Hello,
can somebody give me ideas, links and other information on how to
program (Japanese) territory scoring rules?
especially
How to decide that the game is over.
How to decide what is teire (moves that costs the player points but
don't need to be played because there are still neutral unoccup
Alain Baeckeroot wrote:
> A Go tounrmaent with Hahn system has been retransmeted
> see ... http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/HahnSystem
Thanks for the interesting stuff and the links.
>From the link HahnSystem:
> Winning By 0.5-10 gets 60 points
> Winning by 10.5-20 gets 70 points
> Winn
If scoring matters, then instead of just estimating the winrate for a certain
move, a bot has to estimate a komi/winrate function.
As a shortcut, maybe a simoid scoring function will suddenly start to shine.
But that really folds winrate and winning score into a single dimension.
If that is too mu
Ingo Althöfer wrote:
I would have found a "completely continuous result system"
more natural, for instance
giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
giving -40.5 points for each loss with 40.5 or more
The most natural score-dependent Go variant(!) would be the game result
x for the sc
Willemien wrote:
can somebody give me ideas, links and other information on how to
program (Japanese) territory scoring rules?
Read all the Japanese style rulesets here:
http://home.snafu.de/jasiek/rules.html
In particular, the Japanese 2003 Rules come the closest. For a start,
you can ignore
Brian Sheppard wrote:
> In this strategy, one chooses a random number p, and then select the
> strategy with highest historical mean if p > epsilon, and the
> strategy taken least often otherwise. If epsilon = C*log(n)/n, where
> n is the number of experiments so far, then the strategy has zero
maybe divided by ten?
s.
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:50 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Ingo Althöfer wrote:
>>
>> I would have found a "completely continuous result system"
>> more natural, for instance
>> giving +40.5 points for each win with 40.5 or more
>> giving -40.5 points for each loss with 40.
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Remi Coulom has done some work in this area:
http://remi.coulom.free.fr/QLR/
It sounds very interesting (v-optimal sampling). But I don't understand
it enough to implement it. Your idea sounds simpler, but the enumeration
would be a problem, for parameters with wide r
steve uurtamo wrote:
maybe divided by ten?
To punish programs or me for the ability of killing 70 stones dragons?
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > this simplification of the rules
>
> Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy.
>
I am asserting that a properly modified bot is going to better at this
variant of the game. It's way easier to play go like a
Don Dailey wrote:
> It's way easier to play go like a beginner who is
focused more on not losing points on the board.
I do not think that strategy for Hahn should be to play like a beginner.
Rather one should include the following in one's considerations:
- Enlarging one's win score / decreasi
Le 23/11/2009 à 15:04, Don Dailey a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
>
> > Don Dailey wrote:
> > > this simplification of the rules
> >
> > Simplification? It does not even simplify strategy.
> >
>
> I am asserting that a properly modified bot is going to better at
i'm just thinking that approximating the 10 stones on the board == 1
stone of handicap phenomenon might be a nice way to keep track of
score in a tournament. i realize that it's not terribly accurate, but
it would give a number that's easier to parse. dividing by 10 for
everyone wouldn't change t
steve uurtamo wrote:
> dividing by 10 for everyone wouldn't change the overall result
First you describe something like handicap steps, then you describe
something different (a mere division by 10). Therefore
> so it wouldn't punish anyone, right?
...this question cannot be answered.
--
robe
:)
my point was that simply totaling total "won by" points after each
game is over, or totalling total "won by" points divided by ten after
each game should produce the same rank order of results, therefore not
punishing anyone.
my comment that one handicap difference in strength, in an even game
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Alain Baeckeroot <
alain.baecker...@laposte.net> wrote:
> Le 23/11/2009 à 15:04, Don Dailey a écrit :
> > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:58 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> >
> > > Don Dailey wrote:
> > > > this simplification of the rules
> > >
> > > Simplification? It does
In message
<402a9a520911230730u7cac1eeci8215a50f74133...@mail.gmail.com>, steve
uurtamo writes
:)
my point was that simply totaling total "won by" points after each
game is over, or totalling total "won by" points divided by ten after
each game should produce the same rank order of results, th
steve uurtamo wrote:
the idea that i like about keeping track of number of points won or
lost by is that not only could you find the winner, but you could find
how absolutely dominant, on average, they were against their
opponents.
Under normal Go: no! E.g., some players have the style to let e
Don Dailey wrote:
> I think it's simpler because I am a weak
player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning games
Many weak players have told me (and for me when I was a beginner it was
the same) that they do not count territories at all...! Simpler than
what you are su
I have repeatedly stated that the Hahn system is a simplification, but this
is just a guess on my part and I might have it backwards.I'm not sure
whether that invalidates the idea that computers will play this better or
not.
Here is a thought experiment.Imagine an omniscient player or pr
>From what I understand, for each parameter you take with some high
>probability the best so far, and with some lower probability the least
>tried one. This requires (manually) enumerating all parameters on some
>integer scale, if I got it correctly.
Yes, for each parameter you make a range of val
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 11:07 AM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > I think it's simpler because I am a weak
>
>> player and I think more in terms of total points rather than winning
>> games
>>
>
> Many weak players have told me (and for me when I was a beginner it was the
> same) th
In my experience, go players (I include myself) rarely count territory until
they reach the low-kyu level.
It's all about slaying dragons and adventure.
Terry McIntyre
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to
rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good enough."
If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes.
Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or chances
in any context.
For a simple definition of God applied to a sin
Perhaps computers play better (so far) when they focus on the wins because they
are not omniscient; they can get suckered into thinking that large groups are
alive or dead when the reverse is actually true. Humans are better at
"chunking" life-and-death status of independent groups.
( Newell an
I avoided using the title "God" because I wanted to avoid issues such as god
looking into your brain and playing in such as way as to befuddle the
opponent or specially playing against your weaknesses or changing the laws
of physics in order to win a game.
So to keep it simple I am imagining an in
Your system seems very interesting but it seems to me that you assume
that each parameters are independant.
What happen if, for example, two parameters works well when only one of
the is active and badly if the two are actives at the same time ?
Tom
--
Thomas Lavergne"Entia n
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game
tree. They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago but
I do not recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing to do
with psychology or probabilistic playing.
--
robert jasiek
___
>
>
>
> > What I cannot decide is if it is really more
>
>> challenging - I just know it's more challenging to do it perfectly.
>>
>
> More challenging for whom? For God, it is equally boring.
More challenging in the sense that more work must be done.
- Don
>
>
> --
> robert jasiek
>
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
>
>> In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good enough."
>>
>
> If God is set to play any randomly chosen winning move, yes.
>
>
> Since it is omnicient there is no point in talking about risk, or c
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game tree.
> They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago but I do not
> recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing to do with
> psychology or
In message
<5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>, Don
Dailey writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek
wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly that is "good
enough."
If God is set to play any randomly chose
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
> In message <5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>,
> Don Dailey writes
>
>
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek
>> wrote:
>> Don Dailey wrote:
>>
>>In win game mode [God] will play ANY move randomly
Don Dailey wrote:
So why then did you start talking about knowing the opponetns strategy in
hindsight?
Because the Devil does know it. Not by psychology but by defined
abstraction of the human player.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
c
In message <5212e61a0911231302j6d838d2dnae1cbc875af0...@mail.gmail.com>,
Don Dailey writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
In message <
5212e61a0911231136t1e83ce37i9375a033fe3e0...@mail.gmail.com>, Don
Dailey writes
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Robert Jasiek
Don Dailey wrote:
> If all moves lose, how would YOU select?
E.g., I choose some that creates the most ready traps.
Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies?One is to
maximize the points on the board and the other is to not make any
distinction whatsoever between moves
see http://senseis.xmp.net/?BangNeki
Terry McIntyre
Anarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to
rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others. - Edward Abbey
___
computer-go mailing list
compute
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Robert Jasiek wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > If all moves lose, how would YOU select?
>
> E.g., I choose some that creates the most ready traps.
>
>
> Did you get the point that I'm defining 2 separate strategies?One is
>> to
>> maximize the points on the boa
>Your system seems very interesting but it seems to me that you assume
>that each parameters are independant.
>What happen if, for example, two parameters works well when only one of
>the is active and badly if the two are actives at the same time ?
I think that I am assuming only that the objecti
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 its
games.
Some observations/claims:
Non-transitive effects see
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 06:12:39PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> If you lose a won game that is not maximizing the points on the board, so
> what you are saying is nonsense. We are supposed to be taking about
> GoGod strategy.
I got somehow lost in the thread - why is it even interesting to dis
In message <4b0ad6f5.1010...@snafu.de>, Robert Jasiek
writes
GoGod and GoDevil are objective technical terms referring to the game
tree. They were defined roughly on rec.games.go quite some years ago
but I do not recall the definition details by heart. They have nothing
to do with psychology o
Hi all,
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.
Note: It's running on a mini cluster of 4 q
Well No, this games game lot harder. Even when point matter, 1st goal is to
win the game in traditional sense to get any points at all. Which make just
as hard as normal game. Then comes huge risk assesment risks involved. Lets
assume - not so rare case - that you can go for the throat or attack mi
Don Dailey wrote:
What is happening here is that we keep shifting back and forth between
contexts.
Exactly, this I have tried to exhibit.
--
robert jasiek
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/lis
45 matches
Mail list logo
