Personally, I use the terminology in much the same way as Heikki. I
use the word "mistake" to describe (for example) a move that loses a
large group, but does not change the game from a win to a loss. It
makes sense to me to generally apply "mistake" to any move that loses
points relative to the
On Sun, Jan 21, 2007 at 08:16:07PM -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
> >I don't know the percentage of blunders. It also depends on what you
> >call a blunder. Is a 1 point mistake a blunder?
>
> no, maybe 10 or more points
My gut feeling is that a real blunder is enough to loose the game.
Between equally
On 21-jan-07, at 19:27, Don Dailey wrote:
not considering biological factors
which would cut into this a bit.
There was a time when there were no time-limits in Go, which was
abused by many players by turning a game into a stamina contest. I
believe this practice was abandoned when someon
> Yes, we heard that argument for years in computer chess and it never
> happened.
>
> Do you have some kind of basis for believe that?
i wouldn't argue that future algorithms can't be time-doubled beyond
the existing skill level of people, just that the current evidence is weak
that we alread
sequence is 30 moves. In my opinion atleast.
- Nick
On 1/21/07, Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
At 03:43 AM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
>- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
>Van: Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am
>Onderwerp: Re: [comput
At 03:43 AM 1/21/2007, you wrote:
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
>
> also i suspect that at least 33%
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 15:50 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> > > If you guys are correct thinking the nature of the game is such
> that
> > > humans cannot improve with time, then the computers will pull
> > > ahead more and more at longer time controls.
>
> let's adjust this to avoid the strawm
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 15:50 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
> i think that computers will tap out and no longer be able to gain ELO
> after some (unknown) amount of doubling of thinking time. :)
Yes, we heard that argument for years in computer chess and it never
happened.
Do you have some kind of
> > If you guys are correct thinking the nature of the game is such that
> > humans cannot improve with time, then the computers will pull
> > ahead more and more at longer time controls.
let's adjust this to avoid the strawman and say that the counter-argument
is that humans cannot improve m
It looks like computers are scalable - I know my UCT based program
responds
quite well to extra time.
So to make the test of whether humans are scalable, we simply do this:
1. Get a strong scalable go program.
2. Measure it's skill at various time controls.
3. Pit humans (who are roughly eq
A lot of this interesting discussion has been about whether humans can make use
of extra time. Some participants ( such as Dave Devos ) believe that, after a
certain point, humans cannot
improve their rank, at least not linearly with respect to time alloted. Fair
enough; we humans require sleep,
> I don't have any reason to believe
> this only applies to chess but not other games.
the more you play go, i think the more you will come to
believe that chess and go are not remotely similar,
and things that you've learned about chess do not
necessarily have direct analogues in go. (or more im
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 21:23 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Of course time helps. I guess the difference between 8 hours time and
> 1 hour time gives an advantage of about 13 points (1 amateur grade)
> at
> the top professional level, which will probably swing the winning
> percentage from 50%
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 9:23 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
> Mark Boon pointed out the problem of conceptual barriers. I
> just lack some of the concepts that
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 7:02 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
>
> By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches the
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 11:32 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
> From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
> > fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go?
>
> Don probably had his tongue in cheek when he typed tha
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> By the way, can I assume that in world champion GO matches they use
> fast time controls because long time controls don't help in Go?
Don probably had his tongue in cheek when he typed that, but according to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kisei , games in th
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 13:34 -0200, Mark Boon wrote:
> Don,
>
> I agree that more time generally leads to better moves. Also in Go.
> Where I think Go differs from Chess is the qualitative difference
> between a move that was thought about for 10 sec. or 2 hrs. is much
> smaller in Go than in
Don,
I agree that more time generally leads to better moves. Also in Go.
Where I think Go differs from Chess is the qualitative difference
between a move that was thought about for 10 sec. or 2 hrs. is much
smaller in Go than in Chess. And that's really because of the
different nature of
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Ray Tayek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zondag, januari 21, 2007 4:18 am
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go
program's rank.
>
> also i suspect that at least 33% of the moves (at my 1-dan level
> maybe it's my poor old brain, but the middle of the game is so
> complicated (for me), that after some amount of time i get
> diminishing returns. it gets *really* complicated. it's not just
> reading (lookahead), it's judgement as to how this particular line of
> battle will have an effect o
Assuming that the average divergence from perfect play doubles every say 50
ELO points, you would expect that handicap stone would become worth less as
you went to lower ranks. And this would also make sense because of how ELO
is defined. You can imagine that a player that is perfect would only
At 05:30 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:
...
> I don't really know how much 1 extra dan represents at this
level - I think it translates to 200 or
> more ELO points. We can figure this out - what is the win
expectancy of 5 dan over 4 dan without handicap?
>
http://gemma.ujf.cas.cz/~cieply/GO/st
At 04:23 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
> ...
> On 1/20/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If what you are saying is true, this is a waste of time. ...
But I'm not talking about opening preparation.
My point is all about just a fe
At 12:06 PM 1/20/2007, you wrote:
... You mentioned that you think GO is different that Chess, ..
yes, i think so.
In Chess, good players will spend hours a... they will be able to
find a better
move
yes, they probably will.
...
It seems really odd to me that you are incapable of
doin
This is quite a bit less than I thought - only about 100
ELO points.
- Don
On Sun, 2007-01-21 at 02:30 +0100, alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> Le dimanche 21 janvier 2007 01:23, Don Dailey a écrit :
> > On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
> > > Hi Don,
> > > To put another persp
Le dimanche 21 janvier 2007 01:23, Don Dailey a écrit :
> On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
> > Hi Don,
> > To put another perspective on it: If I had an hour for every move in a
> > tournament game, I might play good EGF 5d level instead of average EGF
> > 4d. That's a big diff
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:34 -0700, Arend Bayer wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> On 1/20/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If what you are saying is true, this is a waste of time.
> They should not be able to produce better quality moves
> than what they produce over the board
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 21:55 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my opinion in Go a game leaves the "standard" opening book very
> quickly, usually early in the opening. There are so many ways to play
> in the opening. If you opponent is trying to manipulate you into his
> favourite joseki(the t
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: zaterdag, januari 20, 2007 9:06 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer
go program's rank.
> Years ago A player in the chess
> club kept beating me over th
On Sat, 2007-01-20 at 15:06 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> Years ago A player in the chess
> club kept beating me over the head with a non-standard
> opening move that was difficult to refute. I got sick
> of this, sat down in the privacy of my own home and
> didn't get back up until I discovered t
Hi Ray,
You mentioned that you think GO is different that Chess, let's
examine if that is true with regard to being able to use extra
time effectively.
In Chess, good players will spend hours analyzing openings
in preparation for tournaments.They imagine that if
they put a lot of thought in
At 08:45 PM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:05 -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
>
> yes. i would easily give my opponent *much* more time than a few
> handicap stones. the effect of time making someone (or thing) play
> better (or worse) is non-linear and probably only effective over some
>
>> keep in mind that lots of money is riding on the result of just a few
>> games...
> How much money?
for the japanese tournaments, up to $500K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Go_tournaments
s.
Need Mai
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 12:27 +0200, Petri Pitkanen wrote:
> But also in chess I think there is a limit on what can be gained by
> adding time. After so and so many minutes/move your decision would
> not be any better.
This is not true in the positions that matter. Again it's a human
time percep
keep in mind that lots of money is riding on the result of just a few games...
How much money?
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
for what it's worth, strong players often spend enormous amounts of time
on moves. professional tournament games are not generally of the
2-second-per-move variety. historically, they have taken days, but i'm not
sure what the standard is now. perhaps someone who has seen a web
simulcast of a re
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 14:04 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
> >> My point being that a top pro will find a high quality move in the time
> >> it takes him to move the mouse from one side of the board to the other.
> >
> > But still it's *WAY* below his normal tournament playing strength to
> > play so q
2007/1/19, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> My point being that a top pro will find a high quality move in the time
>> it takes him to move the mouse from one side of the board to the other.
>
> But still it's *WAY* below his normal tournament playing strength to
> play so quickly...
Everythi
>> My point being that a top pro will find a high quality move in the time
>> it takes him to move the mouse from one side of the board to the other.
>
> But still it's *WAY* below his normal tournament playing strength to
> play so quickly...
Everything I know about the way top pros play says th
I believe at 1 or 2 second per move a professional 1 dan would beat
any computers hands down, provided he/she has reasonable motoric skills.
You could make the time so short the human player physically is
unable to move. Or so fast his nervous system is too slow to process
a conscious thoug
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 20:05 -0800, Ray Tayek wrote:
>
> yes. i would easily give my opponent *much* more time than a few
> handicap stones. the effect of time making someone (or thing) play
> better (or worse) is non-linear and probably only effective over some
> small range of time and talent.
At 06:30 PM 1/18/2007, you wrote:
> In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and
> computer) towards random play. I am sure there exists a time limit
> where a random playing program can beat Lee Chang-Ho 50% of the time.
... I watched a top 9-dan pro play a program; ...
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 11:30 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
> > In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and
> > computer) towards random play. I am sure there exists a time limit
> > where a random playing program can beat Lee Chang-Ho 50% of the time.
>
> At one of the FOST
> In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and
> computer) towards random play. I am sure there exists a time limit
> where a random playing program can beat Lee Chang-Ho 50% of the time.
At one of the FOST tournaments I watched a top 9-dan pro play a program;
the progra
ime controls are long.
- Don
> Terry McIntyre
>
> - Original Message
> From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Cc: computer-go@computer-go.org
> Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:12:58 PM
> Subject: Re: [computer-go]
On Fri, 2007-01-19 at 01:12 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and
> computer) towards random play.
It's a useful and meaningful experiment, but it can't be accurately
performed at meaningfully fast levels. The human interface is
er-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 4:12:58 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] an idea for a new measure of a computer go program's
rank.
In my opinion lowering the time limit just forces players (human and
computer) towards random play. I am sure there exists a time lim
progress in computer go, even if programs don't
become very much stronger over the years: at least they will become
quicker :)
Dave
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
Van: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Datum: donderdag, januari 18, 2007 11:19 pm
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] an ide
There is one way to attempt to adjust for this - give the computer a 1
or
2 second penalty for each move.
- Don
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 16:06 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> especially because computers don't have to click the relevent move
> with a mouse. They just think it and its done. Make a c
On Thu, 2007-01-18 at 23:02 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I would not consider it very impressing nor interesting if a fast 10k
> program beats strong players on time. It think the stronger player
> will win with 10 seconds per move, but lowering the time limit until
> the stronger player lo
especially because computers don't have to click the relevent move with a
mouse. They just think it and its done. Make a computer go program move
the mouse and click like the human or make a computer go program physically
place the stone on the board and if a computer can win in speed go, i'll b
Hi Dan,
Your suggestions hits at what I consider a basic truth or an axiom for
game playing entities, humans or computers - that strength is a
function of time and memory.Skill can be viewed as time. The
skillful player is just making his time count more by being more
efficient, sometimes ma
I would not consider it very impressing nor interesting if a fast 10k
program beats strong players on time. It think the stronger player
will win with 10 seconds per move, but lowering the time limit until
the stronger player loses on time is just silly.
Dave
- Oorspronkelijk bericht -
54 matches
Mail list logo
