> Petr Baudis wrote:
> >> MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights;
> >> unfortunately, I couldn't find any quickly, so here is at least an
> >> example of a shorter one.
> I see you made the following comment in that game record, which seems
> relevant to recent discussions he
Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
>>> Don Dailey wrote:
not assuming that MC plays the best move. The problem isn't the
>> assumptions I am making, but the assumptions others are making, that
>> it's NOT playing the best move.You want to apply a f
>
>
> You won't find that in computer vs computer games, because "tricking" the
> strong programs requires some go skill and it only works if you wait long
> enough before you "solve" the position. But if you search KGS (LeelaBot,
> CrazyStone, CzechBot) for even games where the bot lost against a
steve uurtamo wrote:
> why doesn't someone simply try this and post the results,
> if they think that it would help?
>
>
If someone would do this scientifically I would be all for it. But I
am a bit of a pessimist about this. I can easily imagine someone
trying it at reporting good results
yes, and the fact that turning a dumpling into a dead
group can take more than a few moves, since you may
have to fill up the eyespace several times, meaning
going fairly deeply down branches with several self-ataris
along the way.
s.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
why doesn't someone simply try this and post the results,
if they think that it would help?
s.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Christoph Birk wrote:
> > On Mar 5, 2008, at 11:58 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
> >>> Don Dailey wrote:
> not assuming tha
--- Jacques Basaldúa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Petr Baudis wrote:
>
> You won't find that in computer vs computer games,
> because "tricking" the
> strong programs requires some go skill and it only
> works if you wait long
> enough before you "solve" the position. But if you
> search KGS
steve uurtamo wrote:
> yes, and the fact that turning a dumpling into a dead
> group can take more than a few moves, since you may
> have to fill up the eyespace several times, meaning
> going fairly deeply down branches with several self-ataris
> along the way.
>
Ok, it's pretty much as I th
> I think the general outline is that you pre-test groups first to see if
> a self-atari move is "interesting."It's worthy of additional
> consideration if the stones it is touching have limited liberties and
> the group you self-atari is relatively small.Then you could go on to
> other tes
> Thanks for an excellent description of "the nakade
> problem." I've found that it is easy for a "5kyu KGS
> player" - myself - to exploit such situations. I can't
> escape observing that endgame moves where a bot
> permits me to take a yose point here, another there,
> all the while drawing clos
Your idea is more in the spirit of MC, I like it.
Another idea is borrowed from my first reasonable MC player. I looked
at the "futures" of interesting move points and discouraged self-atari
moves unless the future belonged to the player executing the move. (A
"future" is the expected percent
Because the trick can only be played by similar strength players (much
weaker players can't build something like that, much stronger don't
need it)
it affects the rating of the bots. I guess CrazyStone could be near
KGS 1dan
with that solved. It is 2k now. But, of course, the solution may not
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 12:55:53PM +, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> A 4-6 kyu human is behind by 10-15 points in the midgame (at that stage the
> probability of winning is correlated with territory, so the MC bot is
> building fine.) He creates a 12-16 point worth nakade trick in a corner
> and doe
> You have to have a nakade pattern on the
> board somewhere, the score has to be close and in your favor
> considering the nakade, and the program has to believe that it is more
> advantageous to give away stones that not.
eh, or it can't see the capture until it's only a few moves away, bec
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
One last time: Nobody suggested a one fix for all positions/problems.
The "floating komi" was suggested to guide the UCT search along
certain lines of play during specific (close!) endgame positions.
When I said all positions I meant all games.You expect
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
And can I assume the tree portion is also inhibited from seeing this due
to a combination of factors such as heuristics to delay exploring "ugly"
moves as well as the weakness of the play-outs in this regard (which
would cause the tree to not be inclined to
Don Dailey wrote:
> Although it's easy to see that nakade is a problem, I agree with
> someone who said it takes a lot of skill to produce this. In fact, I
> believe that it cannot be done reliably by any player unless he is
> already much stronger than the program, in which case he doesn't
> "need
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
advantageous to give away stones that not. Despite what many people
believe, MC programs don't normally believe it's better to win small
and they are not hell-bent on giving away stones in order to try to make
the score come out to be exactly 0.5 win.
You
Don Dailey wrote:
> I would be satisfied if someone implemented it, reported a 500 game
> self-test sample and concluded that it didn't hurt the program
> measurably and show a few examples of how it improved the moves
> cosmetically, perhaps even comparing both version with specific
> positions
On 3/6/08, Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> > advantageous to give away stones that not. Despite what many people
> > believe, MC programs don't normally believe it's better to win small
> > and they are not hell-bent on giving away stones in
On Thu, 6 Mar 2008, Weston Markham wrote:
You are right, but I think that you may also be misconstruing the
nakade problem as a lack of concern about margin, when it is really a
fundamental failure to understand (i.e., failure to explore
Sorry, you miss-understood.
The nakade problem is totally
To a first order approximation, would changing the komi change the
rankings? Presumably, programs are playing the same number of games
as black and white, so any "unfair" advantage or disadvantage black
has would balance out.
Komi only matters when there is only one game between a pair of oppon
What komi would do is push the ratings closer together, but it wouldn't
change the ranks of the players.
- Don
Dave Dyer wrote:
> To a first order approximation, would changing the komi change the
> rankings? Presumably, programs are playing the same number of games
> as black and white, so
On Thu, Mar 06, 2008 at 04:33:16PM -0800, Dave Dyer wrote:
>
> To a first order approximation, would changing the komi change the
> rankings? Presumably, programs are playing the same number of games
> as black and white, so any "unfair" advantage or disadvantage black
> has would balance out.
>
Often, when I study sprawling groups in the middle
game, I have found that gnugo --decide-dragon-status
will fail with an uncertain result, but if I increase
the owl-node-limits and semeai-node-limits to 10k,
gnugo finds a resolution to the problem in a matter of
seconds. I sall run gnugo's solutio
25 matches
Mail list logo
