Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
More subbtle attempts are summarized at:
http://senseis.xmp.net/?HandicapForSmallerBoardSizes
The previously suggested komi there were terrible. I have added and
justified my suggestions: 8.5 for 13x13, 6.5 for 9x9.
--
robert jasiek
___
Don Dailey wrote:
> you can still
judge the quality of your opponent by looking at his 19x19 KGS ranking.
Rather by looking at his real world ranking. A human real world rank may
be off by 1 while a human KGS rank may be off by 6 ranks.
--
robert jasiek
__
Hi Christoph,
I have been thinking about making a version of Goanna (~2250 on CGOS)
public, once it plays in a human friendly way.
At the moment, it is nearly unusable for fun human vs computer matches
because of a lack of opening book (slow first few moves), and
ridiculous endgame play.
Conside
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 18:23 -0800, David Doshay wrote:
> What would get YOU to bring your program to the Congress?
Free trips back and forth on a teleporter. Or at least 3 unlikely
events (out of the US Go Congress's control) to occur.
It's probably be more viable for people to send their prog
Darren Cook wrote:
>> 9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
>> information about the program, since there's no such thing as
>> a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
>>
>
> I disagree. In my studies of 9x9, over a number of years, the human
> 19
>> I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
>> other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
>> programs have reached amateur Dan level.
I'll add another vote for that opinion. (3-dan-ish, at 30-60s/move, on a
2.8Ghz Celeron).
Robert, you can get Mogo he
> 9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
> information about the program, since there's no such thing as
> a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
I disagree. In my studies of 9x9, over a number of years, the human
19x19 rank generally carries over to 9x
Hi,
What should we be doing to get programmers to bring their bots to the
Congress in Portland in 2008?
The AGA is formally not that program friendly, but there can be
events for bots, and hopefully events for humans against bots. I am
sure that there will be tournaments that will not inc
You must also avoid suicide moves! I also tried playing on top of an
existing stone and it didn't allow that - but any other kind of illegal
move (by cgos rules) is passed through and causes a CGOS forfeit.
There is a config file option, perhaps there is way to configure it to
a particular se
I just tried gtpdisplay and it worked the first time!The only
problem is that I tried to make an illegal ko move.
On linux, I just put gtpdisplay as the name of the program and it
worked.
It looks like it could also be used to watch your program play on CGOS,
just provide a program na
Thanks that's helps the most. Also appreciate the post on how to search the
comp-go archives using google.
Still hoping to have olympus on cgos by the end of this month :)
-Josh
On Dec 4, 2007 8:34 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If you download cgos3.tcl, the code made it pretty c
If you download cgos3.tcl, the code made it pretty clear which commands
are used.
Here is what I see:
list_commands
boardsize
clear_board
play
genmove
quit
optional are:
time_settings
time_left
-Don
Joshua Shriver wrote:
> Sorry to duplicate my questi
On Tue, 2007-12-04 at 19:45 -0500, Joshua Shriver wrote:
> Wish computer-go had a google search :)
Put this in Google's search box:
site:http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/ foobar
Of course, replace "foobar" with your search terms.
-Jeff
__
GoGui is written in Java. So you should be able to use it in Linux.
On Dec 4, 2007 7:36 PM, Joshua Shriver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Anyone recommend a good Go GUI for Linux? Not for bot matches and suchs but
> just to play gtp based engines.
> For chess I use xboard and it's wondeful, would
Sorry to duplicate my question, I've been digging and digging in previous
threads trying to find the answers that were posted.
Wish computer-go had a google search :)
Anyway, what is the minimal commands required to get an engine online via
gtp?
I've been working hard and hope to have an alpha pr
Anyone recommend a good Go GUI for Linux? Not for bot matches and suchs but
just to play gtp based engines.
For chess I use xboard and it's wondeful, would love to find a similiar tool
for Go.
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.or
Le mardi 4 décembre 2007, Christoph Birk a écrit :
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> >> For 9x9 ELO works better. For 19x19 it's less clear cut.The
> >> handicap system appears to be a good system at 19x19 and has the very
> >> nice merit of allowing grossly mismatched players
Le mardi 4 décembre 2007, Don Dailey a écrit :
> The only issue is that I don't know if GnuGo is representative of 19x19
> to 9x9 go strength. I am interested in knowing how a human 19x19
> scales down to 9x9 play. It's well known that programs scale up poorly.
Ah yes, i forgot this :)
My p
How does it deal with other gtp commands sent to it?Perhaps it can
be used. Maybe Christoph can experiment with it.
- Don
Rémi Coulom wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>> I saw that you made an illegal move!
>> The way to do this is to the take the viewing client and hack it.
>> Then you woul
I was wondering if gogui could be used - it would have to emulate a go
program somehow. But gogui is a controller, not a program.
However I know it comes with all kinds of filters to do various
things. If it can be made to act like a go engine (where a human is
the "brains") then it could be c
Don Dailey wrote:
I saw that you made an illegal move!
The way to do this is to the take the viewing client and hack it.
Then you would get a nice gui and legal move testing (at the least the
package to do legal move testing is there even if it's not being used.)
If you are typing your mo
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
But I don't really want humans playing except as a
special experiment.
I agree. But it's an interesting experiment ...
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.o
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but
the human would have to be willing to sit and play games at the moment
they were scheduled.
You are right ... it's very awkward. I lost one game by typo
and another by time.
Christoph
I saw that you made an illegal move!
The way to do this is to the take the viewing client and hack it.
Then you would get a nice gui and legal move testing (at the least the
package to do legal move testing is there even if it's not being used.)
If you are typing your moves in manually, yo
The only issue is that I don't know if GnuGo is representative of 19x19
to 9x9 go strength. I am interested in knowing how a human 19x19
scales down to 9x9 play. It's well known that programs scale up poorly.
However, this data should still be quite useful.
- Don
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Yes, that would work.
Some humans also could play on CGOS (just for a while) to establish
a conversion from CGOS-ELO to human-ranks.
It would be awkward at best. I could build a client to do this, but
the human would have to be willing to sit and play ga
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
For 9x9 ELO works better. For 19x19 it's less clear cut.The
handicap system appears to be a good system at 19x19 and has the very
nice merit of allowing grossly mismatched players to compete. I
think the two systems can be married by addin
Le mardi 4 décembre 2007, Don Dailey a écrit :
> >
> For 9x9 ELO works better. For 19x19 it's less clear cut.The
> handicap system appears to be a good system at 19x19 and has the very
> nice merit of allowing grossly mismatched players to compete. I
> think the two systems can be ma
Maybe it should be an official tournament on KGS. We should probably
make it invitation only for bots and open to 1d+ from KGS. For
invitation, maybe it should be 2200+ ELO bots?
Looking at http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html, that seems to be:
GreenPeep (2550)
Zen (2472)
MoGo (not lis
I would like to add that we are calibrating against 19x19 players. Even
though their ratings are based on 19x19 play we just want a mapping from
19x19 dan to 9x9 cgos. The assumption is that 1 Dan 19x19 = 1 Dan
9x9 and on average this will be true. We don't expect to get a
perfect table o
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
>> MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you
>> would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could
>> play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength
>> against a human, a
But it does have real meaning. People talk about Dan level 9x9 go
programs and so all I'm looking for is a way to instrument this in a
meaningful way.
If a 9x9 program is estimated to be 2 dan on CGOS, it means a typical 1
dan player will lose to it and a typical 3 dan player will beat it.
It
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Chris Fant wrote:
MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you
would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could
play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength
against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using th
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
not to put too fine a point on it, but "estimating dan ranks" via
9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
information about the program, since there's no such thing as
a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
I d
MoGo. But it seems that it hasn't been playing recently (anyway, you
would have had no idea of the settings and hardware used). You could
play against it on your own hardware to understand it's strength
against a human, and let it get a CGOS rating using the same hardware
whenever you are not pla
On 12/4/07, Álvaro Begué <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> How do you keep that updated cheaply as moves are made? For instance, if I
> put a black stone next to a white chain, how do I update the OR and AND
> pseudoliberty values for that chain? John's complicated solution only
> requires storing a s
not to put too fine a point on it, but "estimating dan ranks" via
9x9 games is a bit silly. it doesn't actually capture any extra
information about the program, since there's no such thing as
a 9x9 rank to compare with/against, much less a dan rank.
ELO works well because it's strictly arbitrary
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Gunnar Farnebäck wrote:
terry mcintyre wrote:
Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's
development pages.
Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though
(mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy.
That's wh
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
note: this is only to estimate the playing strength relative to a 19x19
player since there is no real system that makes sense for 9x9. I
would simple put this on the crosstable web pages in parenthesis. e.g.
Rated: 2410 (1.1d est.)
I don't
terry mcintyre wrote:
> Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's
> development pages.
Don't expect that code to do better than 2000 on CGOS though
(mgtest2). The remaining code used by MonteGNU is still too messy.
/Gunnar
_
Let's make a wild guess.What if I made the web site report
approximate strength using the following formula:
dan = (elo - 2300) / 100
So a 2400 player is 1 dan, a 2500 player is 2 dan etc.
Here is a table:
2300 - 1.0 kyu
2310 - 0.9 kyu
2320 - 0.8 kyu
...
On Dec 4, 2007 3:57 PM, Zach Wegner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Nov 13, 2007 2:44 PM, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Nov 13, 2007 3:32 PM, John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is there any known way to get the best of the both worlds? :-)
> > >
> > > Yes,
Some of the MonteGNU code was just released on CVS. Check out Gnugo's
development pages.
Terry McIntyre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster
- Original Message
From: Chr
On Nov 13, 2007 2:44 PM, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 13, 2007 3:32 PM, John Tromp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > Is there any known way to get the best of the both worlds? :-)
> >
> > Yes, you can generalize pseudoliberties by extending them
> > with another field, such
Relatively speaking chess eval of adding piece values together and
doing nothing else is far closer to optimal evaluation function that
what is currently available in Go.
A GOOD go evaluation function probably needs to incorporate lookahead...
Through most of the game, the difference between "a
Rémi Coulom wrote:
Hi,
13x13 StoneCrazy is currently connected to CGOS (computer go room). It
will stay there for about 24h.
Rémi
So far, it lost 1 game against 3d, and 2 games against 2d. In this game,
it started a nice ko fight at move 69 (but lost):
http://files.gokgs.com/games/2007/12/
Robert Jasiek wrote:
Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly strong
programs?
Would it be possible to publish the MonteGNU code?
If yes, then a few dan-players could play each at least 20 games
against it and publish their results. That would allow for a
rough estimat
At the Cotsen Open the encouragement is a prize for the best program.
It has not been very satisfying for me to have SlugGo win it the past
two years by the default of being the only program present. I would
be much happier to have others show up too. I have heard from one
programmer who says he
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, David Fotland wrote:
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur
Dan level. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
programs have reached amateur Dan level.
David Doshay wrote:
When tournament organizers allow and encourage it!
Some (local) European tournaments would allow it. (Some have already
done it.) "Encourage" - not yet :)
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
David Fotland wrote:
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur
Dan level.
I have meant the latter.
I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
programs have reached amateur Da
Don Dailey wrote:
> For 19x19 it's less clear cut.The
handicap system appears to be a good system
I can't agree, but this has already been discussed at rec.games.go.
(E.g., a player does not need to be good at handicap go if is good in
even games.)
--
robert jasiek
_
On 4, Dec 2007, at 3:59 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
When will we see the strong programs entering real world tournaments?
When tournament organizers allow and encourage it! At this time AGA
rules are that games against computers are not counted in a human
player's ranking.
The Cotsen Open
David Fotland wrote:
> You can't add a fixed ELO offset per stone because games between stronger
> players have much lower variance in score. A handicap stone is
> approximately a score offset (about 7.5 points for the first handicap stone,
> and about 15 points for each additional stone).
>
> E
Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly
> strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I
> cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against
> them as a human on CGOS? I, German 5d, would want to play even games
You can't add a fixed ELO offset per stone because games between stronger
players have much lower variance in score. A handicap stone is
approximately a score offset (about 7.5 points for the first handicap stone,
and about 15 points for each additional stone).
ELO measures probability of winnin
It's not clear if you are talking about professional Dan level or Amateur
Dan level. I've played the top 9x9 programs at 9x9, and so have several
other amateur Dan players, and I think we all agree that the top 9x9
programs have reached amateur Dan level. I don't think these programs are
as stron
Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>> Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach
>> Dan level "in my lifetime" even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9
>> go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody
>> noticed it. It's probably sti
Robert Jasiek wrote:
Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly
strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I
cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against
them as a human on CGOS? I, German 5d, would want to play even games
on 19
Relatively speaking chess eval of adding piece values together and
>
> doing nothing else is far closer to optimal evaluation function that
> what is currently available in Go.
>
> Adding piece values together is just a crude starting point in chess.
> It is true that there isn't an
On 12/4/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I consider more of an issue is that MoGo seems to be very
> > sensitive to (undocumented) configuration options. Such issues
> > probably exist with all engines. It'd probably be smarter to set up a
> > day where strong bots would connect
> What I consider more of an issue is that MoGo seems to be very
> sensitive to (undocumented) configuration options. Such issues
> probably exist with all engines. It'd probably be smarter to set up a
> day where strong bots would connect to CGOS and invite dan-level
> players to challenge them.
Don Dailey wrote:
Just a few years ago it was widely held that computers will not reach
Dan level "in my lifetime" even in 9x9 Go.When it happened in 9x9
go, it was not accepted - the day it happened passed us by and nobody
noticed it. It's probably still not common knowledge and it will
On 12/4/07, Chris Fant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly
> > > strong programs?
> >
> > But Mogo is now a free program.You can get a copy, find some good
> > hardware and play at 9x9 and 19x19.
> >
>
> But the released version is
> > Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly
> > strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I
> > cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against
> > them as a human on CGOS?
> CGOS is designed for computer/computer only.You could
Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly
> strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I
> cannot find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against
> them as a human on CGOS?
CGOS is designed for computer/computer only
Hi Gian-Carlo,
There is an interesting phenomenon going on when it comes to the
perception and advertisement of game playing strength.
One is that people take time to accept concepts they are used to
thinking differently about. I remember one human (chess) player who
was pretty weak for many ye
The summary looks good to me.
Just to clarify HouseBot's round 3 performance...
HouseBot would normally resign lost games, but it has a check in there
that prevents resignation when it has not thought deeply enough about
every move. 19x19 is such a big board that it does not hit that
threshold i
Petri Pitkanen wrote:
> I think Monte-Carlo is more attempting solve a different issue
> altogether. Sure it is a search tree buyt main problem is the
> evaluation function. Currently we do not know any good way to evaluate
> the situation on go board until the game is at very late stages. And I
> Mogo is around 2500 on CGOS:
> http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_psg7.html
>
This implies you believe the ratings didn't shift over time.
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2007-October/011405.html
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_monothreadC.html
http://cgos.boardsp
On Dec 4, 2007 1:42 AM, Petri Pitkanen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > There is something that the latest Monte Carlo programs have in common
> > with the best chess programs - and seems to be the right way to
> > structure a game tree search.Your selectivity should be
> > progressive. In o
Where can one play the latest versions of MoGo or other, similarly
strong programs? It is said that some programs are on KGS, but I cannot
find them. How to find them? Is it possible to play against them as a
human on CGOS? I, German 5d, would want to play even games on 19x19,
13x13, or 9x9 to
Christoph Birk wrote:
I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent
to 'high dan-level' play.
Neither do I. In fact the whole kyu/dan rating system applies
only to 19x19. 9x9 is not deep enough to have have so many ranks.
On a 9x9 board an average amateur beats a pro with handicap 3.
Th
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If someone has factual data[*] about 9 x 9 performance of
current bots I'll gladly revise the estimate on the webpage
on my own.
Mogo is around 2500 on CGOS:
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/cross/MoGo_psg7.html
In Amsterdam, ajahuang (kgs 6d) played a few games agai
Hi all,
Gian-Carlo Pascutto: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Russell Wallace wrote:
>>> I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level
>>> performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting.
>>
>> I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level'
>> play.
> On Sun, 2 Dec 2007, Russell Wallace wrote:
>> I haven't seen Leela before, but the claim of high dan-level
>> performance on 9x9 is certainly interesting.
>
> I don't think 2200 ELO on the 9x9 CGOS is equivalent to 'high dan-level'
> play.
I was under the impression that MoGo (approx 2350 CGOS)
UEC cup was held in 2007/12/01-02 in The University of
Electro-communications, Tyofu, Tokyo, Japan.
27 programs competed. (GNU Go also entered as a guest, so all 28 programs)
First day was Swiss 5R, and second day was tournament by best 16.
And Crazy Stone won. 2nd was Katshunari and 3rd was MoGo
77 matches
Mail list logo
