Can JellyFish really play?
Jacob Bratting Pedersen
* Law and Economics Student *
* Copenhagen Business School *
* E-mail: juz...@hp2.cbs.dk *
------------------------------
Erik Gravgaard
: am interested in hearing peoples oppinions about the JellyFish program, e.g. how well/bad it plays compared to other BG-games.
:
IMHO It's the best program available and it is indeed very good.
Look at the backgammon FAQ and see Kit Woolsey's article about the program.
As Kit is internationally recognized as an expert player I think his
piece about JellyFish speeks for it self.
You really can't be without it. We will have an article about it in our
next issue of GAMMON.
Erik Gravgaard (erikg) --------------------------
Pres. of the Danish Backgammon Life is a series of up
Federation and down equity decisions
er...@inet.uni-c.dk - Paul Magriel
--------------------------
Andrew Paik
>> am interested in hearing peoples oppinions about the JellyFish program,
>> e.g. how well/bad it plays compared to other BG-games.
> IMHO It's the best program available and it is indeed very good.
But is it the best program? That's what I want to know. It costs a lot, but
if I could tell myself that it is the best backgammon program on the face
of the earth, it would be easier to take the sticker shock.
What I really want to see is the Jellyfish vs. TD-Gammon tournament to put
the programs to the test. Has anyone compared the 2 to eachother?
Andy
pa...@crl.com
Kit Woolsey
: But is it the best program? That's what I want to know. It costs a lot, but
: if I could tell myself that it is the best backgammon program on the face
: of the earth, it would be easier to take the sticker shock.
: What I really want to see is the Jellyfish vs. TD-Gammon tournament to put
: the programs to the test. Has anyone compared the 2 to eachother?
What follows is my own subjective opinion, no proof. However I have been
beta-testing Jellyfish for over 6 months, so I am very familiar with its
play. I also have copies of several of TD's matches and TD's analysis of
other matches, and have done several comparisons of the two programs
giving them the same position to play. I also have considerable
experience using Expert Backgammon, which until this year was certainly
the best commercial program available. Consequently I think I can safely
say that I am more qualified than anyone else to make such a comparison.
Using its 2-ply analysis (that is, looking 1 move ahead), I think that
Jellyfish is every bit as good as TD-Gammon. TD routinely uses 2-ply,
since it is run on a very fast computer. Each program has areas which it
is stronger or weaker in, just like human beings. If I had to pick a
favorite I think I would pick Jellyfish largely because its overall
evaluation function seems to come up with better figures than TD's, but
it is a very close call.
Unfortunately it requires a very fast chip to be able to play Jellyfish
letting it run its 2-ply analysis without taking an uncomfortably long
time between moves. It's 1-ply (without lookahead) plays very quickly,
but is definitely not as strong as TD. However it still plays quite
well, certainly far better than Expert Backgammon. More important it
plays well enough so its rollouts can usually be trusted, while Expert
Backgammon rollouts have to be taken with a grain of salt since the
program may be playing the position very badly.
TD-Gammon is not commercially available, nor are there any plans at
present to make it so. Consequently, if you are looking to get your own
playing program, Jellyfish is currently by far the best program available.
Kit
Kit Woolsey
: A follow-up question for Kit Woolsey:
:
: 1) On the 2-ply analysis, what do you mean by a very fast machine? Any
: guesses on how long 2-ply moves would take with a 486 DX-2 66 with 8 mgs
: RAM?
I hate to admit it, but I don't really know what a 486 DX-2 66 is. I
know that on my pentium it goes fine, while on my laptop (which I think
is some kind of slow 486) it takes too long on the 2-ply (the 1-ply is
still fine, however). I'm afraid that's the best I can do for you.
Perhaps others who have bought Jellyfish (and know more about computers
than I do) can give you a better answer.
Kit
Erik Gravgaard
: : A follow-up question for Kit Woolsey:
: :
: : 1) On the 2-ply analysis, what do you mean by a very fast machine? Any
: : guesses on how long 2-ply moves would take with a 486 DX-2 66 with 8 mgs
: : RAM?
In works fine on mine 486 DX 66MHz with 8/16 MB RAM.
--
Erik Gravgaard
: Thanks for the brief, but complete, review. Is this a DOS program or a Windows
: program? Where can it be purchased?
It is a Windows program and it can be purchased from EFFECT Software,
Norway (see details in the BG FAQ).
You can also order from The Danish Backgammon Press tel. +45 39 40 06 07
or at my e-mail address.
--
Igor Sheyn
I overheard Robertie yesturday saying that after his analysis TD is
significantly better than JF 1.0 on level 6. As an example he
demostrated middle game 1-3 backgame position, which is double/pass
according to JF but a clear no double otherwise. So go figure
Igor
Kit Woolsey
: I overheard Robertie yesterday saying that after his analysis TD is
: significantly better than JF 1.0 on level 6. As an example he
: demonstrated middle game 1-3 backgame position, which is double/pass
: according to JF but a clear no double otherwise. So go figure
: Igor
Simple. Just like humans, each program has its strengths and
weaknesses. I have analyzed hundreds of positions which have been given
to both TD and JF. There is no question that TD is stronger on
backgames, so Robertie's example is quite correct. In general, TD is
stronger in situations which involve timing considerations, such as
priming battles and backgames. JF, on the other hand, tends to be
stronger in attacking situations and most middle-game bold play vs. safe
play problems (TD has a tendency to race too much). In addition JF's
evaluation function is usually better than TD's, particularly when
gammons are involved. I think these differences have to do with how the
programmer structured the neural net and the training sessions, but I am
hardly an expert on this so there are undoubtedly factors which I know
nothing about which affect how well the programs play certain types of
positions. Overall it is very close -- I think I would give the nod to
JF, but TD is right up there.
Kit
John Bazigos
In response to a critical mass of questions that I have witnessed
generally, and on this newsgroup particularly, about the top
neural-network backgammon-software JellyFish (i.e., "JF")
before, during, and especially after the recent commercial release of the
derivative program JF Tutor 1.0,
and
in anticipation of the imminent commercial release of JF Tutor 1.0's co-
and sub-derivative JF Analyzer 1.0, scheduled for commercial release
later this month,
I have moderately annotated, below, the draft of a review of JF Tutor 1.0
and JF Analyzer 1.0 that I sent to backgammon-promoter Carol Joy Cole at
her request for inclusion in the December, 1994 issue of her worthwhile
monthly newsletter
"Flint Area BackgammoNews"
3003 Ridgecliffe Drive
Flint, MI 48532-3730
USA
tel/fax: +1-810-232-9731
e-mail: carl...@sils.umich.edu (Note that the 8-character prefix
of this address constitutes a slight
*contraction of* a (9-character)
lower-case concatenation of her
first and last names).
Unfortunately for at least me,
she had a space-limit of one page for the review
and
didn't (successfully) send me an edited version of it before
she put it to press,
but
she had specified the former constraint to me as a desideratum
and
had numerous adverse circumstances, including delayed submission of
other material and a broken print-camera, which at least
contributed to the latter.
However, and I hope fortunately, you, the readers of the newsgroup
rec.games.backgammon and/or of its FAQ, here and now have access to much
more of the "inside story" behind the review; and since the version that
appeared in Carol's newsletter not only necessarily edited much out but
also did not have the benefit of subsequent questions that have
materialized from readers and non-readers of the review alike, I think and
hope that even readers of that version will find reading the annotated,
pre-edited version below worthwhile.
Thanks to Carol for inviting me to submit this review, to JF's
creator Fredrik Dahl for trusting me to be one of the first and
continuing members of his select group of beta-testers of JF, and to
those of you who have provided me on FIBS with prompt, positive feedback
on the version that appeared in Carol's newsletter.
Happy reading, backgammon-friends.
-- John Bazigos
e-mail: jbaz...@Kate.ibmPCUG.CO.UK
FIBS-handle: doc
> JELLYFISH: COMMERCIALLY AVAILABLE, STATE-OF-THE-ART, NEURAL-BASED,
> GENERAL-PURPOSE BACKGAMMON-SOFTWARE
>
> The recent commercial release of Fredrik Dahl's neural-based
> backgammon-program JellyFish (i.e., "JF") constitutes a milestone in the
> history of backgammon. For a modest price, it offers the public
> user-friendly access to the best general-purpose backgammon-software to
> date, which will almost certainly result in order-of-magnitude improvements
> in understanding and playing-strength for novices, intermediates, experts,
> and masters alike. Using players need only a version of Microsoft Windows
> at least as recent as 3.1 running on an IBM PC-compatible personal computer
> with an Intel 80x86 CPU chip at least as recent as the 386 to run the
> program and thus avail themselves of the master-level training-sessions JF
> Tutor provides, the rollout-facilities JF Analyzer provides, and the
> insights the Tutor and Analyzer together provide for both arbitrary-length
> matches and non-match (i.e., "money") games.
My copy of JF Tutor 1.0 accepts match-lengths between and including 1 and
32,767 (= 2^15 - 1) points.
>
> Both I and another top player who has had greater experience with the
> program independently concluded that JF already plays world-class
> backgammon.
Carol's version referred to him as "another more experienced player",
which was (unintentionally) misleading and/or relatively irrelevant:
misleading if an attempted parahprase, and less relevant than his greater
experience with JF, not backgammon generally, if not. That other top
player, by the way, is Kit Woolsey, but I was unsure at the time whether
he wanted to be identified in the newsletter as a co-author of all the
various claims of his that I cited therein, so I felt unauthorized in
disclosing his identity; because I have since seen him make on
rec.games.backgammon claims that imply all of his cited herein, I feel
implicitly authorized in doing so here and now.
> In fact, when I checked on 27 December 1994, it was ranked 38th of
> about 1700 and rated 1820.43 on the worldwide First Internet Backgammon
> Server (i.e., "FIBS"), where it analyzes at a level, 5, one-ply shallower
> than at its top level, 6 -- at which I normally use it in real time (on my
> 33.2 MHz 486)!
Incidentally, my anecdotal evidence so far indicates that
-- on a 386, level 5 is the highest one playable in real time;
-- on a 486, level 6 is playable in real time only if
-- the chip-speed is greater than 33.2 MHz
and/or
-- the chip-speed is at least 33.2 MHz and includes a math co-processor;
-- on a "586" (i.e., Pentium), level 6 is playable even at 33.2 MHz;
and
-- a math co-processor, like that on my 33.2 MHz 486 DX, increases visible
response-time by a factor of between 2 and 3.
I am one of the many who will appreciate inclusion of further such data in
subsequent postings to this newsgroup, so that we can all profitably factor
them into our decisions concerning future purchases of hardware.
> By comparison, Gerry Tesauro's seminal backgammon-playing
> neural network TD-Gammon (i.e., "TD") was ranked 12th and rated only
> slightly more than 50 points higher than JF's level 5 at that time.
That difference had narrowed to less than 50 points when I checked today,
about one month after I submitted the presently annotated draft.
> The aforesaid other top player and I independently concluded, further, that
> rollouts by JF (Analyzer) not only are the most trustworthy of any
> general-purpose backgammon-software, but also, given the large number of
> trials that the relatively great speed at which they can be generated
> enables practically, the most trustworthy results generally for all but a
> few types of (technical endgame) positions. Indeed, his and my sometimes
> joint but mostly separate use of JF as a primary research-tool for most of
> 1994 has resulted in our routinely considering statistically significant
> enough rollout-results from JF to have oracle status for all but the
> minority of positions for which we have access to a better, special-purpose
> oracle -- e.g., Hugh Sconyers' CD-ROM system Bearoff Equities & Backgame
> Probabilities for bearoffs, Johannes Schmitt's BackgammonBase for longer
> races, and in-house software for some other computationally tractable
> position-types.
>
> Further, since JF's rollout-results constitute probably the strongest
> evidence yet for each side's outcome-distribution (i.e., single-, double-,
> and triple-win percentages) and associated match-equity or non-matchgame
> equity, for all but a few types of (technical endgame) positions, these
> results can be used to test hypotheses concerning long-interesting
> theoretical issues, like match-equities and/or opening-plays. Rollouts by
> JF are statistically efficient because of its use of arbitrary-ply
> stratified sampling of dice-rolls, and a particularly good empirical
> data-source for match-equities because of the high and dead-equal level of
> play on both sides that even the best databases of human-versus-human
> matches suffer from lacking.
This, of course, includes Hal Heinrich's huge such database -- which, when
it contained apparently "only" slightly more than 1,000 matches,
constituted the primary source of data for Kit Woolsey's most recent
published revision ("Inside Backgammon", 1992; "How to Play Tournament
Backgammon", 1993) of his seminal table of match-winning probabilities
("Backgammon Times", 1981) as a function of scores in matches where
neither side is more than 15 points from winning the match.
> As examples, my massive JF-rollout of backgammon's initial position has
> contributed to respective increases in my estimates of the opening-roller's
> equity and of the game's cubeless (back)gammon-frequency;
My working-estimates for several years consecutively until last year were
based on the traditional 11:10 advantage of the opening roller being
uniformly distributed over single-, 20% double-, and 4% triple-games, for
figures of +0.059 and 20%, respectively; Jerry Godsey's "Expert Backgammon
Opening Rollout Results Sheet" ("Chicago Point", 70; July, 1994), which
reflected 27,216 trials on EXBG 2.0 and/or 2.1 for each (plausible)
opening-play, implied cubeless estimates of +0.045 and 24.9%, respectively;
and now, my aforesaid JF-rollouts imply cubeless and cube-adjusted values
of +0.065 and +0.083, respectively, for the opening roll, and about 26.7%
for (back)gammon frequency. Though I formerly regarded the 24.9% figure as
suspiciously higher than Kit's long-accepted 20%, I now regard it as a lower
bound (for match-equity derivations).
> my massive
> JF-rollouts of all plausible plays for all opening rolls has confirmed most
> of my suspicions thereabout but also provided me with more reliable data on
> their outcome-distributions, further contributed to those two respective
> estimate-increases, and led me to one revolutionary discovery so far;
Would you believe that the routinely overlooked, neglected, ridiculed, or
usually at best hastily dismissed play making the deuce-point with an
opening roll of 64 not only seems best for non-match play but also seems
to increase the opener's gammon-advantage and to be best for most
match-scores?! I never used to until late last year, and still wouldn't
stake my soul on it, but JF-rollouts, my subsequent analysis of them, and
the results of my experimenting with it have led me to the
working-conclusion that it is the best play theoretically, and even better
practically for the serious student of the play. (Incidentally, as I
recall, TD used to make this play before Gerry Tesauro coerced it into
choosing between more "acceptable" opening-plays generally; though I am
sure Gerry, being the fine researcher that he is/was, had his reasons for
doing this --whatever they were-- I hereby humbly express my opinion that
it was inelegant for the implementation of TD, and disturbingly limiting
to the discovery of what neural-nets can teach us (about backgammon) by
processing their own experience.)
> and my massive JF-rollouts of all plausible plays in response to at
> least JF's highest-equity play for each opening roll has provided me
> with unprecedented understanding not only of how to respond to my
> opponent's first play, but also of strategic trade-offs, and of
> significant errors in all published match-equity tables.
I will provide details of all these, and more, things in my forthcoming
magazine "Backgammon Quarterly", for which I have been collecting and
working through ideas for the last four years (If you are interested in
receiving it, please send me e-mail stating so and including your postal
address).
> As, among other things, a professionally trained and experienced software
> engineer, I take pleasure in reporting that Fred Dahl and his small team of
> programmers performed the obviously professionally desirable but
> nonetheless unusual feat of providing childishly simple and enjoyable
> access to software with leading-edge functionality in their December,
> 1994 release of JF Tutor 1.0, and seem firmly on-track to repeat the
> feat for their scheduled January, 1995 release of JF Analyzer 1.0.
Carol ommitted the adjective "childishly" in the immediately preceding
sentence, but I like its connotation: One of my tenets for engineering
user-interfaces is that they should be suitable and fun for the
psychological child within each of us to use; this holds even more
strongly than usual for interfaces to game-software designed for a
user-population that is not entirely comfortable with (personal)
computers.
> JF's clear, terse, and informative 15-page user's manual provides
> general information on the program in a modest tone, and then gently
> steps the user through the mechanics of (un)installation and
> confirmation, starting a new game or (arbitrary-length) match,
> saving/loading a position to a DOS-file, its six levels of play,
> evaluating a position on level(s) 5 and/or 6, editing a position, JF's
> interactive comments, rolling the dice automatically and/or manually,
> cube-action, checker-movement, user-modification of the colors for
> any subset of five colored entities in the graphical interface,
> miscellaneous bells and whistles (such as [a] human-versus-human
> option), and useful shorcuts. A normally intelligent backgammon-player
> with a
> rudimentary knowledge of Windows should be able to start using JellyFish
> almost immediately, and could easily be almost perfectly adept in its
> use in his/her first day if (s)he so desires; and I think that
> JF-adeptness problems should be scarce and minor, since
> backgammon-players are generally more than normally intelligent and
> Windows is so user-friendly for beginners.
>
> Again, the recent commercial availability of JF constitutes a monumental
> event in the history of backgammon by making available the strongest
> general-purpose backgammon learning-tool to date for all players through a
> highly user-friendly interface at a bargain-price. Since our privileged
> introduction to it in the first half of 1994, I and a couple of other top
> players have used it continually to verify, refute, and confidently
> increment our beliefs about backgammon, from those as specific as estimates
> of outcome-distributions for particular positions to those as general as
> what constitute the most plausible values for a match-equity table. This
> has already resulted in an order-of-magnitude increase in our understanding
> of the game, and should result in another as we continue this process in
> 1995. I will share my thus-derived insights (and others) in my forthcoming
> magazine "Backgammon Quarterly";
(Again, if you are interested in receiving it, please send me e-mail
stating that and including your postal address.)
> incidentally, now that JF has become
> commercially avaiable, backgammon-magazinists will face an unprecedentedly
> difficult challenge in validly solving problems that one cannot easily,
> validly, and confidently solve with just one or more pieces of commercially
> available software.
Carol, perhaps inadvertently, transformed this prediction into a statement
of possibility by replacing "will" with "may" in the sentence cited
immediately above, but I maintain the prediction.
> In any case, JF is by far the best generally available
> investment to improve one's game, and, like (almost) all worthwhile products
> and services to improve one's backgammon but extremely so, should easily pay
> for itself rather quickly for almost all who play the game for stakes,
> since it costs only $220 ($110 for the Tutor, and $110 extra for the
> Analyzer); in fact, I think that the overwhelming majority of this
> review's readers should consider being able to run JF sufficient
> justification for buying and/or using Microsoft Windows.
>
> As for its weaknesses, notably in technical endgames, they do not alter the
> facts that its play is master-level and its rollouts almost all
> trustworthy. Besides, given the nature of neural-network
> program-architecture, its demonstrated success in learning backgammon so
> far, and Fred Dahl's care and competence in improving JF as much as
> possible at each point, this defect should be remedied in subsequent
> releases -- beginning with that of JF Analyzer 1.0 in late January, 1995.
Anthony R Wuersch
The BG neural nets train by playing themselves. As they grow to a preferred
style, they end up playing only against this style in their training.
Also, the nets trained on cubeless positions may not make plays that depend
on doubling potential. Some positions are better for tight doubles; others
are worse. Then there's recube vig.
Finally, different characteristics may be important as the game enters new
stages (opening, middle game, back game, gammonish game, race, bearoff).
Just as chess players developed strategies against chess computers, we will
see strategies against backgammon nets (and people who believe them).
So be wary.
Cheers,
Toni
--
Toni Wuersch
a...@world.std.com {uunet,bu.edu,bloom-beacon}!world!arw
Gerry Tesauro
John Bazigos <jbaz...@ibmPCUG.CO.UK> wrote:
>
>Would you believe that the routinely overlooked, neglected, ridiculed, or
>usually at best hastily dismissed play making the deuce-point with an
>opening roll of 64 not only seems best for non-match play but also seems
>to increase the opener's gammon-advantage and to be best for most
>match-scores?! I never used to until late last year, and still wouldn't
>stake my soul on it, but JF-rollouts, my subsequent analysis of them, and
>the results of my experimenting with it have led me to the
>working-conclusion that it is the best play theoretically, and even better
>practically for the serious student of the play. (Incidentally, as I
>recall, TD used to make this play before Gerry Tesauro coerced it into
>choosing between more "acceptable" opening-plays generally; though I am
>sure Gerry, being the fine researcher that he is/was, had his reasons for
>doing this --whatever they were-- I hereby humbly express my opinion that
>it was inelegant for the implementation of TD, and disturbingly limiting
>to the discovery of what neural-nets can teach us (about backgammon) by
>processing their own experience.)
>
Not true, doc. At no point has TD ever preferred to make
the 2 point with an opening 6-4. Please try to be a little
more careful about checking the facts before making this
kind of statement.
-- Gerry Tesauro (tes...@watson.ibm.com)
paul.j...@jhuapl.edu
> Would you believe that the routinely overlooked, neglected, ridiculed, or
> usually at best hastily dismissed play making the deuce-point with an
> opening roll of 64 not only seems best for non-match play but also seems
> to increase the opener's gammon-advantage and to be best for most
> match-scores?! I never used to until late last year, and still wouldn't
> stake my soul on it, but JF-rollouts, my subsequent analysis of them, and
> the results of my experimenting with it have led me to the
> working-conclusion that it is the best play theoretically, and even better
> practically for the serious student of the play.
What led you to believe that this is the best play? Does the game fall into
any particular pattern(s)? Also, what is the best follow up strategy after
making the two point. e.g. aggressively try to make another inner board point
if possible and risk a blot on the eight point, or start to move the backmen
out, or what?
Thanks
pj
John Bazigos
Well, Gerry, I remember a good and extremely honest friend of mine at
Stanford University who was an avid student of backgammon generally, and
of leading-edge backgammon-research specifically,
-- reporting to me in the Fall academic-quarter of 1992 that he had
personally witnessed TD-Gammon make the deuce-point with an opening 64 on
FIBS,
and
-- asking me what I thought of the play, to which I responded by expressing
-- my enduring belief that it leaves the player thereof a game-favorite
(though I didn't then, as I do now, believe it the best play)
and
-- my hopeful belief that TD might subsequently learn not to make that
play (as it apparently did, whenever).
>Please try to be a little
>more careful about checking the facts before making this
>kind of statement.
Same to you, buddy :). Do you have a complete log of TD's sessions (on
FIBS)? If so, would you please care to search it exhaustively to
find when TD made the deuce with an opening 64 and report the result of
that search to this newsgroup?
Also, and more generally important, would you please provide us, your
fellow readers of rec.games.backgammon, with your aforesaid rationale for
coercing TD to choose between more "acceptable" opening-plays than some
of the ones that it found -- as you have personally told me that you have.
>
>-- Gerry Tesauro (tes...@watson.ibm.com)
Factually yours, and awaiting your responses,
-- John Bazigos (jbaz...@Kate.ibmPCUG.CO.UK)
"doc" on FIBS