G10 B5 E3 L2 K3 M3 L4 K2 H4 J9 C3 J3 J4 D3 D2 B9 B2 F10 E11 B8 C7 C11 C10 B10 C12 B12 D11 B11 A7 J5 K5 F4 E4 H2 H11 F3 M8 F11 F12 M7 N7 F9 E8 E12 D12 N5 M9 M5 M4 N4 M2 N2 F2 G3 G2 H3 N3 E7 N6 D7 C8 C13 D8 H13 H1 D13 B13 K4 E13 A8 F7 G6 A12 A6 M10 M1 N1 L1 J2 J1 M12 G13 L12 N12 L11 N11 N10 M13 L13 M11 N13 C9 G1 A2 C2 B1 A3 B4 A10 D10 C13 C1 E1 B3 F13 J13 N2 A9 C10 A11 A10 K13 K8 K9 J8 H13 J13 B8 B9 A4 A8 A3 J4 B11 G13 A11 B12 B10 C11 H4 K4 F8 E7 L10 K12 L9 N11 J2 K9 K10 L8 C4 K11 D1 E2 B11 B10 N5 M5 L10 L9 H6 K10 N9 N8 A1 A5 A4 B4 B5 A3 B1 B6 C1 D1 D5 C5 D3 D4 A2 A1 B1 A2 PASS C1 PASS N4 PASS A11 PASS pass W+108.5 s. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
Christoph Birk wrote: > On Tue, 26 Feb 2008, Christoph Birk wrote: >> We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm >> currently creates leela-vs-leela games only. > > May I recommend removing most of the Leela instances ASAP and add > them one-by-one later. This way the alorithm would be forced to > mix up the pairing better. Just be patient - there have been a lot of mogo vs leela games. Besides, it would not be easy to remove these from the study other than by deleting them. - Don > > Christoph > > ___ > 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] Leela is now participating in the scalability study
> We should be careful about any conclusions ... your pairing algorithm > currently creates leela-vs-leela games only. after 1500 or so games per leela, we should be able to tell. i'm getting some leela vs. mogo games already... s. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:28 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > Regarding use GTP for the CGOS communication protocol: > > At one point I actually seriously considered using GTP as the > communication protocol for CGOS.It seemed rather cool that it might > be possible to hook up a program directly without needing a separate > client. It seems like we may have even discussed it on this group. I > did discuss this with the gogui people I believe. I found at least one discussion from the early CGOS days. It was part of a larger thread that had nothing to do with CGOS so I'll link to Don's post and you can click the [thread] view from there to see the follow-ups: http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-March/004903.html It discusses the authentication issues, the socket issues, and nice ideas like being able to re-use GoGui with different servers, like the Random Go Challenge mentioned by Markus: http://www.lysator.liu.se/~gunnar/gtp/random_go_challenge.html One quote from you (Don) stands out: "I know this is one of those things I would regret later - not sticking to just 1 way to communicate. Even when it seems like it wouldn't be a big deal - I always kick myself for not following my instinct." I think you should be kicking yourself for not going with GTP all the way through :) > A couple of issues made me change my mind. One of them is exactly what > Álvaro mentions, the authentication issue.There is nothing in the > GTP protocol to cover this and it seemed to be outside the scope of the > protocol. You could separate authentication and consider it just a > separate step in the process, but this is certainly no simplification. It seems to me adding two GTP commands for login and password is extremely simple, and could always be replaced later by ssh or kerberos or whatever, should the need arise. > The other issue is that GTP is normally done over pipes, not sockets. > It doesn't really matter how you send and receive the messages of > course, but it certainly doesn't make most programs immediately > usable. It's easy enough in unix based systems using unix tools but at > this point you already using an external program anyway. But they are standard tools and you don't need to install ad-hoc clients for every server that somebody dreams up. The Random Go Challenge page shows how simple it is to convert from a TCP stream to a GTP standard input stream with tcpconnect. > A third issue is that I wanted the flexibility to add things not covered > by GTP, such as informational messages.I did not want to require > people to constantly be modifying their GTP implementations to > accommodate CGOS. GTP messages that aren't understood can be ignored. As long as the server only requires the basics from a GTP engine (boardsize, genmove, etc), with everything else optional, I don't see what the problem is. > A fourth issue is that wanted to minimize the number of messages passing > back and forth. So the CGOS protocol is less verbose in that sense. > If I stayed with strict GTP I would be sending a more tiny message back > and forth. How much are you saving? The vast majority of commands are genmove w/b followed by a response. That and there's only a handful of people connecting anyways. This sounds like pre-mature optimization. > Every few months, I get a private email asking why I didn't use GTP. I > think this is the first one sent to the computer-go list. Each time > the person believes he is the first to think of the idea. This is overly harsh. There's a difference between asking a "why isn't this done this way" Frequently Asked Question and believing that you're the first to ask the question. Anyways, I'm glad it was brought up again. I'd like to see a move to GTP for the server -- it's almost GTP anyways. You did say in that old thread I linked to: "But if enough people express interest I may very well do this - it's a trivial modification to the server." It seems that there is interest. -Jeff ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re : [computer-go] How to use CGOS ?
Jeff, GTP is not a good game server protocol.I have not aggressively added features that most game servers have, but if I did I would find GTP too limiting. GTP is a protocol for talking to engines, not for game servers. The references you mentioned is what convinced me not to use GTP. I argued for support for authentication in GTP and got shot down with an email suggesting that authentication does not belong in the GTP protocol and should be separate. This is what changed my mind, because even GTP users didn't even think it's approprate to use GTP for things that don't concern the engine directly. Are you going to ask an engine what it's login name is and what it's password is?Are you going to ask it to chat? Are you going to do other game-server like things directly to an engine? No, you will have a client. I admit that my current cgos protocol is not any more sophisticated and I could technically use GTP if I added some extensions (that engines don't care about.) But then there is the issue of the need for asynchronous communication that I may want later. I can't handle this with a straightforward "add a command" gtp extension. Some engines have already hacked around this limitation to implement the ability to interrupt the search on command, which even this simple thing has no GTP way to handle naturally. So my conclusion is that GTP is not adequate for a game server protocol. I saw no compelling reason to force myself to use it after the discussions that you referenced. Having said all of that, I might still have used it at least until I out-grew it, but then I could not see what problem it was solving. I still must build a client. I still have to have authentication. It's not a big deal but perhaps the extra line feed as delimiter swayed me too, it is a minor nuisance and for what? So I asked myself, why would I want to use a protocol for something it was not designed for just to put up with features in it that I don't like and that nobody else will see anyway? As it turns out, I'm not kicking myself :-) What I said I would kick myself for is using GTP in addition to a separate protocol for authentication.I didn't say I would kick myself for not using GTP. - Don Jeff Nowakowski wrote: > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 12:28 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > >> Regarding use GTP for the CGOS communication protocol: >> >> At one point I actually seriously considered using GTP as the >> communication protocol for CGOS.It seemed rather cool that it might >> be possible to hook up a program directly without needing a separate >> client. It seems like we may have even discussed it on this group. I >> did discuss this with the gogui people I believe. >> > > I found at least one discussion from the early CGOS days. It was part > of a larger thread that had nothing to do with CGOS so I'll link to > Don's post and you can click the [thread] view from there to see the > follow-ups: > > http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2006-March/004903.html > > It discusses the authentication issues, the socket issues, and nice > ideas like being able to re-use GoGui with different servers, like the > Random Go Challenge mentioned by Markus: > http://www.lysator.liu.se/~gunnar/gtp/random_go_challenge.html > > One quote from you (Don) stands out: > > "I know this is one of those things I would regret later - not sticking > to just 1 way to communicate. Even when it seems like it wouldn't > be a big deal - I always kick myself for not following my instinct." > > I think you should be kicking yourself for not going with GTP all the > way through :) > > >> A couple of issues made me change my mind. One of them is exactly what >> Álvaro mentions, the authentication issue.There is nothing in the >> GTP protocol to cover this and it seemed to be outside the scope of the >> protocol. You could separate authentication and consider it just a >> separate step in the process, but this is certainly no simplification. >> > > It seems to me adding two GTP commands for login and password is > extremely simple, and could always be replaced later by ssh or kerberos > or whatever, should the need arise. > > >> The other issue is that GTP is normally done over pipes, not sockets. >> It doesn't really matter how you send and receive the messages of >> course, but it certainly doesn't make most programs immediately >> usable. It's easy enough in unix based systems using unix tools but at >> this point you already using an external program anyway. >> > > But they are standard tools and you don't need to install ad-hoc clients > for every server that somebody dreams up. The Random Go Challenge page > shows how simple it is to convert from a TCP stream to a GTP standard > input stream with tcpconnect. > > >> A third issue is that I wanted the flexibility to add things not covered >> by GTP, such as informational messag
[computer-go] Re: Move Prediction and Strength in Monte-Carlo Go
Hello. I updated my master thesis (http://ark.qp.land.to/main.pdf). This is a final version. I added a experiment, and I increased the number of matches with GNUGo to 600. It makes the conclusion more certain. My English does not be corrected, sorry. I will practice writing English. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
