Hi Lukasz, I like your tounament as prefering scores could add two goals to seek 1) human-like playing style and 2) "optimal" moves.
Hideki ukasz Lew: <CAPXT8E5C=YG=uX2hbpNkwx0aXXdZ=y1fevrcceqwyswbttl...@mail.gmail.com>: >Let me lay down my motivation over the rules for you. > >I believe computer go community is in local minima when it goes to >optimizing strength of the programs. >There are two reasons to go to linear score: >1. Creation of divide and conquer algorithms (My research topic, >future of Go IMO) will be much easier when the scores of the >independent part of go board will directly contribute to result. >2. Testing of engines is much faster as you get much more then one bit per >game. > >Truncation (as explained previously) is to reduce noise from weak vs >strong matches. >Note that after tournament we can check "what would be the score" if >there would be no truncation. > >Most of all have fun ! :) > >On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 4:34 PM, steve uurtamo <uurt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think that you guys are overcomplicating the fact that a man offered a >> tournament setup with a prize with rules. >> >> I'm sure alternative formats proposed by other tournament organizers might >> be interesting too, but I'm simply curious to see how this particular one >> works out. >> >> s. >> >> On Jul 12, 2012 7:22 AM, "Don Dailey" <dailey....@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> I assumed with the log or square root function that the winner would get >>> this number of points and the loser would lose the same amount. And it >>> should be centered around a komi value in my opinion - so that if komi is >>> 5.5 you consider a score of 7.5 to be worth 2 points or sqrt(2). >>> >>> I like your function just as well or even better. I'm not fussy about >>> the exact function used, just the arbitrary cap which has no logic at all. >>> Even if they had no cap it would be better. >>> >>> You say it's not clear what they are trying to achieve, but I think that >>> was explained. The explanation left me reeling because it had to do with >>> strong programs crushing weak programs and not getting overly rewarded for >>> playing a weak opponent. But this system basically does reward the >>> program that plays the most weak opponents and I think it's really flawed in >>> general. >>> >>> The real point of this is to impose a more western attitude to the game, >>> trying to "crush" your opponent - pick off every possible stone you can, >>> etc. In this system it's possible to lose most of your games and still >>> win the tournament because a small loss is hardly better than a small win. >>> With any of these alternative scoring systems that situation is greatly >>> improved. >>> >>> I did think of one interesting format. Suppose that you use the >>> performance ratings of the programs in the tournament to decide the winner, >>> but you count each stone as a separate game? In 9x9 you have 81 games, >>> so the score can be 81 - 0, or anything in between (I strongly suggest >>> centering this based on Komi.) A score of 81-0 is impressive, but if >>> the program is really weak it's performance rating is going to be very low >>> (not to mention the fact that beating it by this score won't help its >>> performance rating.) This has some of the same flaws but it would >>> still be fun. If you lose by a small margin it's not much worse the >>> winning by a small margin. >>> >>> Don >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Álvaro Begué <alvaro.be...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> We are dealing with a quantity (the score difference) which can be >>>> positive or negative, so neither square root nor log are very natural >>>> functions to use. >>>> >>>> If you want diminishing returns, here's a better way to do it: Give >>>> each player 1/(1+exp(-K*score)) points. As K goes to infinity this >>>> converges to the usual loss=0, draw=1/2, win=1. As K goes to 0 it >>>> becomes linear. Also the sum of points awarded to both players is 1, >>>> which is kind of a nice property to maintain. >>>> >>>> However, it is unclear what exactly they are trying to achieve, so I >>>> can't really suggest a particular function to use. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > Like you I agree that they should not not use this at all. However, >>>> > given that this is what they want to do I would argue that using using >>>> > the >>>> > square root function (or something like it) is really what they want. >>>> > If >>>> > they believe 150 is no better than 50, but that it's suddenly linear >>>> > below >>>> > 50, what sense does that make? It goes from being linear to being >>>> > nothing. So using the log of the score, or the square root, >>>> > anything >>>> > like that, is a huge win and gives them the basic behavior they really >>>> > want >>>> > without having an arbitrary cap. >>>> > >>>> > And by the way, the square root is not just as arbitrary as capping - >>>> > unless you define arbitrary as anything you might do (which in a sense >>>> > it >>>> > is.) So maybe arbitrary is not the right word here. What we are >>>> > looking >>>> > for is something that is a more logical means to an ends - and the cap >>>> > is >>>> > not nearly as good as the log or the square root. >>>> > >>>> > Don >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Álvaro Begué <alvaro.be...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> >> >>>> >> The square root is just as arbitrary as capping at 50. The only >>>> >> function I really like is capping at 0.5. >>>> >> >>>> >> Álvaro. >>>> >> >>>> >> >>>> >> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> >>>> >> wrote: >>>> >> > Truncating to [-50 .. 50] seems rather arbitrary to me too. >>>> >> > There >>>> >> > should >>>> >> > either be no truncation at all, or if the concept is to not "over >>>> >> > reward" >>>> >> > big wins it should be replaced by a function such as the square root >>>> >> > of >>>> >> > the >>>> >> > score. In this way you get progressively less credit for bigger >>>> >> > and >>>> >> > bigger wins. >>>> >> > >>>> >> > Don >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:48 AM, Rémi Coulom <remi.cou...@free.fr> >>>> >> > wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> Why truncate to [-50..50] ? >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> On 10 juil. 2012, at 22:20, Lukasz Lew wrote: >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> > Fellow Go enthusiasts, >>>> >> >> > I would like you invite you to: >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > Kas Cup - a peculiar computer Go tournament. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > There will be prize pool of total 100$, yay! >>>> >> >> > It will take place on 5th of August on KGS. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > The peculiarity will come from the scoring method. >>>> >> >> > While this will be a Round Robin, the score for each game won't >>>> >> >> > be >>>> >> >> > +-1 >>>> >> >> > point, >>>> >> >> > but the exact result of the game truncated to the [-50 .. 50] >>>> >> >> > interval. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > One last rule is that participants may not use more than 4 cores >>>> >> >> > of >>>> >> >> > CPU >>>> >> >> > power. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > Nick kindly agreed to organize and look after the tournament for >>>> >> >> > which >>>> >> >> > I am grateful. >>>> >> >> > Also he is in charge of choosing a ruleset and time settings. >>>> >> >> > >>>> >> >> > Thank you and let us know if you will participate. >>>> >> >> > Lukasz >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> >> > Computer-go mailing list >>>> >> >> > Computer-go@dvandva.org >>>> >> >> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>> >> >> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> >> Computer-go mailing list >>>> >> >> Computer-go@dvandva.org >>>> >> >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > >>>> >> > _______________________________________________ >>>> >> > Computer-go mailing list >>>> >> > Computer-go@dvandva.org >>>> >> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>> >> _______________________________________________ >>>> >> Computer-go mailing list >>>> >> Computer-go@dvandva.org >>>> >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > _______________________________________________ >>>> > Computer-go mailing list >>>> > Computer-go@dvandva.org >>>> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Computer-go mailing list >>>> Computer-go@dvandva.org >>>> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Computer-go mailing list >>> Computer-go@dvandva.org >>> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Computer-go mailing list >> Computer-go@dvandva.org >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > >-- >Lukasz >_______________________________________________ >Computer-go mailing list >Computer-go@dvandva.org >http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go -- Hideki Kato <mailto:hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
