Re: [computer-go] Sylvain Gelly thesis in english

2008-01-23 Thread elife2008 
http://www.lri.fr/~gelly/Publications.htm

On 1/24/08, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Sun, 13 Jan 2008, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
  Google finds it:
  http://tao.lri.fr/Papers/thesesTAO/SylvainGellyThesis.pdf
 
  That is NOT the latest version. Please at least let me put the latest
  version on my web site, it took me so long to correct it :).

 Where may we find the latest version?

 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/

Re: [computer-go] MoGoRel3_3550pps

2008-01-10 Thread elife2008 
Hi Sylvain,
  Have you finished your thesis? We are eager to read it:-)

On 1/10/08, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 Hi,

 I guess the public version of MoGo was designed with a
  focus on 9x9 and not 19x19.

 It was not more on 9x9 that 19x19, it was more or less the best settings of
 MoGo against gnugo at the moment I left the developpement (early september)
 for both 9x9 and 19x19.


 Or is there something else I should be
  including on the command line?

 As other said, but just to confirm:
 --playsAgainstHuman 0
 Also you have to specify
 --totalTime 300

 if 300 is the number of seconds of the games. If not, MoGo does not care
 about the time left, and will just play a constant time per move, loosing by
 time with no other worry :).

 The release is designed to play against human on a server/client which
 supports a scoring taking into account the dead stones. On cgos you have to
 capture all dead stones.
 As for the rating, I don't know all the changes that has been done on CGOS
 since then, but on the old 19x19 one, the rating should be more than 2100 or
 2200.

 Hoping this helps,
 Sylvain

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Re: Please have your bot resign, for your own good

2008-01-02 Thread elife2008 
Surely China don't block the cgos server/port, in fact as far as I
know, there is a test bot(BUPT) of BUPT(developed by other team of
same lab of Yu Ping) which had played on cgos.

On 1/3/08, Peter Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 About my net lag,

 Don asked, What do you do when you play on KGS?

 When playing against humans, there is hardly ever a problem because
 humans either resign quickly, pass normally, or quit the game (ugh!) -
 humans don't notice the net lag.  In the kgs computer tournaments,
 it's still my bot that ends up resigning anyway ;(

 From what you say Don, the server is already using slight Fisherish
 rules - 5 min + .25 sec ?  I like your idea of making it even more
 Fisherish.  I think it would help normalize the ratings in the
 1300-2000 bracket where my bots play, if it were increased to 5 min +
 1 sec, or 3-4 min + 2 sec, or something like that.  It sounds like an
 easy-enough change and one that doesn't seem to have bad side-effects.

 Thanks again for the great work in putting up the CGOS server  to all
 the other programmers who put bots up there to play.

 Peter

 p.s.  This is my network setup - ethernet from laptop to a tower on
 the roof of my house. Parabolic Directional antenna wireless B, to an
 intermediate tower 5km away receives it on a 180 degree nondirectional
 antenna, sends it via directional antenna over wireless b to a
 directional antenna at my ISP it-outlook another 5km away. From the
 ISP I think there are several more wireless hops, eventually to
 Manila, Philippines, then across some cable (I assume a cable).

 The real dog, as you can see, is the hop across the ocean, about 80%
 of my ping time.  I assume that from Japan they have shorter ping
 because they have better infrastructure but I'd be curious to hear a
 confirmation of that.  I know that in China some technical
 universities even have terrible networks (I was trying to get Yu Ping,
 7d chinese pro pursuing his masters in go programming, to put his java
 bot on cgos but to the best of my knowledge I failed to get him to do
 it. maybe china blocks the cgos port.  don't try to read wikipedia
 from china either, it's blocked along with anything else that has
 certain unofficial accounts of supposed history.)

 1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] tracepath 208.100.19.102
  ~
  1:  192.168.1.51 (192.168.1.51)0.242ms pmtu
 1500
  1:  192.168.1.1 (192.168.1.1)asymm 36  14.985ms
  2:  172.16.0.254 (172.16.0.254)   33.483ms
  3:  router.it-outlook.noc (192.168.1.254) 27.493ms
  4:  222.127.77.143 (222.127.77.143)  asymm  3
 34.011ms pmtu 1452
  5:  203.177.68.197 (203.177.68.197)   84.384ms
  6:  203.177.31.89 (203.177.31.89) 84.382ms
  7:  203.177.254.185 (203.177.254.185)369.732ms
  8:  POS3-1.IG4.LAX1.ALTER.NET (157.130.214.193)  asymm 14 337.252ms
  9:  0.so-5-0-0.XL2.LAX1.ALTER.NET (152.63.112.254)   asymm 12 342.739ms
 10:  0.so-5-0-0.XL2.CHI13.ALTER.NET (152.63.64.14)asymm 13 362.669ms
 11:  POS7-0.GW1.CHI13.ALTER.NET (152.63.69.181)   asymm 13 378.225ms
 12:  wbsconnect-gw.customer.alter.net (65.207.236.126)asymm 19 378.225ms
 13:  61.216-86-149.static.steadfast.net (216.86.149.61)   asymm 19 540.291ms
 14:  vswitch3.steadfast.net (216.86.146.24)   asymm 15 363.857ms
 15:  boardspace.net (208.100.19.102)  378.845ms reached
  Resume: pmtu 1452 hops 15 back 15

 There is also about 15% packet loss (I think all in the first leg from
 my house to the ISP) that depending on the protocol probably doesn't
 make much difference because it's only a 30ms trip to get it resent.

 0 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ping  208.100.19.102
  ~
 PING 208.100.19.102 (208.100.19.102) 56(84) bytes of data.
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=333 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=340 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=4 ttl=50 time=327 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=6 ttl=50 time=344 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=7 ttl=50 time=332 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=8 ttl=50 time=425 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=9 ttl=50 time=362 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=10 ttl=50 time=350 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=11 ttl=50 time=337 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=12 ttl=50 time=375 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=13 ttl=50 time=346 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=14 ttl=50 time=384 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=15 ttl=50 time=342 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=16 ttl=50 time=398 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=17 ttl=50 time=335 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=18 ttl=50 time=339 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=19 ttl=50 time=327 ms
 64 bytes from 208.100.19.102: icmp_seq=20 ttl=50 time=365 ms