[computer-go] Computer go in 7x7

Don Dailey drd at mit.edu
Thu Oct 12 07:04:39 PDT 2006 

I'm amazed at how far Lazarus is from evaluating the opening position
correctly in 7x7 Go.

When I do a search, even Lazarus believes white has a slight advantage
at 5.5 komi although it eventually goes positive (black has the
advantage) after several minutes of searching.

I've been playing self-test games with Lazarus with a komi of 8.5 which
presumably makes all the games a win for black.   Still, white is
winning 56.6 percent of the games.  

I ran almost 1200 games with AnchorMan at komi 8.5 and AnchorMan wins
about 61 percent of the games, so it appears that the better player is
getting a more realistic score, although still far from correct.

How clear is it that the correct Komi is 9 and not another value?   Has
it been proved, or is just strongly believed?   And how strongly?

- Don





On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 08:14 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 20:28 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
> > 7x7 is pretty much solved (by people, not exhaustive search), so it's a much
> > easier game than chess.
> > Correct komi is 9 points.  http://senseis.xmp.net/?7x7BestPlay
> > 
> > David
> 
> 
> I did a komi test with AnchorMan - a mediocre but not super weak program
> at various komi's.
> 
> I used 6.5, 7.5, 8.5 and 9.5.   I'm running 500 games but 9.5 has only
> played about 200.
> 
> At komi 9.5  White is winning 71.6 percent of the games.
> At komi 8.5  White is winning 59.4 percent of the games.
> At komi 7.5  White is winning 61.2 percent of the games.
> At komi 6.5  White is winning 52.4 percent of the games.
> 
> I suspsect at 5.5 Black will be winning.  I'm running this test now for
> completeness and black is ahead after 9 games so far.
> 
> I don't have any doubt that the correct komi is 9 but it's interesting
> how far off this is.   AnchorMan can't win with White even at 6.5 which
> is probably because it is a weak program.
> 
> I may try doing the test with Lazarus, which should be playing
> significantly stronger.
> 
> I may also try the test with an opening book that gets into the game
> with some correct moves.   The stat's may change significantly even if I
> give white the best 2nd move.   
> 
> - Don
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org 
> > > [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 10:49 AM
> > > To: computer-go
> > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] Computer go in 7x7
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Yes,  it wouldn't be best for building a strong player unless the
> > > program assumed a certain komi.   But then it gives up if it cannot
> > > achieve that komi.
> > > 
> > > Which reminds me - when you run test suites, you have this 
> > > problem.  I have to doctor up problems so that the correct 
> > > move gives a win and all
> > > incorrect choices lose.    Or you can specify KOMI for each individual
> > > problem.
> > > 
> > > 7x7 is more like Chess in the branching factor, but it's still a much
> > > harder problem than Chess.   In the beginning, it's worse than most
> > > chess positions.   
> > > 
> > > If anyone is interesting in trying 7x7 and has a linux 
> > > machine available,  perhaps a spare home computer with a 
> > > resolvable inet address
> > > and web server,  we can put up a version of CGOS for 7x7.   
> > > Just let me
> > > know.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > - Don
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 13:28 -0400, Chris Fant wrote:
> > > > But then you have to change your code to favor average 
> > > terrirory over 
> > > > win ratio.
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 10/10/06, Don Dailey <drd at mit.edu> wrote:
> > > > > A good way to structure 7x7 matches,  is that you forget 
> > > komi, and 
> > > > > just play 1 game as white and 1 games as black, adding up 
> > > the territory in
> > > > > both games.    Then you don't have to worry about which 
> > > komi is correct.
> > > > >
> > > > > - Don
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 13:02 -0400, House, Jason J. wrote:
> > > > > > I think Crazy Stone did very well on 7x7 with an 
> > > opening book.  If 
> > > > > > you go down that road, I recommend that you consider using the 
> > > > > > attached file to populate the database.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org
> > > > > > [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
> > > > > > sylvain.gelly at m4x.org
> > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 11:48 AM
> > > > > > To: computer-go at computer-go.org
> > > > > > Subject: [computer-go] Computer go in 7x7
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hello all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am wondering about Go in 7x7. I know that the game in 
> > > this size 
> > > > > > has no real interest in itself. However, I think that 
> > > the level of 
> > > > > > computer go programs
> > > > > > is much higher in 7x7 than in 9x9, and it could be 
> > > interesting to see
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > where we can go in 7x7.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There was a discussion on this list recently about the level of 
> > > > > > CrazyStone in 7x7, and also (perhaps not on this list, 
> > > only on kgs 
> > > > > > I don't remember) of
> > > > > > Magnus saying that the level of Valkyria was very good 
> > > on 7x7. I am
> > > > > > wondering
> > > > > > if we can make a player that beats almost all humans in 7x7?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have tried to put MoGo on kgs in 7x7, but it looses 
> > > quite a lot 
> > > > > > of games. Ok, I have put only 5 minutes time, so it plays quite 
> > > > > > fast, and perhaps could
> > > > > > be better with more time, but it is clearly far from a 
> > > really good
> > > > > > player.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have implemented a meta-UCT (that means that instead 
> > > of playing 
> > > > > > a random game after the tree, you make MoGo playing against 
> > > > > > itself) to generate an
> > > > > > opening database. I have made this meta-UCT 100% 
> > > parallel for a cluster
> > > > > > (as
> > > > > > the evaluation is now so costly, parallelisation is 
> > > trivial). I can
> > > > > > dedicate
> > > > > > quite a lot of computers to this task as I have access 
> > > to a cluster.
> > > > > > So I wonder if you think that this meta-UCT can be effective to
> > > > > > generate a
> > > > > > good opening database, and this way manage to have a really good
> > > > > > computer Go
> > > > > > player in 7x7 ?
> > > > > > Perhaps usual UCT exploits too much for this task, because my
> > > > > > experiments show
> > > > > > that the beginning of the tree is quite narrow. Here 
> > > are the first
> > > > > > moves: D4
> > > > > > D5 E5 C4 D3 C5. I have no idea if it is very stupid or normal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Remi was saying that the right komi for 7x7 is 9, but I 
> > > have made 
> > > > > > my experiments with komi 7.5, and the meta-UCT predicts 
> > > that black 
> > > > > > is almost always loosing. Is it because the blacks 
> > > moves are very 
> > > > > > bad?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To conclude, I think this question of 7x7 is 
> > > interesting because 
> > > > > > we can
> > > > > >
> > > > > > perhaps have a very good player. What do you think? If you have 
> > > > > > good ideas to make the meta-UCT generate a good database, I can 
> > > > > > dedicate a lot of CPU to
> > > > > > this task, and would interested to see what happen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sylvain
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > computer-go mailing list
> > > > > > computer-go at computer-go.org 
> > > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > computer-go mailing list
> > > > > > computer-go at computer-go.org 
> > > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > computer-go mailing list
> > > > > computer-go at computer-go.org 
> > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > computer-go mailing list
> > > > computer-go at computer-go.org 
> > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > computer-go mailing list
> > > computer-go at computer-go.org 
> > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > > 
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

More information about the computer-go mailing list