Re: [computer-go] Re: computer-go Digest, Vol 43, Issue 8

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

Re: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: [computer-go] Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Thu, Feb 28, 2008 at 01:01:08PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > It's naive to think some simplistic deception imposed upon the program > is going to correct the error when you don't even know if the program is > erring in the first place. How can you say, "the program thinks it > is losing, but

Re: [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?]

On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:01:52AM -0800, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Sun, 2 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: >> My feeling is that in lost positions, the only thing we are trying to >> accomplish is to make the moves more cosmetically appealing (normal) and >> at best improve the programs chances of wi

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Tue, Mar 04, 2008 at 12:01:02PM -0500, steve uurtamo wrote: > cool. do you have any examples from a 19x19 game? that's what > i was referring to when i said that i've never seen an MC player > play out a ko fight. MoGo can indeed play out some rather spectacular ko fights; unfortunately, I co

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 08:02:10PM +, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: > 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 y

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

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

Re: [computer-go] Re: komi argument = silly

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. >

Re: [computer-go] Re: komi argument = silly

On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 08:04:37AM -0500, Thomas Wolf wrote: > I assume that when you change komi dynamically, all that was learned > by MC so far under the different komi value is useless/wrong. But what are actually your reuse rates? With the standard UCB1 formula, I find reusing branches from e

Re: [computer-go] Re: komi argument = silly

On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 12:43:42PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > I honestly think there are better ways to handle this, if you must, > other than changing the goal to a losing goal. At least give the > computer the right goal (winning) and adjust from there. > > If I were trying to solve this "

[computer-go] Making playouts heavier

Hi, I'm wondering about how to best make my Monte Carlo playouts within UCT heavier and which pieces of domain knowledge to better use to bias the tree and which ones to apply during the playouts, so I would like to ask about previous experiences. Currently, I do three basic hints that I ch

[computer-go] Automated genetic parameters tuning

Hi, does anyone know of any pre-made open framework using genetic algorithms that one could use to tune various parameters of a bot? I have about 6 independent parameters for my bot so far that I would like to find best values for (from domain-specific knowledge hint rates to p parameter of th

[computer-go] CGOS client

Hi, is there source code available for the binary CGOS client, please? I'm using the 32bit linux version on four computers, with two sets of users, and on the computers using the same set I often hit a conflict, with one of the computers offline with: 10:15:43S->C protocol 10:15:43C->

Re: [computer-go] CGOS client

On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 09:03:47AM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > Moi de Quoi wrote: > > On Sat, 2008-03-08 at 07:41 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > > > >> But the problem you are seeing is a bug in the server. I am restarting > >> the server which will be a temporary cure. It seems ther

Re: [computer-go] CGOS client

On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 04:56:16PM +0100, Moi de Quoi wrote: > Well, it depends on the server's policy, whether you are allowed to be > logged in more than once under the same name. (I can see no good reason > to allow it, but it's Don's server...) I do not want to be logged in more than once, I w

Re: endgame (Was [computer-go] Re: Should 9x9 komi be 8.0 ?])

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 02:33:03AM -0400, Michael Williams wrote: > Jonas Kahn wrote: >> out, kos can go on for long. I don't know what depth is attained in the >> tree (by the way, I would really like to know), but I doubt it is that > > MoGo displays the depth of the principle variation in the st

[computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

Hi, On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 10:18:34AM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > (By the way, pachi1-*-light are UCT bots with completely light > playouts with various UCB1 c values, if anyone wants to use that as > reference. Surprisingly, it seems that my heavy playouts do not make big > d

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 03:40:53PM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: >> With 110k playouts per move and no domain knowledge in the playouts, >> the ratings are now: >> >> c=0.2 (pachi1-p0.2-light) ELO 1627 (285 games)

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:07PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > I think you may still have a bug. You should get well over 1700 with > 110,000 playouts, even if they are light playouts. Hmmm... That is going to be some tough debugging I suspect. > > I'm pretty sure my code is fairly well debug

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

Hi, On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 08:07:14PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > > What is the justification of using the parent playout count instead of > > the node playout count itself? > > > > > I don't know if it makes much difference how this is done, and I don't > know how everybody else is doing it.

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 05:36:14PM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Mon, 10 Mar 2008, Christoph Birk wrote: >> On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: >>> On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 06:57:07PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: >>>> I think you may still have a bug. You

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 10:04:18PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > Your method is to allocate 1 node when it's been visited once or twice - > very natural I agree. My method is to allocate all the children at > once, and wait until the parent has been visited some number of times > (currently 100).

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 11:41:41AM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Tue, 11 Mar 2008, Don Dailey wrote: >> I am going to keep the 25k playouts running and add a 10k play-out >> version of UCT. I want to establish a standard testing size so that > > Great! That way Jason can also participate. >

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > > > If it is agreed, I will start a 25k test.My prediction is that this > > will finish around 1600 ELO on CGOS. > > > Looks like it's currently around 1485, so I am 115 ELO off from my > prediction at the moment. > > 2 mor

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > If you look at the table, drdGeneric 10k is rated 1228 and 25k is > rating 1485 which is 257 ELO for doing 2.5 x more play-outs. If > this holds, I would expect 100,000 play-outs to give well over 1700 > ELO. Of course there co

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 11:25:04AM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Thu, 13 Mar 2008, Petr Baudis wrote: >> So I have created this page: >> >> http://senseis.xmp.net/?CGOSBasicUCTBots >> >> and summed up what I could find in the thread about the various bo

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 08:01:57PM +0100, Heikki Levanto wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > > I got kind of lost in the thread and lost track about which bots should > > I actually compare myself to. ;-) > > > > So I have created t

Re: [computer-go] MoGo/professional challenge

Hi, On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 10:14:49AM +, Nick Wedd wrote: > Saturday: > 3/23/08 3:00 PM > Game I (9x9) > Game II 9x9 > Game III 9x9 > Played with 1.5 hours from the start of one round to the next will this be with komi 7.5? Petr "Pasky" Baudis ___

Re: [computer-go] MoGo/professional challenge

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 05:07:01PM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote: >> will this be with komi 7.5? > > Yes. Previous records against Guo Juan, as far > as I know: > - 1/3 wins with komi 7.5 > - 9/14 wins with komi 0.5 (mogo black, > i.e. komi in favor of mogo) What computing power d

Re: [computer-go] MoGo/professional challenge

On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 08:35:25PM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote: >> What computing power did have that MoGo at its disposal? > > 4 cores, 2.4 GHz. Thank you! That also puts the strength of CzechBot into some perspective. :-) Petr "Pasky" Baudis ___

Re: [computer-go] Optimal explore rates for plain UCT

On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 06:31:19PM +0100, Petr Baudis wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 09:19:58AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > > If you look at the table, drdGeneric 10k is rated 1228 and 25k is > > rating 1485 which is 257 ELO for doing 2.5 x more play-outs. If > > this

Re: [computer-go] Ing Challenge

On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 08:50:28PM -0700, David Fotland wrote: > > You are right. > > Well, I did compete for this prize about 15 times, so I hope so :) Are there any current prized computer tournaments or does anyone know about Ing foundation or anyone else planning to resume the challenge? What

Re: [computer-go] State of the art of pattern matching

On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 12:14:06PM -0700, terry mcintyre wrote: > Suppose a group can be defended - four liberties in a > row, for example. If the opponent plays inside those > four liberties, you play to divide the area into two > eyes - unless the situation is such that the group has > a second e

Re: [computer-go] State of the art of pattern matching

On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 03:12:39PM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > > On Mar 31, 2008, at 1:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote: >> >> >> Christoph Birk wrote: >>> >>> On Mar 31, 2008, at 10:48 AM, Mark Boon wrote: I don't know about this. I'm pretty sure MoGo checks if the stone can make at least two

Re: [computer-go] Paper for AAAI

Hello, On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 08:55:26PM -0600, David Silver wrote: > Here is a draft of the paper, any feedback would be very welcome :-) > > http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~silver/research/publications/files/MoGoNectar.pdf you are saying that in minimax, opponent moves are selected by minimizin

Re: [computer-go] Paper for AAAI

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:36:25AM -0400, Jason House wrote: > On Apr 7, 2008, at 8:22 AM, Petr Baudis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> On Sun, Apr 06, 2008 at 08:55:26PM -0600, David Silver wrote: >>> Here is a draft of the paper, any feedback

Re: [computer-go] CG'2008 paper: Whole-History Ratings

On Wed, Apr 09, 2008 at 03:40:28PM -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Wed, 9 Apr 2008, Matthew Woodcraft wrote: >> It might be that most of those games aren't visible to the rating >> system. > > That might explain why a rating system may have a hard time > to follow. > Bad data in ... bad data out

Re: [computer-go] Black/White winning rates with random playout?

On Sun, Jan 11, 2009 at 01:24:32PM +, Nick Wedd wrote: > I suggest that instead of getting your neural players to play Go, you get > them to play a very slightly different game, in which, when both players > pass in turn, all stones remaining on the board are deemed alive. It is > not diffi

Re: [computer-go] Re: Hardware limits

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:21:17PM +0100, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: > Mark Boon wrote: > > So it seems arbitrary to put limitations on the hardware. However, if > > two programs are essentially the same, but one side manages to bring > > a more powerful computer than the other, is it fair to award

Re: [computer-go] How to "properly" implement RAVE?

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 08:29:32PM +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote: > A small point: in "PlayoutOutTree", just after "if > (!played.AlreadyPlayed(move)) {", there should have a "played.Play(move)". > I believe it does not change the final result (as the check is also done in > the backup, and the move p

[computer-go] GPGPU

Hi! There has been some talk about implementing monte-carlo playouts on GPUs in the past, I have heard rumours about Polish bachelor student doing libego -> GPGPU conversion as a project, etc. but I know of nothing concrete ever materializing - is anybody aware of anything? We have recently

[computer-go] Fuego performance

Hi! Just FYI, someone might find interesting that latest SVN of Fuego still does not seem to be on par with Mogo public release 1 (not that it would claim to be - I was just curious where do they stand against each other). I ran 86 19x19 games with both on the same hardware (single core of

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:27:51AM +0900, Yamato wrote: > > I ran 86 19x19 games with both on the same hardware (single core of > >A64 X2 6000+, 2G RAM) with 20 minutes S.D. each, the rate is MoGo win > >83.3% (+-4.1). > > How did you set the time to 20 minutes S.D.? MoGo doesn't update the > cl

Re: [computer-go] April KGS bot tournament: results

Hi! On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 03:52:14PM +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: > The results of yesterday's KGS bot tournament are now available at > http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/46/index.html > > As usual, I expect there are mistakes, and I will welcome corrections. > > Congratulations to the winner, Czec

[computer-go] MoGo - ManyFaces

Hi! Today there was a short discussion about the strongest bot currently online on KGS and I got curious whether ManyFaces or CzechBot (bleeding edge MoGo) is stronger, so I made it play against ManyFaces. CzechBot is running as dual-thread pondering MoGo on slightly loaded dual-core Athlon

Re: [computer-go] MoGo - ManyFaces

Hi! > Today there was a short discussion about the strongest bot currently > online on KGS and I got curious whether ManyFaces or CzechBot (bleeding > edge MoGo) is stronger, so I made it play against ManyFaces. > > CzechBot is running as dual-thread pondering MoGo on slightly loaded > dual

Re: [computer-go] representing liberties

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 08:33:31AM -0400, Jason House wrote: > On Aug 15, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Don Dailey wrote: > > > > > > >2009/8/15 Jason House > >On Aug 14, 2009, at 11:02 PM, "David Fotland" >games.com> wrote: > > > >>Moves often merge two groups. > >> > >>I count liberties incrementally as

Re: [computer-go] Interesting endgame case

On Sat, Aug 15, 2009 at 09:13:02AM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > >assuming komi 7.5 and Chinese rule, playing at J3 white will win. After J3, > >white has 35. It only needs to win the ko or takes two dames. If black > fills > >the dame, it loses the ko. If it fills the ko, white can take two dames

Re: [computer-go] Exact dates for Chou vs Bots ?

On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:47:12AM +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > Does someone here know the exact starting times (in "common" > time zones) for the 19x19 exhibition games > > * Chou(9p) vs MFoG (Fr, August 21) > * Chou(9p) vs Zen (Sa, August 22) > ? Hi! Where were these announced? On what ser

[computer-go] CUDA implementation of the per-intersection GPGPU approach

Petr "Pasky" Baudis A lot of people have my books on their bookshelves. That's the problem, they need to read them. -- Don Knuth // CUDA implementation of random go player // (c) Petr Baudis 2009 // MIT-style licence; please credit me if you make use of this // thanks to

Re: [computer-go] CUDA implementation of the per-intersection GPGPU approach

Hi! On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 12:26:06PM +0100, Christian Nentwich wrote: > I strongly suspect the low performance in the per-intersection case > is down to two reasons - please let me know what you think: > - A big proportion of moves place one stone on an empty > intersection. In this case 80 o

Re: [computer-go] CUDA implementation of the per-intersection GPGPU approach

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 01:54:49PM +0200, Magnus Persson wrote: > This is very interesting. Here is a crazy idea, maybe it the same as > Marks but I want to take it to its extreme. > > Since AMAF values are so helpful, perhaps one can let go of the idea > of sequential play following the rules of

Re: [computer-go] CUDA implementation of the per-intersection GPGPU approach

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 08:29:31AM -0400, Jason House wrote: > I've thought of something similar in the past, but with a twist: > pre-compute a subset of moves that could be safely played in > parallel. Even if you can only play 285 moves in parallel on an > empty 19x19, it could still be a huge sp

Re: [computer-go] CUDA implementation of the per-intersection GPGPU approach

On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 09:18:40AM -0400, Jason House wrote: > Somewhat... One could generate a random number (r) and combine it > with the move mask (m) as follows: > black moves = m & r > white moves = m & ~r > > This has the drawback that the number of black and white moves may > not be equal.

Re: [computer-go] CUDA and GPU Performance

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:02:40AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Michael Williams wrote: > > >Very interesting stuff. One glimmer of hope is that the memory > >situations should improve over time since memory grows but Go > >boards stay the same size. > > > >

Re: [computer-go] CUDA and GPU Performance

On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > > On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Petr Baudis wrote: > >Just read the nVidia docs. Shifting has the same cost as addition. > > > > Document number and url? http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compu

Re: [computer-go] rave and patterns

On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:49:15AM -0700, David Fotland wrote: > Simple playouts with no eye fills and mogo 3x3 patterns and basic uct beat > Gnugo 40% (at version 120) ..snip.. > All win rates are on 9x9 vs gnugo 3.7.20 level 10 with 5000 playouts. After > this I switched to testing 19x19, and st

Re: [computer-go] rave and patterns

On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 10:06:01PM -0700, David Fotland wrote: > Depends on what you mean by basic UCT. I think I had no UCT priors then, > just a 1.1 or 1.2 K. The playouts included no self atari, no eye filling, > no retake ko, and some simple rules for saving group adjacent to last move > if i

Re: [computer-go] rave and patterns

On Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 08:18:37AM -0700, David Fotland wrote: > In the original Mogo paper it's the initial value for the children, rather > than try every child once. Ah, you mean the First Play Urgency! Thanks, I will try that. Anyway, I'm happier; after fixing many bugs and improving my playo

[computer-go] AMAF collection experience

Hi! Pachi has two RAVE/AMAF modes - in one, it counts as RAVE wins only moves made by the player further down in the tree. In the other, it also counts in the moves made in the playout phase. I think most people collect AMAF statistics only from the tree phase, at least that's what I've bee

Re: [computer-go] October KGS bot tournament: 19x19 boards, slow

Hi! On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 11:02:17AM +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: > and hope to receive one from > MoGousing the name 'CzechBot', operated by Petr Baudiš. Yes, you can count on that. I would like to also enlist my own bot 'pachi'; I hope that doesn't create a conflict of interest, especial

Re: [computer-go] public test suite

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 12:12:07PM +0200, Stefan Kaitschick wrote: > Every now and then somebody submits an interesting 9*9 problem, > usually rendered in X and O. > Wouldn't it be great to have a public suite, lets say a directory > with "black to play and win" sgf problems. > For quick testing th

[computer-go] cgosview?

Hi! How do I use cgosview-linux-x86_32? By default it connects to the 19x19 server and that "works" (displays empty game list window), but I can't find out how to tell it to connect to 9x9; the moment I try to pass it any parameter, I get: pa...@pixie:~/src> ./cgosview-linux-x86_32 -server cg

Re: [computer-go] Testing Process

Hi! On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 04:09:31PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > >By now, I should probably find better reference opponent than > >gnugo... I wonder if to pick fuego or mogo... ;-) Strength is probably > >not _as_ important as the variety of techniques used in order to avoid > >selective bl

Re: [computer-go] cgosview?

Hi! On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 01:45:40PM +0200, Lars Schäfers wrote: > I remeber a version where the call was just > > ./cgosview-linux-x86_32 cgos.boardspace.net 6819 Ahh, thanks, that works. I think the website should be fixed then. :-) Petr "Pasky" Baudis

[computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning

Hi! I'm a little unclear on this, so I'd like to make sure I'm not missing any important technique - is "progressive widening" and "progressive unpruning" synonymous? I have looked both into the pMCTS and the CrazyStone papers and it seems that "widening" differs from "unpruning" in that ce

Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning

I guess I'm not really appreciating the difference between node value prior and progressive bias - adding a fixed small number of wins or diminishing heuristic value seems very similar to me in practice. Is the difference noticeable? On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 08:25:56AM -0700, David Fotland wrote: >

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning

On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 10:25:40PM +0200, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > I think someone pointed out a long time ago on this mailing list that > initializing the prior in terms of Rave simulations was far less efficient > than initializing the prior in terms of "real" simulations, at least if you > have

[computer-go] RAVE tips

On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 04:50:26PM -0400, dhillism...@netscape.net wrote: > For 9x9 games, when I added progressive widening to AntiGo (before I added > RAVE), it was low hanging fruit. I used my old program Antbot9x9 for the move > ranking and got a very nice strength increase for very little ef

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 08:27:23PM +0200, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > > > > >What's your general approach? My understanding from your previous posts > > is > > >that it's something like: > > > > Your understanding is right. > > > > > By the way, all the current strong programs are really very similar

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] Progressive widening vs unpruning

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 06:49:46PM -0400, Jason House wrote: > On Oct 2, 2009, at 2:24 PM, Olivier Teytaud > wrote: > > > > >4) regularized success rate (nbWins +K ) /(nbSims + 2K) > >(the original "progressive bias" is simpler than that) > > I'm not sure what you mean here. Can you explain a bi

Re: [computer-go] Conjectures on Fuego

On Fri, Oct 02, 2009 at 09:52:35PM -0600, Martin Mueller wrote: > >Yes, Fuego uses just the 3x3 patterns; its strength is surprising. :-) > >Someone conjenctured it is because of how well-tuned its constants > >are. > >I also think large part of it is that it seems to use perfect nakade > >solver i

Re: [computer-go] [Fwd: Announcement ICGA Events 2010]

Hi! On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 12:08:06AM +0900, Hideki Kato wrote: > Nick Wedd: : > >I wonder if anyone here has a URL for either the Tainan Computer Go > >Tournament, to take place on October 30th and 31st, or the GPW Cup, > >November 13th and 14th? I cannot read Chinese or Japanese, and so have

Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to AyaMC!

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 05:13:17PM +0100, Nick Wedd wrote: > In message , Nick Wedd > writes > >Congratulations to AyaMC, winner of Sunday's KGS Computer Go > >tournament! My report is at > >http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/52/index.html > > > >Two people had bots crash after receiving the messag

Re: [computer-go] Rating variability on CGOS

On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 01:48:05PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > About two weeks ago I took Pebbles offline for an extensive overhaul of its > board representation. At that time Valkyria 3.3.4 had a 9x9 CGOS rating of > roughly 2475. > > When I looked today, I saw Valkyria 3.3.4 rated at roughly

Re: [computer-go] [Fwd: Announcement ICGA Events 2010]

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 01:33:10AM +0900, Hideki Kato wrote: > The tournament in Taiwan allows playing through KGS but according to > the rules , it's > preferred to participate at least one person from each team. If not, > the entry fee will be doub

Re: [computer-go] Generalizing RAVE

On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:51:21AM +0200, Łukasz Lew wrote: > I tried CRAVE in my master thesis 4 years ago. The context was a > growing decision tree. > It didn't work as well. This sounds similar to one idea of mine; is your thesis available anywhere? (Or any other material published on CRAVE.)

[computer-go] Neural networks

Hi! Is there some "high-level reason" hypothesised about why there are no successful programs using neural networks in Go? I'd also like to ask if someone has a research tip for some interesting Go sub-problem that could make for a nice beginner neural networks project. Thanks, --

Re: [computer-go] Neural networks

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 02:45:18PM +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > In my opinion NeuroGo was quite succesful with neural networks. > Magog's main strength came from neural networks. Steenvreter uses > 'neural networks' to set priors in the Monte Carlo Tree. Ah, you are right, that sounds like fa

Re: [computer-go] Neural networks

On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 05:12:58PM +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: > On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 03:34:59PM +0300, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > > Neural network tend to work well in those cases where evaluation function is > > smooth, like backgammon. Even inbackgammon neural networks do give good > > results

Re: [computer-go] Great Wall Opening by Bruce Wilcox

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 08:55:34PM +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > In the year 2000 I bought the book > "EZ-GO: Oriental Strategy in a Nutshell", > by Bruce and Sue Wilcox. Ki Press; 1996. > > I can only recommend it for the many fresh ideas. > A few days ago I found time again to read in it. > >

Re: [computer-go] monte carlo

Hi! On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 05:02:33PM +0200, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > I'm trying to implement a monthecarlo algorithm in my go program. Now > the results are dramatic: the elo-rating of my go program drops from > 1150 to below 700. I tried: > - evaluate the number of captured stone > - ev

Re: [computer-go] Great Wall Opening by Bruce Wilcox

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 08:36:13AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > 2009/10/17 Petr Baudis > > > On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 08:55:34PM +0200, "Ingo Althöfer" wrote: > > > In the year 2000 I bought the book > > > "EZ-GO: Oriental Strategy in a Nutshell&qu

Re: [computer-go] Great Wall Opening by Bruce Wilcox

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 08:10:47AM +0100, Christian Nentwich wrote: > Go has been played long enough, and the proposed "great wall" > opening is simple enough, that is should be more than valid to argue > that "if it was a good opening, it would be played more often". A possible explanation I have

[computer-go] Handicap games collection?

Hi! Does anyone know of any handicap games collection? For MCTS handicap play research, I'm looking for at least 500 games of any handicap (1-9), ideally of reasonable strength (KGS 2k-9d). Thanks! -- Petr "Pasky" Baudis A lot of people have my books on the

Re: [computer-go] Handicap games collection?

On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 03:06:20PM +0200, Ben Lambrechts wrote: > You can filter them from the following collections: > > http://u-go.net/gamerecords/ > http://u-go.net/gamerecords-4d/ Thanks! I didn't want to use the main collection, but I wasn't aware of the 4d+ collection, which looks perfect!

Re: [computer-go] NVidia Fermi and go?

Hi! On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 10:21:07AM +0100, Christian Nentwich wrote: > ah - I missed the white paper, I will read that later so I can form > a real opinion. I must say, the mere fact that there will be C++ > support and a proper development environment (even if only for > Windows) is a big rel

Re: [computer-go] NVidia Fermi and go?

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 01:34:29PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > I have not done any GPU experiments, so readers should take my guesswork > FWIW. I think the code that is "light" is the only piece that parallelizes > efficiently. Heavy playouts look for rare but important situations and > handle t

[computer-go] MoGo Zones

Hi! (Sylvain et al. 2006) describes the use of CFG-based zones in random simulations to simulate only the local position and tune the score based on few thousands of simulations of outside of the zone. It doesn't seem the idea is too practical (especially with RAVE, but there seem to be more p

Re: [computer-go] monte carlo

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 06:52:56PM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > What method are you guys using for the monte carlo search? What do you > do? > I pick at random a move, then for the resulting board that comes out of > that pick another move and so on. > Then, after that I evaulate the number

Re: [computer-go] monte carlo

On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 10:16:58PM +0100, Folkert van Heusden wrote: > > > What method are you guys using for the monte carlo search? What do you > > > do? > > > I pick at random a move, then for the resulting board that comes out of > > > that pick another move and so on. > > > Then, after that I

Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).

Hi! On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 07:19:45PM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > For information, our Taiwanese partners(**) for a ANR grant have organized > public demonstration games between Thanks for the information! > MoGoTW (based on MoGo 4.86.Soissons + the "TW" modifications developped >

Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 04:20:24PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > Peter, did your comment get cut off? Oops, indeed. "Prone to tactical mistakes in high time pressure" is what I meant to say. > Anyway, I agree with you on this. Humans are not stronger on short time > settings. I believe tha

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 08:47:41AM +0100, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > > Could you give us at least a general picture of improvements compared to > > what was last published as > > www.lri.fr/~teytaud/eg.pdf? Is it > > "just" > > further tuning and small tweaks or

Re: [computer-go] MC hard positions for MCTS

Hi! On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 12:05:57PM +0200, Petri Pitkanen wrote: > Are there more peculiar situation that will cause problems for MCTS apart > from the three I know. > 1. Nakade (this is partuially solved in most of the programs) > 2. Semeais > 3. Double Ko. Yes, these are all just particu

[computer-go] Designing coefficient functions

Hi! Does anyone have some tips about designing effeciently-computable coefficient functions that would have similar properties to the "eg paper"? I.e. something like: a + b + c = 1 n(d) = 0 a ~ 0, b ~ 0, c ~ 1 n(d) smallb >> a n(d) -> infty a ~ 1 It sounds simple, but I

Re: [SPAM] Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 06:32:44PM +0200, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > > > > > > AIUI, once upon N simulations in a node you take let's say the node with > > the lowest value, pick one son of it at random within the tree and start > > a simulation? > > > > I'll try to write it clearly (for binary dete

Re: [computer-go] MC hard positions for MCTS

On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 01:10:09PM +0100, Stefan Kaitschick wrote: > > >But, has anyone gathered stats on positions, from real games, that > >require precise play by the defender/attacker/both/neither? Is defending > >really easier than attacking? > > > >Darren > > > Who is the defender? > One s

Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9).

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:00:32PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > That is exactly as it should be and is not a barrier. I don't think you > know the difference between a wall and a point that is just far away. I'd phrase this positively - the point is extremely far away with the current way MCTS wil

Re: [computer-go] MPI vs Thread-safe

On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40:26PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > And now my question: what do you actually do: MPI, thread-safe, both, or > something else? Have you read the Parallel Monte-Carlo Tree Search paper? It sums up the possibilities nicely. I personally just use root parallelization (si

Re: [computer-go] MPI vs Thread-safe

On Fri, Oct 30, 2009 at 07:53:15AM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote: > >I personally just use root parallelization in Pachi > > I think this answers my question; each core in Pachi independently explores > a tree, and the master thread merges the data. This is even though you have > shared memory on yo

  1   2   3   4   >