Why not McMahon? (possibly with reduced handicap). It works fine in human Go tournaments.
IMO KGS Swiss is pretty boring for most of the time, and the scheduler often seems to have a lot of undesired influence on the final ranking. Also at this point I'm really not that interested any more to see some top engine win yet another bot tournament without serious competition; I'd be more interested to see how many stones they could give to the rest. Wouldn't it be fun to see how many stones AlphaGo could give to CS? E. On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:29 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-hirn-ver...@gmx.de> wrote: > Hi Gian-Carlo, > > I have thought carefully about your question on > determinning handicaps properly. > It seems you are very right with your doubts > > > The first obvious question is then: how will you determine the handicaps? > > A naive approach would be to take the KGS ranks of the bots. > But even for those who really have this may be a problem. Namely, > the program may use other/stronger hardware in the tournament, > or may have made a jump in performance without playing openly > on KGS. > > > As to the "large gaps in strength": the actual rating of Zen is > > 1 stone above abakus, which is 1 stone above HiraBot. That seems > > to conflict with your classification. > > Yes, but only according to KGS ranks. My impression yesterday was > that Zen has made another jump in performance and is now more > an 8-dan than a 7-dan. But this is indeed only a personal opinion > and can not be taken for "serious" handicapping. > > Concerning abakus and Hirabot, it is indeed my opinion that they > are at most 1 stone apart of each other. > > In total: my handicap idea seems not to be practicable. > > Ingo. > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
