[computer-go] 19x19 Study - prior in bayeselo, and KGS study

[Don Dailey]

Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
> Dave Hillis wrote:
>
> > I've noticed this in games on KGS; a lot of people lose games
> > with generous time limits because they, rashly, try to keep up
> > with my dumb but very fast bot and make blunders.
>
> What Don says about humans scaling applies to humans making
> an effort to use the time they have, but when we play on KGS
> after a hard work day, we (I guess a lot of people like myself,
> including my opponents and the players I watch) play for
> pleasure. We avoid too fast settings, because it introduces
> unnecessary pressure, and we hate too slow because it makes
> the game endless. We play _independently of the remaining time_.
> Most moves fast, and from time to time we ponder 10 to 20 seconds.
>
> That's why KGS time settings for humans have to be taken with a
> grain of salt.
>
That's why there should be something at stake.   I assumed that the
games played are rated games on KGS.     Is that not so?   

If I were going to do a really serious experiment and had the funds,  I
would make the games rated,  and I would further motivate the players
with prize money.    A modest amount for playing and a larger amount for
win.     This would motivate players to play the really long
time-controls and play them seriously.       It doesn't take much money
to motivate players,   it could be 5 or 10 dollars.  Just the fact that
there is money involved at all will get their ego and pride working.

> About Don's arguments on self testing:
>
> I would agree at 100% if it wasn't for the known limitations:
> Nakade, not filling own eyes, etc. Because the program is blind
> to them it is blind in both senses: it does not consider those
> moves when defending, but it does not consider them when attacking
> either. Your programs behave as if they were converging to perfect
> play in a game whose rules forbid those moves. But these moves are
> perfectly legal! At weak levels, there are more important things
> to care about, but as the level rises there is a point at which
> understanding or not understanding these situations makes
> the difference. A program that understood these situations,
> but had some other small weakness could have strong impact
> in the ratings. Perhaps, Mogo12 and Mogo16 would not be so
> different in their chances of beating that program as they
> are in beating each other.
Please note that I was talking about a program that is properly and
correctly scalable so I think we are in 100% agreement after all.    The
current MC programs, as you point out, are not "fully" admissible in
this sense.  

However, at the levels we are testing,  I don't believe this is
affecting the ratings (or self-play effect we are talking about) in a
significant way, but I could be wrong since I am no expert on playing Go.

How often is this observed?   Perhaps at some point we could compile a
list of games that represent serious upsets and see how often this would
have been a factor.     Probably a more accurate way is to put in
programs that understand these things and see if the crank the ratings
down.    My guess is that they will only slightly decrease the ratings
of the top programs.

- Don

>
>
> Jacques.
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>