Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Hideki Kato]

Oh, I didn't notice.  S sad.

Since AlphaGo, almost all academic organizations have 
stopped development but, instead, companies and privates 
are very actively developing these days.  Perhaps, many of 
them don't know this tournament.

Hideki

Hiroshi Yamashita: <4EDFAD125423416E9D75B2650D2040B1@i3540>:
>Hi Nick,

>

>> this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.

>

>Thank you for holding KGS tournament since 2005.

>On CGOS, there are always some new comers.

>I hope they also enter KGS bot tournament.

>

>Thanks,

>Hiroshi Yamashita

>

>

>- Original Message - 

>From: "Nick Wedd" 

>To: 

>Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:43 PM

>Subject: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

>

>

>The November KGS bot tournament will be on Sunday, November 5th, starting

>at 16:00 UTC and ending by 22:00 UTC.  It will use 19x19 boards, with

>time limits

>of 14 minutes each and very fast Canadian overtime, and komi of 7½.  It

>will be a Swiss tournament.  See http://www.gokgs.com/tournInfo.jsp?id=112

>7

>

>Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com, with the words "KGS

>Tournament Registration" in the email title.

>With the falling interest in these events since the advent of AlphaGo, it

>is likely that this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.

>

>Nick

>-- 

>Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com

>

>___

>Computer-go mailing list

>Computer-go@computer-go.org

>http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 26.10.2017 22:29, Brian Sheppard via Computer-go wrote:

it is important to account for p-space completeness.


We are not dealing with N-go for arbitrary, increasing N, but with 
361-go on the fixed board size. Nevertheless, a complete mathematical 
solution of go might be extremely complex. We are not there yet. 
Currently, we need not bother with possible eventual complexity but can 
use approximations during decision-making.



That is, a set of rules that covers Go without conflict must be exponential in 
space usage.


Unless studying N-go and possibly when studying a complete mathematical 
solution of 361-go, I do not see why. The R rules themselves can have a 
tree hierarchy with roughly ld R decisions between the rules for a 
search of a final decision. The real complexity only occurs where some 
single rules call a tactical reading routine, for which we can set 
practical search limitations.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Source code (Was: Reducing network size? (Was: AlphaGo Zero))

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

On 27-10-17 00:33, Shawn Ligocki wrote:
> But the data should be different for different komi values, right? 
> Iteratively producing self-play games and training with the goal of 
> optimizing for komi 7 should converge to a different optimal player 
> than optimizing for komi 5.

For the policy (head) network, yes, definitely. It makes no difference
to the value (head) network.

> But maybe having high quality data for komi 7 will still save a lot
> of the work for training a komi 5 (or komi agnostic) network?

I'd suspect so.

-- 
GCP
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

On 26-10-17 09:43, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com
> , with the words "KGS Tournament Registration"
> in the email title.
> With the falling interest in these events since the advent of AlphaGo,
> it is likely that this will be the last of the series of KGS bot
> tournaments.

Thank you for organizing them for so long!

-- 
GCP
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Nick Wedd]

Hi Hiroshi,

Thank you for entering. AyaMC is now registered.

Regards,
Nick

On 27 October 2017 at 00:06, Hiroshi Yamashita  wrote:

> Hi Nick,
>
> this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.
>>
>
> Thank you for holding KGS tournament since 2005.
> On CGOS, there are always some new comers.
> I hope they also enter KGS bot tournament.
>
> Thanks,
> Hiroshi Yamashita
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Nick Wedd" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:43 PM
> Subject: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament
>
>
> The November KGS bot tournament will be on Sunday, November 5th, starting
> at 16:00 UTC and ending by 22:00 UTC.  It will use 19x19 boards, with
> time limits
> of 14 minutes each and very fast Canadian overtime, and komi of 7½.  It
> will be a Swiss tournament.  See http://www.gokgs.com/tournInfo.jsp?id=112
> 7
>
> Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com, with the words "KGS
> Tournament Registration" in the email title.
> With the falling interest in these events since the advent of AlphaGo, it
> is likely that this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>



-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Rémi Coulom]

Hi,

I would like to thank Nick very much, too. When I was working on Crazy Stone, 
these tournaments were a great source of motivation and enjoyment. I'll keep 
particularly good memories of the KGS-tournament parties in Tokyo.

So, thanks Nick for a great contribution to our community.

Rémi

- Mail original -
De: "Hiroshi Yamashita" 
À: computer-go@computer-go.org
Envoyé: Vendredi 27 Octobre 2017 01:06:49
Objet: Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

Hi Nick,

> this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.

Thank you for holding KGS tournament since 2005.
On CGOS, there are always some new comers.
I hope they also enter KGS bot tournament.

Thanks,
Hiroshi Yamashita


- Original Message - 
From: "Nick Wedd" 
To: 
Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:43 PM
Subject: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament


The November KGS bot tournament will be on Sunday, November 5th, starting
at 16:00 UTC and ending by 22:00 UTC.  It will use 19x19 boards, with
time limits
of 14 minutes each and very fast Canadian overtime, and komi of 7½.  It
will be a Swiss tournament.  See http://www.gokgs.com/tournInfo.jsp?id=112
7

Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com, with the words "KGS
Tournament Registration" in the email title.
With the falling interest in these events since the advent of AlphaGo, it
is likely that this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.

Nick
-- 
Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Darren Cook]

> Since AlphaGo, almost all academic organizations have 
> stopped development but, ...

In Japan, or globally? Either way, what domain(s)/problem(s) have they
switched into studying?

Darren
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

[Xavier Combelle]

Maybe I'm wrong but both curves for alphago zero looks pretty similar
except than the figure 3 is the zoom in of figure 6

Le 27 oct. 2017 04:31, "Gian-Carlo Pascutto"  a écrit :

> Figure 6 has the same graph as Figure 3 but for 40 blocks. You can compare
> the Elo.
>
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017, 23:35 Xavier Combelle 
> wrote:
>
>> Unless I mistake figure 3 shows the plot of supervised learning to
>> reinforcement learning, not 20 bloc/40 block
>>
>> For searching mention of the 20 blocks I search for 20 in the whole
>> paper and did not found any other mention
>>
>> than of the kifu thing.
>>
>>
>> Le 26/10/2017 à 15:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto a écrit :
>> > On 26-10-17 10:55, Xavier Combelle wrote:
>> >> It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without
>> >> evidence.
>> > David Silver said they used 40 layers for AlphaGo Master. That's more
>> > evidence than there is for the opposite argument that you are trying to
>> > make. The paper certainly doesn't talk about a "small" and a "big"
>> Master.
>> >
>> > You seem to be arguing from a bunch of misreadings and
>> > misunderstandings. For example, Figure 3 in the paper shows the Elo plot
>> > for the 20 block/40 layer version, and it compares to Alpha Go Lee, not
>> > Alpha Go Master. The Alpha Go Master line would be above the flattening
>> > part of the 20 block/40 layer AlphaGo Zero. I guess you missed this when
>> > you say that they "only mention it to compare on kifu prediction"?
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
> --
>
> GCP
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

[Xavier Combelle]

I don't understand which element makes you say that
section 2 and 3 are all for a 20 block instance


Le 27/10/2017 à 01:49, Hideki Kato a écrit :
> The 40 block version (2nd instance) first appeared in 
> Section 4 in the paper.  Section 2 and 3 are all for the 1st 
> instance.
>
> Hideki
>
> Xavier Combelle: <39a79a0e-7c7d-2a01-a2ae-573cda8b1...@gmail.com>:
>> Unless I mistake figure 3 shows the plot of supervised learning to
>> reinforcement learning, not 20 bloc/40 block
>> For searching mention of the 20 blocks I search for 20 in the whole
>> paper and did not found any other mention
>> than of the kifu thing.
>> Le 26/10/2017 à 15:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto a écrit :
>>> On 26-10-17 10:55, Xavier Combelle wrote:
 It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without
 evidence.
>>> David Silver said they used 40 layers for AlphaGo Master. That's more
>>> evidence than there is for the opposite argument that you are trying to
>>> make. The paper certainly doesn't talk about a "small" and a "big" 
>> Master.
>>> You seem to be arguing from a bunch of misreadings and
>>> misunderstandings. For example, Figure 3 in the paper shows the Elo plot
>>> for the 20 block/40 layer version, and it compares to Alpha Go Lee, not
>>> Alpha Go Master. The Alpha Go Master line would be above the flattening
>>> part of the 20 block/40 layer AlphaGo Zero. I guess you missed this when
>>> you say that they "only mention it to compare on kifu prediction"?
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

[Computer-go] AI RYUSEI 2017, new Computer Go tournament

[Hiroshi Yamashita]

Hi,

AI RYUSEI 2017, new Computer Go tournament will be held
in December 9 and 10 in Akihabara, Tokyo, Japan.
This is a successor of UEC Cup.

First day is preliminary league, swiss 7R.
Second day is tournament for top 16 programs.

AI RYUSEI 2017
http://www.igoshogi.net/ai_ryusei/01/en/

Thanks,
Hiroshi Yamashita

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Petri Pitkanen]

You playing strength is anecdotal evidence. And quite often going through
just systematic way your thinking is more valuable than the actual end
product. As it programs you subconscious decision making. You said that it
is not part of your decision making but that is unlikely to be true. People
do not know when subconscious decision are made as the upper layer
rationalizes the decisions afterwards.
https://www.relationshipscoach.co.uk/blog/research-shows-our-subconscious-mind-makes-our-decisions-for-us/

and that is not bad. Your huge effort to become strong player did program
you intuitive decision making to such degree that it is worth listening.

I still would doubt that your theory is any better than some competing
ones. As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
framework. Similarity is the directed and intentional search of truth.
Process is probably way more important the result. Obviousl I canno tprove
my point as my evidence is anecdotal

PP

2017-10-26 17:54 GMT+03:00 Robert Jasiek :

> On 26.10.2017 08:52, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>
>> Unfortunately there is no proof that you principles work better than those
>> form eighties.
>>
>
> No computer-go proof.
>
> There is evidence in the form of my playing strength: with the principles
> "from the eighties", I got to circa 1 kyu. L+D reading practice etc. made
> me 3 dan. Afterwards, almost the only thing that made me stronger to 5 dan
> and then further improved my understanding was the invention of my own
> principles.
>
> My principles etc. also work for (an unknown fraction of) readers of my
> books and for a high percentage of my pupils but I cannot compare what the
> effect on them would have been if instead they would only have learnt the
> principles "from the eighties". I do, however, know that my principles
> provide me with very much more efficient means of teaching contents
> compared to using the principles "from the eighties".
>
> The principles "from the eighties" and my principles can be compared with
> each other. IMO, such a comparison is shocking: the principles "from the
> eighties" are very much weaker on average and altogether convey very much
> less contents.
>
> Nor there is any agreement that your pronciples form any
>> improvement over the old ones.
>>
>
> Only time constraints prevent me from doing an extensive comparison and so
> better support formation of an agreement.
>
> What is missing that I doubt that you can verbalise your go understanding
>> to degree that by applying those principles  I could become substantially
>> better player.
>>
>
> Different players are different. So different that some players claim to
> only learn from examples. Therefore, I cannot know whether you are a player
> who could learn well from principles etc.
>
> - My reading skills would not get any better
>>
>
> Do you say so after having learnt and invested effort in applying the
> contents of Tactical Reading?
>
> Regardless of the possible impact of that book, a great part of reading
> skill must be obtained by reading practice in games and problem solving. If
> your reading is much weaker than your knowledge of go theory, then it may
> be the case that almost only reading practise (plus possibly reading theory
> about improving one's reading practice) can significantly improve your
> strength at the moment.
>
> - your principles are more complex than you understand.
>>
>
> I do not think so:)
>
> Much of you know is
>> automated to degree that it is subconsciousness information.
>>
>
> From ca. 10 kyu to now, especially from 3 dan to now, I have reduced the
> impact of my subconscious thinking on my go decision-making and replaced it
> by knowledge, reading and positional judgement based on knowledge and
> reading. The still remaining subconscious thinking is small. Most of my
> remaining mistakes are related to psychology or subconscious thinking, when
> necessary because of explicit knowledge gaps or thinking time constraints.
>
> Transferring that information if hard.
>>
>
> Transferring it from principles etc. to code - yes.
>
> If you can build Go bot about  KGS 3/4dan strength
>>
>
> Using my approach, I expect several manyears, which I do not have for that
> purpose.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Source code (Was: Reducing network size? (Was: AlphaGo Zero))

[terry mcintyre via Computer-go]

I'm sorry, did I miss soemthing here? 
On Friday, October 27, 2017, 5:46:19 AM EDT, Gian-Carlo Pascutto 
 wrote:  
 
 On 27-10-17 00:33, Shawn Ligocki wrote:
> But the data should be different for different komi values, right? 
> Iteratively producing self-play games and training with the goal of 
> optimizing for komi 7 should converge to a different optimal player 
> than optimizing for komi 5.

"For the policy (head) network, yes, definitely. It makes no difference
to the value (head) network."


The value network indicates whether the board leads to a win or not. This would 
certainly depend on komi, especially in the half-point games which seem to be 
the natural end result of how it selects moves? 

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go  ___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Source code (Was: Reducing network size? (Was: AlphaGo Zero))

[David Wu]

I suspect the reason they were able to reasonably train a value net with
multiple komi at the same time was because the training games they used in
that paper were generated by a pure policy net, rather than by a MCTS
player, where the policy net was trained from human games.

Although humans give up points for safety when ahead, in practice it seems
like they do so less than MCTS players of the same strength, so the policy
net trained on human games would not be expected to be as strongly feature
that tendency as it would if it were MCTS games, leading to less of a bias
when adjusting the komi. Plus it might be somewhat hard for a pure policy
net to learn to evaluate the board to, say, within +/- 3 points during the
macro and micro endgame to determine when it should predict moves to become
more conservative, if the policy net was never directly trained to
simultaneously predict the value. Particularly if the data set included
many 0.5 komi games too and the policy net was not told the komi. So one
might guess that the pure policy net would less tend to give up points for
safety, even less than the human games it was trained on.

All of this might help make it so that the data set they used for training
the value net could reasonably be used without introducing too much bias
when rescoring the same games with different komi .



On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 6:33 PM, Shawn Ligocki  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 2:02 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto 
> wrote:
>
>> On 26-10-17 15:55, Roel van Engelen wrote:
>> > @Gian-Carlo Pascutto
>> >
>> > Since training uses a ridiculous amount of computing power i wonder
>> > if it would be useful to make certain changes for future research,
>> > like training the value head with multiple komi values
>> > 
>>
>> Given that the game data will be available, it will be trivial for
>> anyone to train a different network architecture on the result and see
>> if they get better results, or a program that handles multiple komi
>> values, etc.
>>
>> The problem is getting the *data*, not the training.
>>
>
> But the data should be different for different komi values, right?
> Iteratively producing self-play games and training with the goal of
> optimizing for komi 7 should converge to a different optimal player than
> optimizing for komi 5. But maybe having high quality data for komi 7 will
> still save a lot of the work for training a komi 5 (or komi agnostic)
> network?
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

[Gian-Carlo Pascutto]

On 27-10-17 10:15, Xavier Combelle wrote:
> Maybe I'm wrong but both curves for alphago zero looks pretty similar
> except than the figure 3 is the zoom in of figure 6

The blue curve in figure 3 is flat at around 60 hours (2.5 days). In
figure 6, at 2.5 days the line is near vertical. So it is not a zoom.

Maybe this can help you:
https://www.reddit.com/r/baduk/comments/77hr3b/elo_table_of_alphago_zero_selfplay_games/

Note the huge Elo advantage of the 20 blocks version early on (it can
learn faster, but stalls out faster).

-- 
GCP
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Aja Huang]

2017-10-27 8:15 GMT+01:00 Rémi Coulom :

> Hi,
>
> I would like to thank Nick very much, too. When I was working on Crazy
> Stone, these tournaments were a great source of motivation and enjoyment.
> I'll keep particularly good memories of the KGS-tournament parties in Tokyo.
>
> So, thanks Nick for a great contribution to our community.
>

At the end of my computer Go research career, I also want to thank Nick for
his contributions on consistently organizing KGS tournaments. When I was
working on Erica it was a lot of fun to watch and compete in those
9x9/13x13/19x19 events.

Aja



> Rémi
>
> - Mail original -
> De: "Hiroshi Yamashita" 
> À: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Envoyé: Vendredi 27 Octobre 2017 01:06:49
> Objet: Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> > this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.
>
> Thank you for holding KGS tournament since 2005.
> On CGOS, there are always some new comers.
> I hope they also enter KGS bot tournament.
>
> Thanks,
> Hiroshi Yamashita
>
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Nick Wedd" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:43 PM
> Subject: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament
>
>
> The November KGS bot tournament will be on Sunday, November 5th, starting
> at 16:00 UTC and ending by 22:00 UTC.  It will use 19x19 boards, with
> time limits
> of 14 minutes each and very fast Canadian overtime, and komi of 7½.  It
> will be a Swiss tournament.  See http://www.gokgs.com/tournInfo.jsp?id=112
> 7
>
> Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com, with the words "KGS
> Tournament Registration" in the email title.
> With the falling interest in these events since the advent of AlphaGo, it
> is likely that this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] Zero is weaker than Master!?

[Hideki Kato]

Please read _through_ the paper sequentially.
#I don't have enough skill to describe the reason because 
it's not a technical but language issue.

Hideki

>I don't understand which element makes you say that
>section 2 and 3 are all for a 20 block instance
>
>
>Le 27/10/2017 E01:49, Hideki Kato a écrit :
>> The 40 block version (2nd instance) first appeared in 
>> Section 4 in the paper.  Section 2 and 3 are all for the 1st 
>> instance.
>>
>> Hideki
>>
>> Xavier Combelle: <39a79a0e-7c7d-2a01-a2ae-573cda8b1...@gmail.com>:
>>> Unless I mistake figure 3 shows the plot of supervised learning to
>>> reinforcement learning, not 20 bloc/40 block
>>> For searching mention of the 20 blocks I search for 20 in the whole
>>> paper and did not found any other mention
>>> than of the kifu thing.
>>> Le 26/10/2017 E15:10, Gian-Carlo Pascutto a écrit :
 On 26-10-17 10:55, Xavier Combelle wrote:
> It is just wild guesses  based on reasonable arguments but without
> evidence.
 David Silver said they used 40 layers for AlphaGo Master. That's more
 evidence than there is for the opposite argument that you are trying to
 make. The paper certainly doesn't talk about a "small" and a "big" 
>>> Master.
 You seem to be arguing from a bunch of misreadings and
 misunderstandings. For example, Figure 3 in the paper shows the Elo 
>plot
 for the 20 block/40 layer version, and it compares to Alpha Go Lee, not
 Alpha Go Master. The Alpha Go Master line would be above the flattening
 part of the 20 block/40 layer AlphaGo Zero. I guess you missed this 
>when
 you say that they "only mention it to compare on kifu prediction"?
>>> ___
>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
>___
>Computer-go mailing list
>Computer-go@computer-go.org
>http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[Hideki Kato]

Darren Cook: <92a6a6a9-4bb9-d8a8-fdca-4276a5ce1...@dcook.org>:
>> Since AlphaGo, almost all academic organizations have 
>> stopped development but, ...
>
>In Japan, or globally? Either way, what domain(s)/problem(s) have they
>switched into studying?

Global.  Some told me that there will be no value in 
developing strong programs, in academic sense.  Maybe 
others have other reasons.  The only exception I know is 
Prof. Wu's lab (CGI) in Taiwan.

Some have shifted to generating natural language-like 
explanations for AI's moves, developing entertainment 
versions which intentionally play close games, etc. and some 
have shifted to other games including strategic ones and 
imperfect info ones.
Hideki
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[Robert Jasiek]

On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:

doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.


For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or 
belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player 
researchers) worth considering.


For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what 
competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional 
players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I 
have heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea 
what it might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my 
theory. Or they say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what 
this means.


A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on 
specific topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.


So what competing theories do you mean?

The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that 
theory.



As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
framework.


Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I 
have asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could 
not because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.


--
robert jasiek
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament

[David Doshay]

Hi Nick,

It is 10 years since my program SlugGo was participating in, and briefly 
winning, the KGS bot tournaments and I have admired your dedication over these 
years. Thank you for the effort.; it did bring us together as a community and 
helped us collectively push the state of the art forward. It seems a pity that 
one group’s success has let to so many dropping out.

Do you think that there is enough interest, or availability on your part, to 
run the KGS bot tournaments quarterly or semiannually?

Cheers,
David G Doshay

ddos...@mac.com





> On 26, Oct 2017, at 4:06 PM, Hiroshi Yamashita  wrote:
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
>> this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.
> 
> Thank you for holding KGS tournament since 2005.
> On CGOS, there are always some new comers.
> I hope they also enter KGS bot tournament.
> 
> Thanks,
> Hiroshi Yamashita
> 
> 
> - Original Message - From: "Nick Wedd" 
> To: 
> Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2017 4:43 PM
> Subject: [Computer-go] November KGS bot tournament
> 
> 
> The November KGS bot tournament will be on Sunday, November 5th, starting
> at 16:00 UTC and ending by 22:00 UTC.  It will use 19x19 boards, with
> time limits
> of 14 minutes each and very fast Canadian overtime, and komi of 7½.  It
> will be a Swiss tournament.  See http://www.gokgs.com/tournInfo.jsp?id=112
> 7
> 
> Please register by emailing me at mapr...@gmail.com, with the words "KGS
> Tournament Registration" in the email title.
> With the falling interest in these events since the advent of AlphaGo, it
> is likely that this will be the last of the series of KGS bot tournaments.
> 
> Nick
> -- 
> Nick Wedd  mapr...@gmail.com
> 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] AlphaGo Zero SGF - Free Use or Copyright?

[uurtamo .]

By way of comparison.

It would be ludicrous to ask a world champion chess player to explain their
strategy in a "programmable" way. it would certainly result in a player
much worse than the best computer player, if it were to be coded up, even
if you spent 40 years decoding intuition, etc, and got it exactly correct.

Why do I say this? Because the best human player will lose > 90% of the
time against the best computer player. And they understand their own
intuition fairly well.

Do we want to sit down and analyze the best human player's intuition?
Perhaps. But certainly not to improve the best computer player. It can
already crush all humans at pretty much every strength.

s.


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:37 AM, Robert Jasiek  wrote:

> On 27.10.2017 13:58, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
>
>> doubt that your theory is any better than some competing ones.
>>
>
> For some specialised topics, it is evident that my theory is better or
> belongs to the few applicable theories (often by other amateur-player
> researchers) worth considering.
>
> For a broad sense of "covering every aspect of go theory", I ask: what
> competing theories? E.g., take verbal theory teaching by professional
> players and they say, e.g., "Follow the natural flow of the game". I have
> heard this for decades but still do not have the slightest idea what it
> might mean. It assumes meaning only if I replace it by my theory. Or they
> say: "Respect the beauty of shapes!" I have no idea what this means.
>
> A few particular professional players have reasonable theories on specific
> topics and resembling methodical approach occurring in my theories.
>
> So what competing theories do you mean?
>
> The heritage of professional shape examples? If you want to call that
> theory.
>
> As I do know people who are stronger than you and are using different
>> framework.
>>
>
> Yes, but where do they describe it? Almost all professional players I have
> asked to explain their decision-making have said that they could not
> because it would be intuition. A framework that is NOT theory.
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go