Re: computer-go: Go Devil

[Vincent Diepeveen <diep@xxxxxxxxx>]

With a pawn up i win from god,
no problem.

At 06:35 PM 9/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
>
>
>Hi Vincent,
>
>
>
>   At 02:38 PM 9/23/00 -0400, you wrote:
>   >
>   >Part 2 of Go-Devil.
>   >
>   >In my last  post, I talked about  rating curves in  Chess and tried to
>   >make a case that the very best human  players actually don't play very
>   >well compared to what would be possible by omniscient entities.
>
>   That thought is completely nuts, and totally wrong.
>
>   Give a grandmaster a pawn up directly and he'll destroy you completely.
>   Now you can argue that he mates you in 50 moves instead of 34,
>   but you'll lose chanceless.
>
>When I say, "don't play   very well", I'm   speaking in a  theoretical
>sense.  I'm not talking about how he would do against YOU  or ME.  I'm
>talking about he would do against GOD!  And I don't  know why you talk
>about a pawn advantage, that is like  several stones in  GO so I don't
>get your point.
>
>
>   Fact is that top gm's make on average 1 move a game which is obviously
>   not the best. Apart from that, some make under big time contraints
>   now and then an error (a big one) somewhere near time trouble.
>
>One obvious error per game is hugely significant.   Chess is not about
>good moves, it's    completely decided by  errors!  Also,    for every
>"obvious" errors how many not so obvious ones are there?
>
>
>   Now chess is like this that you play with very little pieces compared
>   to go, so a big error is directly turning the game in favor of your
opponent.
>
>Agreed, chess  gets out  of control quckly,   and  Go can  happen more
>gradually with many tiny errors.
>
>   The world top gm's of 2700 and above however are playing a type of game
>   which is far better. Usually only a single 'dubious' move at most a game,
>   which they find dubious, but i don't mind playing plenty of those moves
>   in a single game.
>
>Here is my point: How do you know how many  dubious moves they make on
>the average?  Did you figure it out yourself or did they tell you?  My
>point is that you can't believe them, even if they are sincere because
>they just don't know!  You must ask Chess-God to get a correct answer.
>You don't ask a warthog if he  is beautiful, he  probably is sure that
>he is!
>
>Maybe another way of  putting it is this,  if you ask someone how many
>dubious moves per game  they make, they  can  only tell you  about the
>ones they are aware of.
>
>
>   Now of course the question is directly: "how can some lose to programs?"
>   I wonder about that too.
>
>That's  very easy.  The  programs are  good  enough to win  their fair
>share of games now.
>
>But a lot  of people don't seem  to understand this.  What  happens is
>that computers  often play moves so  silly  that people cannot believe
>they are as strong as they are.  Also, humans completely ignore errors
>they make themselves  and do not  consider them  part of  the strength
>comparison.   You get a  won game, and then   make a silly blunder and
>lose.  In  your  mind, you  are  far superior to  that  computer (even
>though it never blunders) and the game really was "a fluke", shouldn't
>have happened.  What  is missed, is that chess  is only  about errors,
>and that's a big part of why computers do pretty well.
>
>But they combine  this with good  calculating ability too.  It's not a
>surprise that they can win despite the fact that they are chess stupid
>in a lot of situations.
>
>
>
>   There are different things. First of all we must not forget that
>   not all games of them are that well. Only games where they play for
>   something important are real good usually. Playing each day a game
>   is obviously not very good for the level of the games.
>
>I think you are right, humans  play much better when highly motivated,
>like Kasparov was when he lost to Deep Blue.
>
>
>   Not seldom we see in the so many-th round many errors occurring, usually
>   from both sides.
>
>   Still the real question is: "why do they suck (with a few exceptions)
>   against computers?". Question is: they didn't show the last of their
>   tongue.
>
>   See the games Kasparov-Karpov. In those games you will not see many
>   errors. In fact the matches Kasparov-Karpov are real high quality games,
>   the best ever shown. At most you can point down that nowadays
>   different opening lines get played, but the games itself real high
>   quality. On average less as 1 real bad move a game. I remember only 1 game
>   where a blunder (deciding the game directly) has been made by Karpov
>   in a position where he was already under immense pressure the whole game.
>
>Again, I  think you are quoting numbers  that are  unfounded.  You can
>count the number of moves you believe are  errors but you cannot count
>the number of moves that you don't know are errors.
>
>
>   Yet the games kasparov-deep blue had about 6 bad moves a game at least,
>   from kasparov side even complete blunders in game 2 (resigning in 
>   a drawn position) and game 6 several blunders. Also kasparov didn't play
>   his usual style. He kind of gave Deep Blue several games 9 stones up
>   so to speak, and very obviously he didn't try to win the games
>   in the opening, which would have been a real peanut for Kasparov.
>
>I  personally believe Kasparov is  still a significantly better player
>than  Deep Blue, but  a 6  game  match was too   short to prove it and
>therefore I feel he was simply a victim  of probability and statistics
>and perhaps his own cockiness.
>
>But still, you are describing a very  flawed player, by your own admit
>he made  many errors.   You   are ascribing this to  "something  about
>computers that make humans play bad."  I  think this is nonsense, they
>are  what they are.   If  they   consistantly  win, they are   better,
>otherwise they are worse.
>
>What computers DO do  well is expose the errors  humans  make.  Humans
>are forced to play very precisely and accurately to beat them.  Again,
>this is evidence that  humans need to clean  up their play in order to
>claim God-like play.
>
>
>   Yet the years before that, despite all those bad moves, this was enough
>   to beat the programs. I think Kasparov's only mistake was to play the
>   18 stone up game against deep blue in game 6 in the last match we know,
>   otherwise we would consider nowadays that supercomputer programs suck
>   incredible, but that pc programs are way better on a slow machine.
>
>   Also very surprising were the games human-computer at Paderborn
>   after the world champs 1999. We clearly see there that grandmasters
>   just do *something* except play what they normally play. 
>
>   "we don't get paid to win there". 
>
>   On the other hand even very bad GMs which played over the internet against
>   Rebel managed sometimes from already bad positions for the GMs to get
>   easily a draw, or even win the game. So they were playing on the computer,
>   which is already worse as playing in a tournament hall at your own real
>   3d board (less distraction etcetera and especially an extra dimension).
>
>   Add to this that last years we see a new generation of grandmasters who
>   play tactical far better as grandmasters from some tens of years ago.
>
>   Also their insight in the game is in my opinion way better. 
>
>I  don't see that as amazing.   It WOULD be  amazing if we were pretty
>close to  perfect, but this just proves,  if it's true,  that there is
>still a lot of room to get better and that's all I'm saying.
>
>
>
>   We even see players like Kramnik (who is gonna play Kasparov for 
>   the world title in octobre) find new ideas in very old systems, 
>   which are at least 100 years old.
>
>Which means  there are still lot's of  good  undiscovered ideas, ideas
>that our mythical Chess-God is aware of right now.
>
>
>   The whole assumption that these players make a lot of mistakes is
>   completely wrong. 
>
>I can't believe that you just said that, just about your whole email
>is about couting up all the errors grandmasters make.
>
>
>    ...                 If you take into account what level they play at,
>   in important games for them, then you'll also clearly see that the
>   level is much higher as most think.
>
>
>
>As far as  the correspondence issue  is concerned.  You are the  first
>master I have talked to that believed the  top players played over the
>board chess BETTER than the  best correspondence players.  Now if  you
>argued that  Kasparov might be  the best  correspondence player in the
>world, I might at least see your point.
>
>But would you at least agree  that Kasparov playing  1 day per move is
>MUCH better than Kasparov playing 3 minutes  per move?  In a nutshell,
>that's all I really need to make my point.   And my point is that it's
>possible to play MUCH better than the top players do over the board.
>
>Your whole section  about correspondence players  seems  to indicate a
>lot of contempt for them.
>
>
>
>   >I have some further thoughts on this taking it from a different angle.
>   >In the previous post I made reference to Kasparov's play and held this
>   >up  as an example of  the best human play.   However  there is kind of
>   >chess that is generally  acknowledged to be of  a much  higher quality
>   >than this,  and it's called   correspondence chess.  I have  talked to
>
>   The average correspondence player loses against Kasparov blindfolded.
>
>   The average correspondence player plays a good opening, but this opening
>   is litterary out of the books he has, which are made by grandmasters
>   way under Kasparov's level.
>
>   Kasparov completely finishes an opponent if Kasparov has
openingsadvantage,
>   he has shown in strong tournaments that he usually doesn't even need
>   an openingsadvantage. Basic point is that they will win a won position,
>   in the style they can chose, where correspondence players are simply
>   to dependant upon their resources to play.
>
>   I played myself correspondence chess, and the level is real pathetic
>   from technical viewpoint,
>   and usually dominated by good openings and bad technique to finish the
>   game. Actually several games in so called 'mastergroup' there i
>   could as 17 to 19 year old boy from a lost position convert 
>   into won positions! 
>
>   It appeared i was playing basically chessprograms, which still dominate
>   the lower levels of correspondence chess. In fact many chessprograms
>   including my own have many national correspondence titles already 
>   (of course not the opening played by the programs). Rebel especially
>   has countless titles all over the world. 
>
>   In general people who hardly can play chess over the board join
>   such competitions, and very few of them, as there is hardly money to win.
>
>   No money no good players!
>
>   The only high level games in correspondence chess are very few world
>   league games and some country versus country games on the highest boards.
>
>   Those high level games you can however count on a few hands, and are
usually
>   dominated by a few GMs and IMs or masterclass players who play for fun
>   correspondence chess, so basically dominated by players who over the board
>   are playing quite well too.
>
>   >several master on this subject as well as one former world champion in
>   >correspondence chess  and the consensus is  that the level of  play of
>   >top  players   FAR  exceeds    that  of over    the  board   play.  In
>
>   The average top GM game is of a much higher level as the average
>   correspondence game, yet there are of course a few advantages to the
>   correspondence players: they hardly blunder for example. They use the
>   latest openings books, but despite that they are outgunned in opening
>   against any 2600+ GM who invents his own new theory instead of
>   litterary selecting lines from just published books, therefore with
>   induction the above hypothesis is wrong.
>
>   >correspondence play,  each  player has  many hours  or  even  days  to
>   >respond to a single move, and uses this time to do serious analysis.
>
>   >As a thought experiment, if you could give a top correspondence player
>   >the   ability to  make  the same  high   quality moves  but  in normal
>   >tournament time controls, you  would  have a  player far  superior  to
>   >Kasparov in over  the board play.  I  have  never heard a  good player
>   >deny this conjecture and I have talked to several about it.
>
>   I doubt this. Kasparov prepares a lot at home too. It's different
>   of course if your correspondence player is called Kramnik.
>
>   Basically this theoretical possibility is supporting your opinion,
>   but if you take the average correspondence player who has a NATIONAL
>   TITLE : "national champion correspondence chess", then Kasparov
>   will destroy him completely IF HE WANTS TO.
>
>   Question is: does he need to destroy him by showing his latest opening
>   lines prepared, or will Kasparov use such lines in the upcoming match
>   Kramnik-Kasparov?
>
>
>The fact that prepared opening suprises  are so common by these strong
>players (and I  have  even  done  my own  original analysis  to   beat
>opponents)   is a LOT of evidence   that there is  a  lot  of holes in
>current opening theory.  If this is true, then  Chess-God would have a
>field day against any living Grandmaster!!!
>
>
>
>   >When games of the top players are analyzed later, it is common to find
>   >flaws in the  play.  It is so common  in fact that  it is clear we are
>   >playing far from perfectly.  There is a still a very large gap between
>   >the current level of play of top humans and perfect play.
>
>   What is your definition of perfect play?
>
>     - a) not losing drawn positions, 
>	  winning a won position, and getting the best out of lost positions,
>	  so sometimes converting them to a win?  
>     - b) mating an opponent using optimal play so if it's a mate in
>	  56 theoretical then also finding this mate in 56 behind the board?
>
>   If your definition of perfect play is b, then you're right.
>   If it's a or something similar, then you're dead wrong.
>
>Chess-God  uses strategy A, which  is my general definition.  "Getting
>the best  out  of lost  positions"  is  a Chess-Devil  tactic, but  an
>important part of real play.    
>
>The simplest way   to design a googleplex  mhz  computer to  play chess
>would be to use this strategy  which I'll call Chess-Devil-Jr (because
>Chess-Devil  looks into your brain    and knows which specific  things
>might confuse you):
>
>1) Win games in the least number of moves.
>
>2) Delay stalemates and draws by repetition to longest possible length.
>
>3) In lost games (presumably these never happen) delay checkmate as long
>   as possible.
>
>
>
>
>   I advice you to analyze some games from Kramnik with some strong
>   players, using published analyzes and everything you have.
>
>   A good example is the game he played against Polgar in a demonstration
>   game at television recently. Try to analyze his moves in this 1 hour
>   a game level instead of having discussions like this!
>
>   They are always started by people who can't play chess at all!
>
>
>I think there have been games played absolutely perfectly by one side.
>Possibly, if the  opening position really is  a draw,  there have been
>perfect games played by both sides!  But we may  not really be able to
>prove that one side or the other played perfectly.  Since we don't even
>know whether the opening position is drawn, it is pretty much impossible
>to ascertain whether ANYONE has EVER played a perfect game!   That seems
>astounding but take this game:
>
>  1. f3   e5
>  2. g4   Qh4 MATE
>
>
>Question:  Did black play a perfect game?  
>
>If we use your B definition (or my Chess-Devil-Jr) player to judge, I think
>the answer could be NO!!   Look at all the information that is missing:
>
>    1.  Was f3 ok?   Mabye f3 turns a won game into a draw, or a draw into
>        a loss?   Do you know the answer Vincent?
>
>    2.  Was e5 the best move for black?  By our standards it seems strong,
but 
>	maybe d4 is better?   Maybe another move altogether is objectively better?
>
>What if we use Chess-God strategy?  We just use care not to change the
>theorectical outcome  of  the game.   Do you  actually  claim  to know
>whether e4 is   better than d4   or  some other move  entirely  in the
>opening  position?  Both moves  are quite committal.   How about f3 in
>this position?  It's not commonly played, but is it really bad or just
>unfashionable?  If Chess  is won for white, is  it still won after f3?
>If it's a draw, is it still a draw after f3?
>
>Chess-God  and Chess-Devil knows  the  answer to all these  questions.
>But no human does.   I think that's enough of an advantage to make up
>for more than a few rating points!
>
>
>Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>   >Because of our limited perception, it is  difficult for us to see much
>   >farther than from our own vantage point.  To us, brilliant and perfect
>   >play is simply whatever the best of us  can achieve.  We are impressed
>   >with   our own   accomplishments.  But to   a  God,  what  we consider
>   >brilliant and perfect might very well be simple minded and naive.
>   >
>   >I would like to also point  out that player perfect  moves most of the
>   >time does  not  mean you  play good  Chess  (or Go)   in general.  The
>   >difference between a  great player and  an  excellent player might  be
>   >that the excellent  player plays  perfetly  90% of  the moves and  the
>   >Great player gets it  right 93% of  the time.   Over a long  series of
>   >games the great player will  amass a huge lead, especially considering
>   >that the bad moves of the weaker player will get punished more often.
>   >
>   >In a real sense, there is no such thing as a good or excellent move in
>   >2 player games  of perfect information like  Chess and Go.  There  are
>   >only bad moves.  A good move is a human label  applied to a move which
>   >is difficult to find or is  "pretty", a Go Devil  kind of move!  A bad
>   >move is  a  move that doesn't   maintain  the game  theoretic outcome.
>   >There is a maxim in chess that says the winner is the next to the last
>   >person to make a mistake!   
>   >
>   >Finally, I don't know how to apply this to Go.   I feel that we are at
>   >least a few hundred elo rating points from perfect chess, even as many
>   >as 1000 (which means a hypothtical player exists who would rarely ever
>   >lose to Kasparov, and yet there still exists a player who would rarely
>   >lose to this player!)
>   >
>   >Christoph gave the rough  rule of thumb  that  1 stone equals 100  ELO
>   >rating points.  If this is  approximately right, then  the idea of the
>   >best players  being  close to perfect  (within 1   or 2  stones) seems
>   >fairly ludicrous.  200 rating points (or two stones?) means that among
>   >equal players, the handicapped player would still win about 15% of the
>   >time although losing about 85% of the games.
>   >
>   >I think Go  is MUCH more profound and  difficult to master than Chess,
>   >and this by a really wide margin.  I have heard similar numbers quoted
>   >for  chess, where it's been  hypothesized that we  are only 200 or 300
>   >points away from perfection.  I even admit that it's hard to imagine a
>   >player  who could achieve  a score of  over 80% against  the great and
>   >wonderful Kasparov, but I think that kind of  thinking is what ties us
>   >in knots, we really shouldn't make our guesses by comparing to players
>   >we worship because they are too close to God in our minds!
>   >
>   >
>   >Just for reference here is a simple table of expectancies that the ELO
>   >rating system predicts.  For instance the last entry indicates that if
>   >you are 400 points higher rated, you will win 97% of the games against
>   >your weaker opponent.  Most of  the experiments I mentioned earlier in
>   >computer chess, for those not familiar, were based on playing hundreds
>   >of  games against programs   of  various depths,  and calculating  ELO
>   >ratings   based on winning   percentages.  In the  experiments, it was
>   >shown  that  by searching 1  ply deeper  you  could  obtain a stronger
>   >program, one that could  expect to win about 80% or more of the time.
>   >
>   >
>   >    ELO diff    wins %
>   >    --------    ------
>   >        0        0.50
>   >       20        0.53
>   >       40        0.58
>   >       60        0.62
>   >       80        0.66
>   >      100        0.69
>   >      120        0.73
>   >      140        0.76
>   >      160        0.79
>   >      180        0.82
>   >      200        0.84
>   >      300        0.93
>   >      400        0.97
>   >
>   >
>
>
>