Re: [computer-go] 2nd KGS Computer Go Tournament

["Paul Tabor" <paul@xxxxxxxxx>]

I've noticed some of the stronger programs can't read out things like seki all the time. Which is reasonable, because if they were perfect at reading they would be 9p+ and this bulletin board wouldn't be needed any more. But this is common enough to make human intervention in scoring necessary - you can't play out a seki!

Paul


----- Original Message -----
From: "John Davies" <john@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "computer-go" <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [computer-go]  2nd KGS Computer Go Tournament
Date: Mon, 09 May 2005 13:11:45 +0100

> 
> At risk of being stepped down on ;-)
> 
> I hadn't thought of the contention case Karol outlines below which makes
> my bullish comments on testing seem a bit grumpy; maybe there is a gap
> which could be closed in the protocol there.
> 
> When I struggled with getting Dumbbot to assess dead groups properly I
> found it was much harder than I'd expected (especially with some of the
> more advanced bots like GNUGo leaving things it knew it could kill if it
> had to, rather than making things obvious to lesser bots).
> 
> My solution in the end was to spool out the final position in SGF to a
> local GNUGo process, ask it to "final_status_list dead" and pass on the
> result.  I plan to take this assessment job on myself eventually but for
> now it doesn't improved DB's results (so isn't cheating) but does make
> sure the live/dead status is very good at the end. Result: a happy
> tournament organiser :-)
> 
> This trick isn't tricky ;-) and could be suggested for any bots that
> don't do this stage well.  I'm surprised the winning bot (obviously with
> a strong sense of what's alive and dead during the game) was lacking in
> this regard.
> 
> BTW I don't count this as a 'hybrid' program so PLEASE don't start that
> thread going again!
> 
> HTH
> 
> JD
> 
> 
> On Mon, 2005-05-09 at 11:17 +0200, Karol Golab wrote:
> > On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:05:03AM +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
> > > If the problem were genuine disagreement, I would agree with John.  But > it 
> > isn't.  Some bots have game-end-handling code which is much worse at > assessing 
> > status than their actual playing code.  For instance, LeGoBot > plays at around 
> > 20k, but in its first-round game, it claimed at the > game-end that its 
> > one-liberty black group, entirely surrounded by > unkillable white groups, was 
> > alive.  LeGoBot's playing engine knew it > was dead, the error was merely in its 
> > scoring engine.
> >
> >   I think that the actual problem was more on KGS side - as far
> > as I know LeGoBot did not return any status at all (it does not
> > implement final_status_list command from what its author said).
> > The problem occured because tlsBot returned the status and LeGoBot not.
> > I would assume that the KGS engine interprets this as 'all stones
> > live' which led to a disagreement.
> >
> >   Cheers,
> >   Karol
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/