[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: computer-go: perfect players
If they were truly perfect players, then either every
game would be a draw, or one color would always win.
Don
From: "Gordon Grant" <gordon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200105031631.MAA22354@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 19:00:02 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4522.1200
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Length: 7323
Pray, what would happen if two 'perfect' players played a lot of games with
one another. Lots of draws, or equal numbers of wins foe each?
Gordon Grant
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Dailey" <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: computer-go: perfect players
>
> And one other thing too. The very best Chess players lose LOTS of
> games still. They couldn't be very close to perfection.
>
> Don
>
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 14:35:31 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Don Dailey <drd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> CC: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 6417
>
>
> Of course how far we are away from perfect play is opinion and subject
> to huge amounts of error.
>
> My personal feeling is that we are much farther than we think. I
> base this on these observations:
>
> 1. Human arrogance. This is not directed to anyone as an individual
> but as a class we are all a bit like this. We think we are much
> better at various tasks than we really are in my opinion. We compare
> to other humans, or to the "average" human and are too easily impressed.
> We also romanticize the abilities of our hero's, and make them bigger
> than life.
>
> The problem is that we don't have a reasonable frame of reference, we just
> can't imagine someone playing a lot better than our own "great" players.
> We define greatness and perfection in these terms even though we don't
> really mean to.
>
> There will be players that come along later who will prove this, and
> yet they will be limited too. This is similar to the great Roger
> Bannister, running a mile as fast as humanly possible ... or so it was
> thought at the time.
>
> 2. Comparing checkers to chess is kind of like comparing chess to go.
> It's "easier" to reach perfection in checkers than in chess, and
> it's easier to reach perfection in chess than in go as far as writing
> programs that play these games. And yet, you will see that Chinook,
> the worlds top checker playing program is far from perfect. It's may
> very well be the case that Chinook is the best player in the world,
> maybe even the best player ever. There is room for disptute here,
> but I think anyone would agree that it is a close call. Any yet
> if you talk to the author of Chinook (or read his book on the subject)
> you will see that he doesn't consider Chinook particularly close to
> perfection, he is aware of numerous improvements that need to be
> made, and he would love to have a much faster computer to do a few
> extra ply. If he considers the "best player" in the world as
> needing so much improvement, in a game tremendously simple compared
> to chess or go, then I believe it says something about our own human
> limitations.
>
> I did my own experiments along these lines. I created an even
> more simplified game. It is checkers played on a 6x6 board. I
> run a huge series of autotest games at various depths of search.
> What I wanted to do was to analyze how hard it would be to create
> a perfect player. Although I did not get a definitive answer,
> I kept being surprised at how useful a single extra ply of lookahead
> was. I was going almost 40 ply deep in my "most fit" individual.
> Remember, this is a very tiny game where just a few moves puts you
> deep into the endgame. In the end, I could not predict how much
> depth I would need to play perfectly, because even at the highest
> level I tested (I think it was 38 ply) it was beating the previous level
> by several percent (like 54%.) It was tapering off (2 vs 1 was
> a much bigger crush than 38 vs 37) but only very slowly. If I played
> versions 2 or more levels apart, I would get huge crushing victories.
> (I played 200 game series to muffle most of the statistical noise.)
> The deep level were mostly drawn games, an indication that perfection
> was being approached, but every few games would end in a victory,
> usually for the side looking ahead a single measly move deeper.
>
> It's hard to draw firm conclusions from this, becaues I don't
> have a simple way to relate this to human skill.
> Still, I felt like I was exploring a bottomless
> pit of possible skill levels, and I am pretty convinced that at
> the bottom (perfect play) would be a player very much better than
> any human is likely to be. This is a trivial game compared to
> chess and go and even 8x8 checkers.
>
> In Chinooks experience, Chinook would often play a losing move
> and not know it for many many moves and then suddenly wake up.
> In these cases, the human master it was playing usually sensed
> the error right away. Even though this was happening, Chinook
> was winning tournaments and beating the best players. The lesson
> here is that even though humans were better at some things, Chinook
> was better at other things and neither was very close to perfection!
>
>
>
> Don
>
>
>
> Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:24:15 +0100
> From: Nick Wedd <Nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> References:
<CE7CC0FC87E4D411BCB50060B0689C173B8245@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> X-Mailer: Turnpike Integrated Version 4.02 U
<2JQI4ZxDiDMfZZvAyGkNIZYSCT>
> Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Precedence: bulk
> Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Content-Type: text
> Content-Length: 1449
>
> Fant, Chris <chris.fant@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >It has been said by at least one chess player that they could beat
a perfect
> >player, given a one pawn advantage. Has this ever been tried
against a
> >computer player? I am interested in knowing how close computer
players are
> >to a perfect player, how close the best human players are to the
perfect
> >player and how close the best Go players are to the perfect player.
>
> This has been debated on rec.games.go.
>
> The consensus seems to be that the correct handicap for the best
human
> to receive when playing a perfect player is about three stones.
>
> The question is complicated by the need to define "the perfect
player".
> Is it one that makes the best move on the board in each position?
Or
> one that can read its opponents mind, and take advantage of the
> misconceptions that it finds there?
>
> > It is
> >my conjecture that human and computer chess players are very close
to the
> >perfect player relative to how close the best Go players are to the
perfect
> >player. I believe that Go programs will eventually surpass human
players
> >and go on to absolutely destroy the best of the best.
>
> They show no signs of doing this so far.
>
> > I believe this
> >because of the complexity of the game. Computers can't be stopped.
They
> >will continue to approach perfect player performance. What does
the group
> >think?
>
> They will continue to get better, yes. There's a way to go.
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>