[computer-go] Gnugo-3.7.10-a3
Achor 'Gnugo-3.7.10-a3' loses a lot on time. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] mogo beats pro!
This is from the AGA newsletter: COMPUTER BEATS PRO AT U.S. GO CONGRESS: In a historic achievement, the MoGo computer program defeated Myungwan Kim 8P (l) Thursday afternoon by 1.5 points in a 9-stone game billed as “Humanity’s Last Stand?” “It played really well,” said Kim, who estimated MoGo’s current strength at “two or maybe three dan,” though he noted that the program – which used 800 processors, at 4.7 Ghz, 15 Teraflops on a borrowed European supercomputer – “made some 5-dan moves,” like those in the lower right-hand corner, where Moyogo took advantage of a mistake by Kim to get an early lead. “I can’t tell you how amazing this is,” David Doshay -- the SlugGo programmer who suggested the match -- told the E-Journal after the game. “I’m shocked at the result. I really didn’t expect the computer to win in a one-hour game.” Kim easily won two blitz games with 9 stones and 11 stones and minutes and lost one with 12 stones and 15 minutes by 3.5 points. The games were played live at the U.S. Go Congress, with over 500 watching online on KGS. “I think there’s no chance on nine stones,” Kim told the EJ after the game. “It would even be difficult with eight stones. MoGo played really well; after getting a lead, every time I played aggressively, it just played safely, even when it meant sacrificing some stones. It didn’t try to maximize the win and just played the most sure way to win. It’s like a machine.” The game generated a lot of interest and discussion about the game’s tactics and philosophical implications. “Congratulations on making history today,” game organizer Peter Drake told both Kim and Olivier Teytaud, one of MoGo’s programmers, who participated ina brief online chat after the game. At a rare loss for words in a brief interview with the EJ after the game, Doshay wondered “How much time do we have left? We’ve improved nine stones in just a year and I suspect the next nine will fall quickly now.” - reported by Chris Garlock, photo by Brian Allen Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> “Wherever is found what is called a paternal government, there is found state education. It has been discovered that the best way to insure implicit obedience is to commence tyranny in the nursery.” Benjamin Disraeli, Speech in the House of Commons [June 15, 1874] ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
I enjoyed watching this game. Having trouble with KGS at the moment, or I'd send a game record. Having more time makes a very marked improvement in the quality of play, to a degree which surprised me. The first two games, at 10 and something between 10 and 15 minutes ( Mogo thought it only had 10 minutes until it was restarted ), Mogo made mistakes which kyu players would avoid. The 15-minute game was much better. The 60 minute game, as the pro said, was 2-3 dan level, with a remarkable sequence in the bottom right corner which he says is 5-dan level. I think computer clusters will beat pros within a decade; combination of better algorithms and cheaper processor power will ensure that. Many thanks to everyone who made this possible, especially to the team of Mogo and whoever donated the European Supercomputer. I do have to ask -- if 1.7 million playouts per second are required and an hour of playing time are required to reach this level, is it possible to greatly improve the efficiency? Humans surely don't process that much information to accomplish a very high level of performance. The Mogo team has done heroic work. I understand they are working on "adaptive playouts" which would better utilize information about the board, and presumably gather higher quality information with less effort. All the best to you wonderful people for making this program possible! Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
Great news. Well done to the Mogo team. John, if I can just find 3000 CPUs lying around I might actually win our bet ;-). > I do have to ask -- if 1.7 million playouts per second are required > and an hour of playing time are required to reach this level, ... Can Olivier give us more details. A few questions that come to mind: how many playouts per *move* was it using in each of the opening, middle game and endgame? Was it using a fuseki book, and how many moves did the game stay in that book? And once it was out of the book was it all UCT (*) search, or were there any joseki libraries, etc.? I'd also be interested to hear how inefficient the cluster was (e.g. 1000 CPUs won't be doing 1000 times the number of playouts, there must be some overhead). Darren *: Sorry, I've forgotten the new term we are supposed to use. -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
We had a bit of discussion w/ the Mogo team after the match. ( I am writing this from the US Go Congress in Portlland, OR ), and Olivier said that Mogo no longer uses a book; it was found to be ineffective in their research. I am wondering, of course, if a book would be more effective now that Mogo has such impressive power - but unfortunately, the supercomputer was only lent for this one match. They can't easily test the hypothesis that a strong program on a massive cluster could make effective use of a good opening book. Mogo no longer uses UCT. Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - Original Message From: Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2008 9:24:00 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro! Great news. Well done to the Mogo team. John, if I can just find 3000 CPUs lying around I might actually win our bet ;-). > I do have to ask -- if 1.7 million playouts per second are required > and an hour of playing time are required to reach this level, ... Can Olivier give us more details. A few questions that come to mind: how many playouts per *move* was it using in each of the opening, middle game and endgame? Was it using a fuseki book, and how many moves did the game stay in that book? And once it was out of the book was it all UCT (*) search, or were there any joseki libraries, etc.? I'd also be interested to hear how inefficient the cluster was (e.g. 1000 CPUs won't be doing 1000 times the number of playouts, there must be some overhead). Darren *: Sorry, I've forgotten the new term we are supposed to use. -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ 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] mogo beats pro!
To answer one other question: we were told that Mogo scales linearly. The supercomputer has a very high-bandwidth interconnect. The Mogo team was unable to release more architectural details at this time. To reiterate on another question, from what the team said, no book, no joseki, just raw search using billions and billions of galloping CPU cycles. Some of the plays were described by the pro as "5 dan level" -- effectively, Mogo generated joseki from whole cloth. I was impressed. Check out the KGS records. If my memory is correct, the userid was MogoTitan. I'd love to hear feedback from stronger players, but it seemed to me that, as Mogo was given more time, its opening and middlegame play was markedly better. I have a question: Is the allocation of time front-weighted, to take advantage of the fact that much less effort is required to calculate end-game plays, since the playouts are so much shorter? The playouts are shorter, the search tree has fewer branches; the time needed should decay rapidly. I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to test this hypothesis. I know that we duffers can always ruin a perfectly good joseki just as soon as we leave the memorized sequence. - Original Message From: Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > I do have to ask -- if 1.7 million playouts per second and an hour of playing > time are required to reach this level, ... Can Olivier give us more details. A few questions that come to mind: how many playouts per *move* was it using in each of the opening, middle game and endgame? Was it using a fuseki book, and how many moves did the game stay in that book? And once it was out of the book was it all UCT (*) search, or were there any joseki libraries, etc.? I'd also be interested to hear how inefficient the cluster was (e.g. 1000 CPUs won't be doing 1000 times the number of playouts, there must be some overhead). Darren *: Sorry, I've forgotten the new term we are supposed to use. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
Well done, Mogo team ! terry mcintyre wrote: moves,” like those in the lower right-hand corner, where Moyogo took Typo :-) Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] mogo beats pro!
> ... no book, no joseki,...Mogo generated joseki from whole cloth. > ... > seemed to me that, as Mogo was given more time, its opening and > middlegame play was markedly better. If it is basically reinventing opening theory from scratch each time then that makes sense. (Though I suppose there is indirectly some go opening knowledge (aka "good shape") in the heavy playout algorithms.) Darren -- Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic open source dictionary/semantic network) http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Re: mogo beats pro!
I watched all the games, and I must say, mogo performed really badly at the blitz games, and quite a bit better at the 1-hour game. I'd still take any claims of dan level play with lots of salt. My take-away from watching the match is that blitz performance wasn't at all representative. A human playing blitz games might do 90% as well as at a full length game, whereas mogo's performance looked like it scaled more linearly. I also wonder how much playing with a 9 or more stone handicap affected it's apparent strength. It's an awful lot easier to appear competent when you start with 9 stones. It looked to me like mogo got totally demolished any place the pro concentrated his attack, except in the lower-right where the pro was caught being careless. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
