The problem with a "closed" system where the tournament director
controls both of the machines is that it precludes programs like mine,
SlugGo, that intrinsically use multiple CPUs and run on Macs rather
than Windows or Linux boxes.
Cheers,
David
On 11, Oct 2007, at 12:15 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my point is that if you want
some kind of "certified" rating CGOS is not a good choice. You
can run
anything on CGOS and claim anything. You could even substitute a
strong human player, if you wanted to.
So even though it's "open" in one big sense it's really closed in
another sense. It's almost like internet identities, you can hide
and
mis-represent yourself easily.
- - Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
Right now we know that Mogo dominates in 9x9. Without CGOS this
would
be speculation based on who won the last tournament. But CGOS
is not
the right way although it's a useful tool. There needs to be some
kind of testing agency that is fair and unbiased, visible, and
everything is out in the open.
I disagree. CGOS is the best way to go. It is much more open than
any "independent testing agency" could be.
Christoph
ps. thanks again for running CGOS :-)
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHDnZQDsOllbwnSikRAqjuAKCauNlfYMYiOpPY3GYAv+UqN4NIBgCgnDQu
VKpwM8hhdZgeGb/KhZe01vc=
=CiOB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
