On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 09:03:17PM +0100, Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> Le lundi 18 février 2008, Michael Williams a écrit :
> > But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably still
> > not pro level, right?
> >
>
> On 9x9 Big_slow_Mogo is near pro level, maybe more.
> 6 month
On Mon, 18 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Recently I have lost some faith in my belief that 7.0 komi is right on
9x9 with Chinese CGOS style rules. I was never absolutely SURE of
it, but I believed it with a high degree of confidence. I still
believe 7.0 is correct, but I'm somewhat less sur
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: computer-go
Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
Hi David,
Any opinion either of us have on this is only speculation.
Nevertheless, in any kind of science there te
trong program authors in private and many
people do not want to distribute a binary.
- Don
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: computer-go
> > Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:45 pm
> > Subject:
Michael Williams wrote:
> But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably
> still not pro level, right?
I don't know how strong Mogo is in the grand scheme of things - but the
experiments with komi indicate that 7.0 is too low and that 8.0 is a
lower bound on what komi shoul
>? -Original Message-
>? From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>? To: computer-go
>? Sent: Mon, 18 Feb 2008 1:45 pm
>? Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8
> ...I have seen widely held beliefs be proven wrong before
> (the e
Le lundi 18 février 2008, Michael Williams a écrit :
> But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably still
> not pro level, right?
>
On 9x9 Big_slow_Mogo is near pro level, maybe more.
6 monthes ago or so it was able to regurlarly beat pro without komi on 9x9.
Alain
___
But as was pointed out before, these high levels of MoGo are probably still not
pro level, right?
Don Dailey wrote:
Hi David,
Any opinion either of us have on this is only speculation.
Nevertheless, in any kind of science there tends to be unproven
conjectures that are widely believed to
Hi David,
Any opinion either of us have on this is only speculation.
Nevertheless, in any kind of science there tends to be unproven
conjectures that are widely believed to be true even though nobody has
found a rigorous proof. Some of those will turn out to surprise
everybody. I have se
Don,
Interesting thoughts and links. I read through them all. :)
Some points: I wasn't expressing an opinion as to the degree of
difference between "God's komi" and "Man's komi". 2.5 seems perfectly
reasonable (at least with current levels of skill).
As far as it being widely believed th
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
>> My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
>>
>> Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
>>
>> Here is an excerpt:
>>
>> It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board size
>> for all
>> 9.5pt komi is unreasonable. I agree with Don that perfect game value
>> will probably turn out to be 7pts, though I'm keeping an open mind that
>> it may be 6pts. I'd be surprised if it was 8pts, though that could just
>> mean I've been analyzing the wrong openings :-).
>
> On 9x9 with Chin
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 9:03 AM, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 9.5pt komi is unreasonable. I agree with Don that perfect game value
> will probably turn out to be 7pts, though I'm keeping an open mind that
> it may be 6pts. I'd be surprised if it was 8pts, though that could just
> me
>> I tried Alford's value of 9.5 komi and white is even more happy, showing
>> about 0.547 in the score.
>>
>> I don't believe what Alford says about 9.5 being the correct komi for
>> 9x9.Where does that information come from?
>
> Japanese tv games.
Hi Michael,
Do you have a reference for th
Quoting Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Here is an excerpt:
It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board size
for all but the smallest boards. For area scoring, this w
On Feb 11, 2008, at 9:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
My feelings on this seem to match at least one source:
Look here:http://senseis.xmp.net/?Komi
Here is an excerpt:
It is widely believed that the correct komi is independent of board
size
for all but the smallest boards. For area scoring,
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
> On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
>>> On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a "proper
>>> komi", derived as it is from "the hand of God" (perfect play), will
>>> invariably be too high for any actual
Don Dailey wrote:
I tried Alford's value of 9.5 komi and white is even more happy, showing
about 0.547 in the score.
I don't believe what Alford says about 9.5 being the correct komi for
9x9.Where does that information come from?
Japanese tv games.
On Feb 12, 2008 2:10 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Andy wrote:
> > But the program isn't stronger than pros, so how can it give better
> > information about proper komi?
> Pro's cannot give you statistical information on komi unless you simply
> collate several thousand pro games.
On Feb 11, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a "proper
komi", derived as it is from "the hand of God" (perfect play), will
invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an
interesting match
David Schneider-Joseph wrote:
> On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a "proper
> komi", derived as it is from "the hand of God" (perfect play), will
> invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an
> interesting match for each other?
I guess it's possible.
Andy wrote:
> But the program isn't stronger than pros, so how can it give better
> information about proper komi?
Pro's cannot give you statistical information on komi unless you simply
collate several thousand pro games.
I don't think you need a particularly strong program, just good
programs
On that topic - might it be possible that the notion of a "proper
komi", derived as it is from "the hand of God" (perfect play), will
invariably be too high for any actual go players which would be an
interesting match for each other?
On Feb 11, 2008, at 7:35 PM, Andy wrote:
But the progra
But the program isn't stronger than pros, so how can it give better
information about proper komi?
On Feb 11, 2008 6:09 PM, Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
> > I don't bet, but if I did, I would bet that it's 7 or 8, and I'm
> > fairly certain
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Michael Alford wrote:
i believe correct komi for 9x9 with pros is 9.5
That's way too large.
Christoph
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
I don't bet, but if I did, I would bet that it's 7 or 8, and I'm
fairly certain that with best play the game would end with 7 extra
points for black.
I think this was discussed at great length 2 or 3 years ago.
I know ... I brought it up again because o
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
>> Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
>> suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
>
> I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
> it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0.
Christop
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Is your question whether 7.0 or 8.0 is the best komi? Or do you
suspect a different 1/2 komi value is best?
I wonder what the true komi is ... I don't know (nobody knows?) if
it's fractional or not; eg. for 7x7 it is 9.0.
Christoph
Olivier Teytaud: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> That translates to mean that MoGo no longer uses upper confidence
>> bounds, and only uses means. It also means that MoGo will _never_
>> explore improbable children (after a few sims) unless the RAVE value
>> yields an unusually high estimate for it. Is
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
>> With 20 minute games, some people succeed in winning games
>> against the release 3 of MoGo. But for
>> X-hours-per-move, I don't know.
>
> What are the self-play results (white vs. black) for "hour-long"
> games of Mogo?
> I
On Mon, 11 Feb 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
With 20 minute games, some people succeed in winning games
against the release 3 of MoGo. But for
X-hours-per-move, I don't know.
What are the self-play results (white vs. black) for "hour-long"
games of Mogo?
I am wondering if the proper komi for 9x9
> >Thinking a little more about it, I think we have to add an hypothesis
> >which is that, for a given move, the number of AMAF updates if < alpha
> >(nb total UCT updates), with alpha < 1. That seems to hold for most of
> >the updates (with alpha close to 0.5), but there may be cases where it
> >d
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version.
Using the float version (since it was all I had), I did a fairly
extensive analysis of the losing move from the MoGo game that Fotland
added comments to. My results were posted to this list on 2/1/08
under the subject, "UCT
>>> Sylvain wrote:
Thinking a little more about it, I think we have to add an hypothesis
which is that, for a given move, the number of AMAF updates if < alpha
(nb total UCT updates), with alpha < 1. That seems to hold for most of
the updates (with alpha close to 0.5), but there may be cases whe
> As far as I see,
> if RAVE gives constant value 0 to one move, it will never be tested if
> other moves
> have non-zero AMAF values.
>
> A move
> with "real" empirical probability 0 of winning and AMAF value of 0.01
> will always be preferred to a non-simulated move with AMAF 0.0, whatever
> may
A new position is always visited unless the leaf of the tree is the
end of the game. In that case, one player always win, so the other
always win. Then, the losing player will explore all the other moves
to avoid the sure loss. If all moves are still loosing, that will
propagate to the move befo
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version. Using the
float version (since it was all I had), I did a fairly extensive analysis of
the losing move from the MoGo game that Fotland added comments to. My
results were posted to this list on 2/1/08 under the subject, "UCT and
Michael Williams wrote:
==> if someone beats the release MoGoR3 with
very large computation times (time x nbcores = 4h, 1 to 4 cores)
I'm interested in the sgf file and the analysis
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version. Using
the float version (since it was
==> if someone beats the release MoGoR3 with
very large computation times (time x nbcores = 4h, 1 to 4 cores)
I'm interested in the sgf file and the analysis
I can't tell if you mean the float version or the double version. Using the float version (since it was all I had), I did a fairl
A new position is always visited unless the leaf of the tree is the
end of the game. In that case, one player always win, so the other
always win. Then, the losing player will explore all the other moves
to avoid the sure loss. If all moves are still loosing, that will
propagate to the move before,
- at "each" (or every n) iteration you add one node.
As far as I see, new nodes are created only if new nodes are visited;
if
score(visited nodes) > score(unvisited nodes)
why would mogo visit new nodes ?
But (before the recent PDF file) I never understood completly
the bandit in mogo,
> So:
> - theoretically, I don't see any reason for mogo to be asymptotically
>consistent
I think it is still asymptotically consistent:
- at "each" (or every n) iteration you add one node.
- if the node is at the end of the game, the evaluation is perfect.
- you play the move with the highest
I'm just surprised to hear that the program that introduced UCT (and got
so many others to use it), isn't using UCT any more. Combining RAVE and
UCT as described in the PDF still sounds like UCT to me, but with no
sqrt(log) term, it no longer is. I'll certainly have to think about the
trades bei
On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:35 +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> > That translates to mean that MoGo no longer uses upper confidence
> > bounds, and only uses means. It also means that MoGo will _never_
> > explore improbable children (after a few sims) unless the RAVE value
> > yields an unusually hi
ing deeper in the variation with highest winning
probability.
David
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Olivier Teytaud
> Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2008 9:35 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go]
That translates to mean that MoGo no longer uses upper confidence
bounds, and only uses means. It also means that MoGo will _never_
explore improbable children (after a few sims) unless the RAVE value
yields an unusually high estimate for it. Is all of that correct?
Precisely: I don't see why
On Sat, 2008-02-09 at 11:50 +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> > I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
> > The idea is to estimate bias and variance to calculate the best combination
> > of UCT and RAVE values.
> > I have attached a pdf explaining the new formula.
>
> It is writt
I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
The idea is to estimate bias and variance to calculate the best combination
of UCT and RAVE values.
I have attached a pdf explaining the new formula.
It is written in the pdf file that the formula is the one in MoGo;
but in MoGo there's
Thank you very much, Silver. Interesting report!
-Hideki
David Silver: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Hi all,
>
>On 7-Feb-08, at 1:30 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Note as well that the current implementation of MoGo (not the one at
>> the time of the ICML paper) use a different tradeoff between UCT
David Silver wrote:
I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
Great. Thanks for sharing.
Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Feb 8, 2008 12:09 PM, David Silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think it is time to share this idea with the world :-)
> The idea is to estimate bias and variance to calculate the best
> combination of UCT and RAVE values.
> I have attached a pdf explaining the new formula.
Thanks!
The ori
52 matches
Mail list logo
