Another matter is that, in case of MCTS programs, encouraging them to play well in handicap games was a troublesome point. This cuts both ways (may discourage participation, or encourage implementation of better handling of handicap games).
A possible strategy would be: - Require ranked programs (with at least 30 rated games played in last 30 days using the tournament version) - Use McMahon scheduling - Use handicaps reduced by 2, topped at 4 stones. (More liberally, topped at 6 stones.) - Apply these rules only every other month to test it out; this should be out of phase with the other variations? This might be a lot more fun to watch. :) Handicap reduction is important to still give the stronger programs a good edge. On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:16:58PM +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote: > 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 -- Petr Baudis If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers, you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go