goame wrote:
I see now when I click i in Lizzie, then there is komi 7.5, so the result above is done with 7.5 komi.
When I change the komi to 6.5 or another one and click ok, then it doesn't work. I see it is clicked correctly a little blue button for a moment but this little window won't close...???
I can't do other thinks and need to click the red button with x but then the komi is not saved.
I have no idea, that sounds really weird. Some sort of GUI bug in Lizzie?
goame wrote:
How to change the rules from Chinese to Japanese or other in Lizzie?
Lizzie has no support for changing rules on its own, therefore you need to apply a workaround:
https://github.com/lightvector/KataGo#other-questionsgoame wrote:
With opening symmetry reduction KataGo will be ~4x faster than some slower KataGos.
It could be that the faster KataGo with opening symmetry reduction wins every time when this improvement works in the opening between 25% and 100% or a stone.
After the first 4 symmetry moves KataGo would be 1 stone or even up to 4 stones better.
It's like changing the komi from 7.5 to 6.5 or from 7.5 to 3.5.
And after the symmetry KataGo will have much more playouts and play with his move for example with 24 million playouts compared to the KataGo opponent with 6 million playouts.
I think you are off here. As far as I can tell, opening symmetry reduction should be almost worthless for practical playing strength. If the game opens on a 3-4 point, then symmetry is broken on move 1 and stays broken. If it opens on all 4-4s, then symmetry is broken on move 5 when the first 3-3 invasion happens and usually stays broken. After that, there is no difference in the efficiency of search. If a typical game lasts 250 moves, this means we get a speedup on 1-2% of the moves of the game, so that's roughly similar to speeding up the overall bot by 1%-2%... which is negligible. There are waaaay better things to work on than a whole bunch of code complexity for such a tiny gain.
Relatively speaking, the game is usually won or lost in the range from around move 8 to the macroendgame. The very early opening and the microendgame probably don't benefit as much from deeper search, the former because you don't need deeper search to play a 4-4 point or a 3-4 point or to start a 3-3 invasion that you would have played anyways, and the microendgame because often the game is already decided and if not, bots are very good at the microendgame already and with enough playouts will often be searching deep enough to solve it, past which you get quickly diminishing returns for more search.
So if one were to implement more fancy time management (which *would* be worth doing and would be worth a lot more than 1-2%), in addition to a lot of other important heuristics about choosing how long to search, one would probably greatly downweight the time spent on the first several moves of the game. Which means the gain from symmetry would be even less than 1% - you're getting a speedup on the moves that you would spend less than 1% of your time on anyways.
The idea that a bot is going to find a variation that is up to 4 points better by move 5 is silly. (By current top bot standards. obviously in theory we can't prove that something crazy doesn't happen with optimal play, but even if so, as far as practical statistics by real bots at their current level of play, there is no sign that these opening moves differ by more than tiny fractions of a point on average).
You might ask - how about 9x9, where the game is shorter and the first few moves actually matter a huge amount? Actually there I think symmetries are still worthless too. Because if you really care about optimizing 9x9, forget about searching the first few moves in real time, you should just build an opening book... and by the time you get out of book almost always you'll have broken symmetry.