Thank you Oliver,
Olivier Teytaud: :
>>
>> The performance gap is perhaps due to the algorithms. Almost all
>> cluster versions of current strong programs (MoGo, MFG, Fuego and Zen)
>> use root parallel while shared memory computers allow us to use thread
>> parallelism, which gives better perfor
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 23:58, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Vlad Dumitrescu writes
>> Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
>> normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
>> players.
>
> Are you talking about omniscient players? If not, I have already an
2009/11/24 terry mcintyre :
>>Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
>>normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
>>players.
>
>>In my view, we have
>> hahn: object of the game = max board score
>> normal: object of the game = board scor
>
> The performance gap is perhaps due to the algorithms. Almost all
> cluster versions of current strong programs (MoGo, MFG, Fuego and Zen)
> use root parallel while shared memory computers allow us to use thread
> parallelism, which gives better performance.
I think you should not have troubl
Darren Cook: <4b0c6706.7070...@dcook.org>:
>> Also, on 19x19 board, current 16-core cluster version performs almost
>> the same as 8-core shared memory pc such as Mac Pro, which Yamato used
>> for KGS.
>
>Hi Hideki,
>Is that difference due to a scaling limit of Zen, or is this due to the
>cluste
>What do you do when you add a new parameter? Do you retain your existing
>'history', considering each game to have been played with the value of
>the new parameter set to zero?
Yes, exactly.
>If you have 50 parameters already, doesn't adding a new parameter create
>a rather large number of new p
>> No professional gambler, if he had the numbers laid out for him, would
>> ever choose unoptimal play, ...
>
> A professional gambler has a 2 step task.
> 1. Find a weaker player (aka "fish")
> 2. capture the fish('s bankroll)
Big Deal, by Anthony Holden, is a fine read (a professional writer t
In message <200911242252.09463.alain.baecker...@laposte.net>, Alain
Baeckeroot writes
In another thread Nick Wedd wrote:
The December KGS bot tournament will be 9x9. I guess that if a
cluster-Zen competes in that (I am hoping it will), it will be
unbeatable.
The existing pattern of KGS bot
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 12:11:55AM +0100, Stefan Kaitschick wrote:
>
> A professional gambler has a 2 step task.
> 1. Find a weaker player (aka "fish")
[...]
> So the whole idea of "optimizing" the score it totally besides the point.
I was using the professional gambler as a rational player in an
No professional gambler, if he had the numbers laid out for him, would
ever choose unoptimal play, not when he's playing for the long
term. The computer, in the same way, would have to be modeled to
maximize expected value. Nothing else makes sense.
In a single game with high stakes, yes mindset
> Also, on 19x19 board, current 16-core cluster version performs almost
> the same as 8-core shared memory pc such as Mac Pro, which Yamato used
> for KGS.
Hi Hideki,
Is that difference due to a scaling limit of Zen, or is this due to the
cluster overhead? Would moving from gigabit to infiniband
In message
<95be1d3b0911241346o3d26135eif8f184eb3f516...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 22:15, Nick Wedd wrote:
But the "additive" property of Hahn scoring makes life easy for players. If
the board has become separated into regions that do not interact, player
From: Vlad Dumitrescu
>I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't get it. There must be some subtle
>detail that escapes me...
>Please try to explain why the "hahn calculation" isn't working in a
>normal game so as to ensure a win. I'm talking about strong human
>pl
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> If i understand what D.Hillis said, it can put in light some hidden
> aspects of the bots, and should be more spectacular than the
> wise-sure-win style of MC *Go* bots.
> And i guess it does not require lot of change in the code, "only"
> points instead of win/loss in th
Hi Nick,
I'll perticipate comming tournaments as much as possible but it's
still under development and needs much more work and time for full
performance.
Since my mini cluster uses usual Gigabit Ether, which is much slower
than expensive Infiniband or such high speed network devices, it
performs
Le 24/11/2009 à 00:24, dhillism...@netscape.net a écrit :
>
> For my fast/dumb neural net engine, Antbot9x9, I coevolved the weights using
> a similar tournament system. Each individual played a number of games against
> all the others, round robin, and the score was the sum of points for all of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 22:15, Nick Wedd wrote:
> But the "additive" property of Hahn scoring makes life easy for players. If
> the board has become separated into regions that do not interact, players
> can just work out what they think is the biggest local move on each part of
> the board, and t
In message <4b0c4522.370%hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp>, Hideki Kato
writes
Ingo Althöfer: <20091124200643.255...@gmx.net>:
Hideki replied:
Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
I'd like to do so but it's not allowed to connect
In message <20091124193826.303...@gmx.net>, Ingo Althöfer
<3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> writes
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
I think this game [go with Hahn scoring; IA] is clearly more
difficult than a binary win/loss game.
That is one of the possible question, and I also vote for "yes",
as normal go is si
Hi Hideki,
>> Is Zen-Author reading here?
>> Maybe, he can rethink about the possibility.
>
> He is sleeping now 'cause it's 5:30 am in Japan :).
Ok, let him his good sleep.
>> I want Cluster-Zen for Christmas, Cluster-Zen-for Christmas,
>> Cluster-Zen for Christmas, please, please, please, pl
Ingo Althöfer: <20091124200643.255...@gmx.net>:
>Hideki replied:
>>
>>> Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
>>> It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
>>
>> I'd like to do so but it's not allowed to connect the
>> cluster to the Internet, sigh.
>
>Hmm. As CGOS is al
Hideki replied:
>
>> Do I have a Christmas wish for free already?
>> It is: Let the cluster also run on KGS - against the humans.
>
> I'd like to do so but it's not allowed to connect the
> cluster to the Internet, sigh.
Hmm. As CGOS is also Internet, it seems that Zen-author
does not allow you t
Ingo Althöfer: <20091124190802.303...@gmx.net>:
>Hideki Kato wrote:
>> I'm now testing a cluster version of Zen (Zengg-4x4c-tst), developed
>> by a joint project with Yamato, on cgos 19x19. It wons, however, all
>> games (except first one with timeout due to a bug). Running more
>> strong prog
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> I think this game [go with Hahn scoring; IA] is clearly more
> difficult than a binary win/loss game.
That is one of the possible question, and I also vote for "yes",
as normal go is simply a Hahn-Go veriant with "coarsened" evaluation.
Even more interesting might be this
Hideki Kato wrote:
> I'm now testing a cluster version of Zen (Zengg-4x4c-tst), developed
> by a joint project with Yamato, on cgos 19x19. It wons, however, all
> games (except first one with timeout due to a bug). Running more
> strong programs are very appreciated.
Hideki, thx for your acti
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me "If I seal off my territory at
> A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I
> will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points".
>
> If I am playing Go,
Brian Sheppard wrote:
> I think that I am assuming only that the objective function is convex. The
> parameters in Go programs are always inter-dependent.
What do you do when you add a new parameter? Do you retain your existing
'history', considering each game to have been played with the value of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 04:19:45PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> Sure. But different gamblers have different "break-even" limits, i.e.
> different mindsets. Some are cautious and prefer 80% for those 25
> points; some are reckless and would go for B even with 60%.
No professional gambler, if
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 16:11, Nick Wedd wrote:
> Suppose my attempts to read the game tell me "If I seal off my territory at
> A, I will win by 5 points. If instead I invade at B, then 70% of the time I
> will win by 25 points, 30% of the time I will lose by 5 points".
>
> If I am playing Go, I
In message
<95be1d3b0911240657g24467ecey84cdb05918ca7...@mail.gmail.com>, Vlad
Dumitrescu writes
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
to los
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:57:37PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> Yes, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the strategy should be to
> push each game to the limit. Trying to win with a large margin is less
> safe than with a small one, so it depends on the gambler's mindset.
That's why I sai
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 15:45, Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>> So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
>> to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
>> there's no reason to try to
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 03:06:51PM +0100, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>
> So the only difference in play is when losing, one has to keep trying
> to lose as little as possible, resigning isn't an option. When ahead,
> there's no reason to try to win big, unless the goal is to reach a
> certain amount of
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 14:20, Tapani Raiko wrote:
> Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
>> Just a thought: if the bet is "I can beat you with X points on the
>> board or more", then it's exactly like trying to win a normal game
>> with X points komi, right?
>>
>> Are there any other kind of bets?
>>
> Yes, ha
Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko wrote:
>
>> One can also play a single game for instance with money bets based on
>> the Hahn points, which makes Hahn go strategy relevant also for a single
>> game.
>>
>
> Just a thought: if the bet is "I can beat you w
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko wrote:
> One can also play a single game for instance with money bets based on
> the Hahn points, which makes Hahn go strategy relevant also for a single
> game.
Just a thought: if the bet is "I can beat you with X points on the
board or more", then it'
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 11:18, Tapani Raiko wrote:
> Hi,
>> Hahn go strategy is only relevant for a tournament (otherwise one can
>> simply play normal go, it doesn't matter by how many points one wins).
>> And thus it includes a meta-strategy involving the results in the
>> other games and knowle
Hi,
> Hahn go strategy is only relevant for a tournament (otherwise one can
> simply play normal go, it doesn't matter by how many points one wins).
> And thus it includes a meta-strategy involving the results in the
> other games and knowledge of one's opponents.
>
One can also play a single ga
Hi all,
If I may get out of lurking mode and try to understand the problem here...
IMHO there is another issue here that creates a difference and makes
the strategies for "normal go" and "hahn go" incomparable. I has been
touched upon by previous posters, but not spelled out.
Normal go strategy
39 matches
Mail list logo
