most computer-computer tournaments have used 1 hour per side, and did 5 or 6 rounds over 1 1/2 days.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Fotland > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:04 PM > To: 'computer-go' > Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS > > > I have no problem with longer time controls. Many Faces 11 > was tuned to play in about 45 minutes on hardware available > in 2000. It won't take advantage of any extra time given. > The global search is 1 ply with quiescence, and always will > always complete, and the local search sizes are fixed at > something like 200 nodes per search. > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:53 AM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS > > > > > > Hi David, > > > > I argue that the matches should be longer, perhaps 30 minutes per > > side. They should more closely resemble time controls used in a > > serious competition. > > > > Here is the reason I say that. One could argue that with > > computers it > > doesn't matter, they do not need to be constrained as much > > by our sense of time - they do not feel pressure or get > > rattled if they play too fast > > and they don't get bored or lose focus if they play too > slow. I've > > argued that way myself many times. > > > > However, the choice of time control, in my estimation, has a > > good chance of influencing the outcome, especially if we view > > this as a test of a strong commercial program versus a new > > experimental technology, which I think it is. Mogo is a > > program that clearly performs better > > with more time. I suspect that MFGO is a program that is close to > > optimal at 10 or 15 minutes. I can't say that for sure, > > perhaps you > > can give us your insights on that. > > > > In such a case what is "fair" depends on the point of view of the > > observer. If someone wanted to see Mogo dominate such a match he > > would consider short time controls "unfair" and the > opposite would be > > true if one wanted to see Many Faces win. Of course I could be > > wrong, perhaps Many Faces is the one that would benefit more > > from extra time - but I'm working from the assumption that > > Mogo would benefit the most based on my own knowledge of how > > UCT works. > > > > Regardless of the time control used another issue is the > > selection of hardware. Doubling the computer power > > effectively doubles the programs > > thinking time. > > > > Having considered all of these issues, and also taking into > > consideration that this is a contest of sorts, it makes > > sense that we should testing at a level that simulates or at > > least approaches serious > > computer chess time-controls. Certainly no faster than > 30 minutes > > per side. These are levels at which most humans will take > > the results > > seriously. > > > > In addition to this, it makes sense to know what hardware and what > > time-setting is being used. Many programs on CGOS were set to play > > very fast, often indicated their level in the name of the > > program something like "mogo4k" or something similar. > > > > So if we set a liberal time control on CGOS 19x19 we could > > publish the > > identify of the players and draw conclusion based on that. Mogo > > could be tested at several levels and/or hardware > > configurations and so could Many Faces. It's not difficult > > to set up a rotating script for > > logging off one bot and starting up another. (By the way, > > the right > > way to do this is to select the bot RANDOMLY, not to > rotate back and > > forth.) > > > > The server does report the time each side spent calculating > > in the SGF files, although it's not reported on the web > > sites, so this is useful > > information if we are considering the scalability of > programs. My > > feeling is that there is likely to be a crossover point - > > that MFGO will win at time-controls faster than this and Mogo > > will win at time-controls > > slower than this. That point may be beyond what we can > test, or it > > may be testable on the CGOS server soon. > > > > By the way, I would probably argue for longer than 30 > > minutes per side, but for a server like CGOS that would > > involve a long wait between > > matches. > > > > Anyway, that's my 2 cents. > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > David Fotland wrote: > > > 10 minutes per side should be enough for Many Faces 11. > Version 11 > > > has fixed search limits, and only does time management if > > it runs low > > > on time. It can usually play a game in 10 minutes on the > > computer I'll > > > use. It will be slower against Mogo since the games are > longer and > > > there might me more unsettled situations to read. If you > > do add more > > > time, 15 or 20 minutes per side should be enough. > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > Chris Fant > > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:27 PM > > >> To: computer-go > > >> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS > > >> > > >> > > >> I oppose more time per side. > > >> > > >> On 10/23/07, Christoph Birk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > > >>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Olivier Teytaud wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html > > >>>> > > >>>> If someone wants to test it, the port is 6919 on machine > > >>>> pc5-120.lri.fr. 10 minutes per side. But only try it if > > >>>> > > >> you want to > > >> > > >>>> take risks, it is almost surely not stable yet, and the > > >>>> > > >> connection > > >> > > >>>> might be refused for an unknown reason :-) > > >>>> > > >>> Am really curious to see MFGO, Crazystone and Mogo play at > > >>> > > >> 19x19. But > > >> > > >>> I suggest allowing more time, at least 20 minutes per side. > > >>> > > >>> Christoph > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> 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/ > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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/ > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
