Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

gogameguru.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 134 posts

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#111

Post by gcp »

lemonsrsour wrote: post #93
gcp wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's hard to make a comparison like that because Go and Chess operate on fundamentally different models It is very easy. The nature of the game is completely irrelevant. The question is what expectation of winning rate a 4 stone advantage gives to a Go player. For middle ranks, one stone is about 100 ELO-equivalent, or 64% winning rate. (I think it's closer at top dan ranks, would have to look up the statistics). 4 S…

I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap. Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess. Having said that, this whole discussion is pointless, no one ever gives handicaps in chess, because it completely messes up the initial position. Even lacking one or two pawns at start will make it extremely hard to establish any kind of central presence. ed…

I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap.

You'd only break even starting from opponents at around 2400 ELO, and would start losing about 2 out of 3 games when facing a top rank grandmaster.

Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess.

It only gives you slighly less than a 66% chance of winning (a bit more close to the endgame).

There's no point in arguing from your personal beliefs here. You're vastly and utterly overconfident in your own ability. The definition of the rating system and a few million games of evidence are against you.

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#112

Post by gcp »

bluecalm wrote: post #102
valarauca1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True I edited it down to just bishops. And KGS is very inflated, a 6d on KGS vs. a 6d international professional wouldn't be contest. The normal conversion I hear is a 3d on KGS is around a 1k on Eastern Servers. Or that's my experience for people who play on KGS and eastern servers. I'm a 4k on KGS, but I know my knowledge is a bit amateur or a South Korean 4k.

A bishop in chess is massive. I am decent amateur (2300 ELO) and I crush the strongest computers in blitz (which are way stronger than the strongest humans) with bishop odds and it's not even interesting. 4 stones is more like a pawn, massive at professional level, not much in pro vs amateur duels. While playing vs Houdini I managed only few draws (and I lose like 95% of the time) with 2 pawns odds as well (and those…

I am decent amateur (2300 ELO) and I crush the strongest computers in blitz (which are way stronger than the strongest humans) with bishop odds and it's not even interesting.

Either your rating is wrong, your are not actually playing the strongest computers, you're arguing from a too small sample size, or your definition of "crush" means "I win half of the games but those that I do win I do so convincingly".

4 stones is more like a pawn

This is completely and utterly wrong. The winning odds of having a 4 stone headstart are an order of magnitude higher than those of being up a pawn.

There is huge difference between a bishop and two pawns.

Yes. About 150 ELO - equivalent. More than being another pawn up.

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#113

Post by gcp »

S4M wrote: post #94
fragsworth wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often than not, a loss of a single piece in chess results in resignation. You have to make a serious blunder to lose a game when you're ahead by one piece. I think a more accurate analogy would be playing a game of chess without a pawn, or two, maybe, but the game is so heavily based on opening lines that some might argue if you have a pawn handicap, it shouldn't be called chess.

My FIDE rating is slightly above 1900. I think that with 2 bishops I'll beat Magnus Carlsen easily, simply because I could sacrify one bishop for some attack and still be ahead in terms of material. But with only one bishop ahead at the start of the game, I doubt it will be enough.

You would lose a longer match. (You're the second player posting here who seems to drastically underestimate the effect of the ELO difference. That said, 900 ELO difference is so far out on the Bell curve that I wouldn't want to take bets on this one.)

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#114

Post by sanoli »

S4M wrote: post #94
fragsworth wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More often than not, a loss of a single piece in chess results in resignation. You have to make a serious blunder to lose a game when you're ahead by one piece. I think a more accurate analogy would be playing a game of chess without a pawn, or two, maybe, but the game is so heavily based on opening lines that some might argue if you have a pawn handicap, it shouldn't be called chess.

My FIDE rating is slightly above 1900. I think that with 2 bishops I'll beat Magnus Carlsen easily, simply because I could sacrify one bishop for some attack and still be ahead in terms of material. But with only one bishop ahead at the start of the game, I doubt it will be enough.

2 bishops is a massive advantage in chess, but I still don't think a 1900 player could beat Magnus. Maybe a 2200 player?

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#115

Post by gcp »

hyperpape wrote: post #105
thangalin wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 1997, Janice Kim (1p) gave HandTalk a 25-stone handicap: she won.[0] In 2006, Crazy Stone ran on a 4 x 2-core CPU at 2.2 GHz and won gold in a tournament.[1] In 2013, the author purchased a 4 x 16-core CPU at 2.8 GHz for tournament play.[2] I would imagine that that was the hardware used for this game. For such a slow machine the Monte Carlo method has proved devastating.[3] Consider that the the author's computer…

Current Monte Carlo programs have major problems taking advantage of increased processing power, so your major assumption is flawed. I don't have a citation at hand, but there has been discussion of this on the computer go mailing list. It's not out of the question that the engines could be tweaked to improve their performance more with better/more hardware, but right now, they have disappointing results.

I don't have a citation at hand, but there has been discussion of this on the computer go mailing list.

You should post it. I suspect you misunderstood. Additional computing power doesn't help some problematic situations, but the overall strength still goes up nicely.

There are also some problems with parallel scaling not actually improving raw performance, but this is equivalent to the speed not actually going up.

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#117

Post by CocaKoala »

MichaelGG wrote: post #100
hosh wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of value for a human to get good at Go, regardless of the strength of computer opponents.

What is the value of getting good at Go?

It's fun and personally rewarding.

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#118

Post by mcv »

valarauca1 wrote: post #22
cruise02 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A four stone handicap in Go is way less than a four piece handicap in chess. Also, Crazy Stone is 6d on KGS.

True I edited it down to just bishops. And KGS is very inflated, a 6d on KGS vs. a 6d international professional wouldn't be contest. The normal conversion I hear is a 3d on KGS is around a 1k on Eastern Servers. Or that's my experience for people who play on KGS and eastern servers. I'm a 4k on KGS, but I know my knowledge is a bit amateur or a South Korean 4k.

There's a big difference between amateur dans and professional dans (which is also why professionals are usually denoted with a p rather than a d).

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#119

Post by mcv »

visarga wrote: post #14
ChuckMcM wrote: post #13

Wow, I was not aware that Go programs had gotten this good. That is excellent news. No a bunch of new papers to add to my list to read.

Crazy Stone got 4 stones handicap, I think. It wasn't a level playing field yet.

No, but it's still spectacular. Not so long ago, I could defeat the strongest go computers. I have no chance in hell with 4 stones against a professional, or even against an amateur dan player.

Re: Crazy Stone computer Go program defeats Ishida Yoshio 9 dan with 4 stones

#120

Post by mcv »

baddox wrote: post #42
thinkpad20 wrote: post #35

Combinatorically, Go is considered pretty much the most complex game in existence, and computer go programs have been historically weak, so this seems to be quite an achievement (despite that it was against 4-stone-handicapped master passed his prime). One thing I wonder, though, if computers ever catch up to humans at Go, could we simply expand the board size a few spaces, thus dramatically increasing the problem sp…

> Combinatorically, Go is considered pretty much the most complex game in existence Is that considering "game" to include only traditional turn-based board games? Presumably it would be trivial to make a video game that's vastly more complex (at least in terms of tree or state space complexity) than Go. Any real-time strategy game should quality.

A real time strategy game with go's strategic depth would be totally unplayable for any human.
Post reply on HN