Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Hideki, It was not my intention to disrespect you.I think the word you are looking for is condescending which is when you talk down to someone as a child. If it came across this way I'm sorry.I tried to make it easy to understand because it seems to me that English is not your first language.I see that instead I embarrassed you and I certainly did not mean to do that.My fault. The web page in question is NOT Hall of Fame, I regret the use of that word in my posts to the group and it doesn't fit what it does in the least. Some of my C programs use variable names like this too, they would confuse anyone reading my code but they are there due to some historical accident, their use has gradually changed over time or even right away, starting out as one thing then becoming another - or simply because the name has some kind of internalized association in my own mind. I am going to change even the name of the html file to reflect the more accurate meaning later today. The web page was mostly designed to track ALL the players on CGOS. After about 30 days of inactivity you lose your place on the normal page as it is intended to only show active players. I have even wanted to look at historical ratings for my own bot and they are not there and so this addresses that need. But I also thought it would be interesting to use the (more accurate) bayeselo program.I don't show programs that have only played a few games because their ratings are almost meaningless and they make the page really big (and constantly growing.) I got this idea because I was doing sql queries to get information and I realized that the rest of the participants do not have that luxury. I am upset because I put this up as a kind of gift and instead it has upset people. Have you heard the expression, no good deed goes unpunished? That is a little of how I feel about this exchange. - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Chris, I consider to post my previous mail or not. Can you imagine my mind? I know it's so disrespective but I, still, respect Don. Yes, I was not angry, rather, very sad. I've posted because to, 1) to stop this discussion, 2) Don's last post was too disirespective (at least I though so) as, he never consider my questions seriously, that is, his answers were, say, not truely ones, rather like humoring children. The first sentense of his last post, Don't worry Hideki was too disrespective, wasn't it? I've worried very seriously, really. I wanted to just postpone the use of the name HoF until we confirm the overall ratings are correct enough to use the name. Don, please remove my bots, ggmc-xxx, from your HoF if possible. I'd like to apologize to all. -Hideki Chris Fant: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On Dec 15, 2007 1:49 AM, Hideki Kato [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Has Hall of fame with incorrect ratings any sense? Rather, it may wrongly leads pepole, isn't it? No disrespect intended, but just to let you know... this is incomprehensible. You may wish to rephrase the questions. I won't discuss farther as Don seems never change his mind with any discussion but I'd like to point out that Don should have many prior things to do than builiding such meaningless HoF. This is disrespectful. If you don't like his HoF, ignore it. Also, it is quite rare for someone to change their mind on a list like this. Only hard facts have any chance of changing a mind. Many of Don's messages deal with facts about his bot and many others deal with opinions and theory. What do you expect to happen? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
For what it's worth, Hall of Fame can mean anything from the Baseball Hall of Fame (serious business) to the Mullet Hall of Fame (a total joke). To me this looks like a pretty clear misunderstanding. Don and Hideki have both contributed usefully to the mailing list, and it would be too bad if this incident spoiled that from either end. I think most people who even know what CGOS is, probably know the context in which it is used, so they're not going to take poor results too seriously. Nobody would deny that applying static ratings to a program that changes may not be representative, but if that is an issue, then people can create new IDs for their 100% debugged bots so that static ratings will give them all the credit they deserve. The new bot would not get established immediately, but I doubt there are that many people outside this mailing list who are even aware of the CGOS all-time 9x9 rating list yet. As for any lower-rated versions of the same bot, I think that as long as there exists a highly rated version of a given program that has an established rating, people will have enough sense to ignore lower-rated versions that may represent experiments, buggy prototypes, and the like. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Thank you very much Don. I was very surprised as I couldn't expect such kindful message. Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hideki, It was not my intention to disrespect you.I think the word you are looking for is condescending which is when you talk down to someone as a child. If it came across this way I'm sorry.I tried to make it easy to understand because it seems to me that English is not your first language.I see that instead I embarrassed you and I certainly did not mean to do that.My fault. I see. I know it was my misunderstanding or too-much-thought now. The web page in question is NOT Hall of Fame, I regret the use of that word in my posts to the group and it doesn't fit what it does in the least. Some of my C programs use variable names like this too, they would confuse anyone reading my code but they are there due to some historical accident, their use has gradually changed over time or even right away, starting out as one thing then becoming another - or simply because the name has some kind of internalized association in my own mind. I am going to change even the name of the html file to reflect the more accurate meaning later today. Thank you very much, Don. As I wrote earlier, it, itself is an excellent idea and Xmas gift to all of us, I strongly believe. The web page was mostly designed to track ALL the players on CGOS. After about 30 days of inactivity you lose your place on the normal page as it is intended to only show active players. I have even wanted to look at historical ratings for my own bot and they are not there and so this addresses that need. But I also thought it would be interesting to use the (more accurate) bayeselo program.I don't show programs that have only played a few games because their ratings are almost meaningless and they make the page really big (and constantly growing.) I got this idea because I was doing sql queries to get information and I realized that the rest of the participants do not have that luxury. I am upset because I put this up as a kind of gift and instead it has upset people. Have you heard the expression, no good deed goes unpunished? That is a little of how I feel about this exchange. It's my first look at and online/offline dictionaries help little nor there seems no corresponding saying in Japan but I guess I punished you? :( - Don Eric Boesch: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Thank you Eric for encouraging me. For what it's worth, Hall of Fame can mean anything from the Baseball Hall of Fame (serious business) to the Mullet Hall of Fame (a total joke). To me this looks like a pretty clear misunderstanding. Don and Hideki have both contributed usefully to the mailing list, and it would be too bad if this incident spoiled that from either end. I'd like to say don't worry :). I won't stop posting to this list. Nothing will change. I still respect Don. I'm very glad to hear I've contributed but it cannot be compared to Don's. BTW, HoF of cgos cannot be a joke, in any sense. I think most people who even know what CGOS is, probably know the context in which it is used, so they're not going to take poor results too seriously. Nobody would deny that applying static ratings to a program that changes may not be representative, but if that is an issue, then people can create new IDs for their 100% debugged bots so that static ratings will give them all the credit they deserve. The new bot would not get established immediately, but I doubt there are that many people outside this mailing list who are even aware of the CGOS all-time 9x9 rating list yet. As for any lower-rated versions of the same bot, I think that as long as there exists a highly rated version of a given program that has an established rating, people will have enough sense to ignore lower-rated versions that may represent experiments, buggy prototypes, and the like. I was afraid also that outsiders may evaluate the ranking at HoF too much by its name. Finally, I'd like to thank Don, Eric, Chris and other subscribers of this list and apologize to for my posting of such emotional and off-topic articles. -Hideki Hideki Kato wrote: Chris, I consider to post my previous mail or not. Can you imagine my mind? I know it's so disrespective but I, still, respect Don. Yes, I was not angry, rather, very sad. I've posted because to, 1) to stop this discussion, 2) Don's last post was too disirespective (at least I though so) as, he never consider my questions seriously, that is, his answers were, say, not truely ones, rather like humoring children. The first sentense of his last post, Don't worry Hideki was too disrespective, wasn't it? I've worried very seriously, really. I wanted to just postpone the use of the name HoF until we confirm the overall ratings are correct enough to use the name. Don, please remove my bots, ggmc-xxx, from your HoF if possible. I'd like to apologize to all. -Hideki
RE: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Many Faces does on-line learning of Fuseki, Joseki, and half-board patterns. David -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Gunnar Farnebäck Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 1:28 PM To: computer-go Subject: Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS Don Dailey wrote: Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning algorithm which improves itself over time - it would be unreasonable to ask me not to put that on CGOS. MonteGNU is doing on-line learning of its fuseki database. /Gunnar ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: Don Dailey wrote: Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning algorithm which improves itself over time - it would be unreasonable to ask me not to put that on CGOS. MonteGNU is doing on-line learning of its fuseki database. Excellent - that is the kind of thing I want to support on CGOS. - Don /Gunnar ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
I, first, noticed that I might have readers especially Don misleading with my previous mail. I used we for the participants of cgos not I and Don. I'm sorry if any. Has Hall of fame with incorrect ratings any sense? Rather, it may wrongly leads pepole, isn't it? I won't discuss farther as Don seems never change his mind with any discussion but I'd like to point out that Don should have many prior things to do than builiding such meaningless HoF. -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Don't worry Hideki, Nothing has changed on CGOS, only something has been added and it has no affect on what is already there. The standard current standings page also stays the same. No change I promise. Different versions of a program running on CGOS has never been an issue before, and nothing has changed in that regard either. Right now if you have 2 programs running on CGOS they might occasionally play each other. They each get their own rating independent of the other.That's how it's always been and that has not changed nor is it broken. Bu that is the ONLY thing we might actually change later. But no matter how you look at it, you cannot ENFORCE that change. Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning algorithm which improves itself over time - it would be unreasonable to ask me not to put that on CGOS. Are you bothered by the fact that the all time list will have some programs suffer that have improved over time but will always have the prior bad results go against it? Don't worry about that.I will probably put a time-limit on the games - perhaps I will only include the games of the previous 12 months. This is going to be a list that is updated every month. Also, there is no Hall of Fame. It's only a list to show ALL players over time and it uses bayeselo instead of the standard CGOS elo system (which doesn't change.) - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Your sentences make me strongly believe it's too early. I won't be against your idea. Again, just claiming it's too early. Following your analogy to sports, there should be some gurantee of fairness and agreement of participants. Our presupposition was that only recent results were important. Any temporal confusion of ratings would be fixed soon. So I could ignore or didn't mind wrong scored games. You are, however, changing it without any notification nor agreement. I think the problem of different versions are running with the same login names cannot be ignored. We have to announce and make sure almost all perticipants won't do it. Yes, network troubles are out of our control, some other troubles and/or accidents will happen. That's why we have to have some experiments before using the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hideki Kato wrote: Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name problem? I don't consider it a major problem. The theory is that a big improvement against versions of the same program might not translate to equivalent improvements vs other programs.I want to see that proven convincingly before I buy into it, it would take thousands of games to prove this unless the effect was quite large so I won't accept anecdotal evidence.I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it's a superstition until proven otherwise. Still, I would prefer to not rate games between members of the same family just for the sake of appearance and accusations of nepotism. (Although you can't really prevent nepotism.) And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some academic sense. I think it is an appropriate analogy. It's part of your equipment. Every sport or field of endeavor has these variables beyond your control. But more to the point, if I could take this variable out of the equation I would gladly do so. But I cannot detect the difference between a network outage and cheating. What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western and can just estimate the value of the name but it's so heavy and important, isn't it? Hall of fame is not a good name and it's not really called that. It's the 9x9 all time ratings but I almost called it hall of fame because originally I intended to only include the top 50 players.I chose not to for 3 reasons: 1. Many players are represented multiple times. 2. It's more useful to be able to see every program. 3. Fame doesn't imply you are the best. You might just be sentimental favorite like gnugo. - Don -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Many strong programs have 100% scores against many
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Hi Don, Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, recently my bot has lost some games by, perhaps, network delay over one minute. Moreover there might be many bots with different minor versions under same login name. Such accidents and/or troubles were not so severe because we could see and mind only current ratings but it's changing now. I think this excellent idea is too early to do unless we can exclude wrongly scored games. Otherwise the ratings include some error that we cannot estimate. It should not be suitable for the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many games. They cannot be hanging up very often. When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. I don't think there is a major problem here. As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the computing system. If you provider is having glitches that affect your program I can't account for that.It's the same if you lose your connection and lose on time as a result.It's part of your equipment, it's as if you had automobile failure at the Nascar races or your tennis racket breaks during an important point. - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Hi Don, Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, recently my bot has lost some games by, perhaps, network delay over one minute. Moreover there might be many bots with different minor versions under same login name. Such accidents and/or troubles were not so severe because we could see and mind only current ratings but it's changing now. I think this excellent idea is too early to do unless we can exclude wrongly scored games. Otherwise the ratings include some error that we cannot estimate. It should not be suitable for the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name problem? And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some academic sense. What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western and can just estimate the value of the name but it's so heavy and important, isn't it? -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many games. They cannot be hanging up very often. When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. I don't think there is a major problem here. As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the computing system. If you provider is having glitches that affect your program I can't account for that.It's the same if you lose your connection and lose on time as a result.It's part of your equipment, it's as if you had automobile failure at the Nascar races or your tennis racket breaks during an important point. - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Hi Don, Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, recently my bot has lost some games by, perhaps, network delay over one minute. Moreover there might be many bots with different minor versions under same login name. Such accidents and/or troubles were not so severe because we could see and mind only current ratings but it's changing now. I think this excellent idea is too early to do unless we can exclude wrongly scored games. Otherwise the ratings include some error that we cannot estimate. It should not be suitable for the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Hideki Kato wrote: Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name problem? I don't consider it a major problem. The theory is that a big improvement against versions of the same program might not translate to equivalent improvements vs other programs.I want to see that proven convincingly before I buy into it, it would take thousands of games to prove this unless the effect was quite large so I won't accept anecdotal evidence.I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it's a superstition until proven otherwise. Still, I would prefer to not rate games between members of the same family just for the sake of appearance and accusations of nepotism. (Although you can't really prevent nepotism.) And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some academic sense. I think it is an appropriate analogy. It's part of your equipment. Every sport or field of endeavor has these variables beyond your control. But more to the point, if I could take this variable out of the equation I would gladly do so. But I cannot detect the difference between a network outage and cheating. What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western and can just estimate the value of the name but it's so heavy and important, isn't it? Hall of fame is not a good name and it's not really called that. It's the 9x9 all time ratings but I almost called it hall of fame because originally I intended to only include the top 50 players.I chose not to for 3 reasons: 1. Many players are represented multiple times. 2. It's more useful to be able to see every program. 3. Fame doesn't imply you are the best. You might just be sentimental favorite like gnugo. - Don -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many games. They cannot be hanging up very often. When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. I don't think there is a major problem here. As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the computing system. If you provider is having glitches that affect your program I can't account for that.It's the same if you lose your connection and lose on time as a result.It's part of your equipment, it's as if you had automobile failure at the Nascar races or your tennis racket breaks during an important point. - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Hi Don, Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, recently my bot has lost some games by, perhaps, network delay over one minute. Moreover there might be many bots with different minor versions under same login name. Such accidents and/or troubles were not so severe because we could see and mind only current ratings but it's changing now. I think this excellent idea is too early to do unless we can exclude wrongly scored games. Otherwise the ratings include some error that we cannot estimate. It should not be suitable for the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Your sentences make me strongly believe it's too early. I won't be against your idea. Again, just claiming it's too early. Following your analogy to sports, there should be some gurantee of fairness and agreement of participants. Our presupposition was that only recent results were important. Any temporal confusion of ratings would be fixed soon. So I could ignore or didn't mind wrong scored games. You are, however, changing it without any notification nor agreement. I think the problem of different versions are running with the same login names cannot be ignored. We have to announce and make sure almost all perticipants won't do it. Yes, network troubles are out of our control, some other troubles and/or accidents will happen. That's why we have to have some experiments before using the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hideki Kato wrote: Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name problem? I don't consider it a major problem. The theory is that a big improvement against versions of the same program might not translate to equivalent improvements vs other programs.I want to see that proven convincingly before I buy into it, it would take thousands of games to prove this unless the effect was quite large so I won't accept anecdotal evidence.I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it's a superstition until proven otherwise. Still, I would prefer to not rate games between members of the same family just for the sake of appearance and accusations of nepotism. (Although you can't really prevent nepotism.) And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some academic sense. I think it is an appropriate analogy. It's part of your equipment. Every sport or field of endeavor has these variables beyond your control. But more to the point, if I could take this variable out of the equation I would gladly do so. But I cannot detect the difference between a network outage and cheating. What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western and can just estimate the value of the name but it's so heavy and important, isn't it? Hall of fame is not a good name and it's not really called that. It's the 9x9 all time ratings but I almost called it hall of fame because originally I intended to only include the top 50 players.I chose not to for 3 reasons: 1. Many players are represented multiple times. 2. It's more useful to be able to see every program. 3. Fame doesn't imply you are the best. You might just be sentimental favorite like gnugo. - Don -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many games. They cannot be hanging up very often. When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. I don't think there is a major problem here. As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the computing system. If you provider is having glitches that affect your program I can't account for that.It's the same if you lose your connection and lose on time as a result.It's part of your equipment, it's as if you had automobile failure at the Nascar races or your tennis racket breaks during an important point. - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Hi Don, Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, recently my bot has lost some games by, perhaps, network delay over one minute. Moreover there might be many bots with different minor versions under same login name. Such accidents and/or troubles were not so severe because we could see and mind only current ratings but it's changing now. I think this excellent idea is too early to do unless we can exclude wrongly scored games. Otherwise the ratings include some error that we cannot estimate. It should not be suitable for the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Don't worry Hideki, Nothing has changed on CGOS, only something has been added and it has no affect on what is already there. The standard current standings page also stays the same. No change I promise. Different versions of a program running on CGOS has never been an issue before, and nothing has changed in that regard either. Right now if you have 2 programs running on CGOS they might occasionally play each other. They each get their own rating independent of the other.That's how it's always been and that has not changed nor is it broken. Bu that is the ONLY thing we might actually change later. But no matter how you look at it, you cannot ENFORCE that change. Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning algorithm which improves itself over time - it would be unreasonable to ask me not to put that on CGOS. Are you bothered by the fact that the all time list will have some programs suffer that have improved over time but will always have the prior bad results go against it? Don't worry about that.I will probably put a time-limit on the games - perhaps I will only include the games of the previous 12 months. This is going to be a list that is updated every month. Also, there is no Hall of Fame. It's only a list to show ALL players over time and it uses bayeselo instead of the standard CGOS elo system (which doesn't change.) - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Your sentences make me strongly believe it's too early. I won't be against your idea. Again, just claiming it's too early. Following your analogy to sports, there should be some gurantee of fairness and agreement of participants. Our presupposition was that only recent results were important. Any temporal confusion of ratings would be fixed soon. So I could ignore or didn't mind wrong scored games. You are, however, changing it without any notification nor agreement. I think the problem of different versions are running with the same login names cannot be ignored. We have to announce and make sure almost all perticipants won't do it. Yes, network troubles are out of our control, some other troubles and/or accidents will happen. That's why we have to have some experiments before using the name of 'Hall of fame'. -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Hideki Kato wrote: Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name problem? I don't consider it a major problem. The theory is that a big improvement against versions of the same program might not translate to equivalent improvements vs other programs.I want to see that proven convincingly before I buy into it, it would take thousands of games to prove this unless the effect was quite large so I won't accept anecdotal evidence.I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it's a superstition until proven otherwise. Still, I would prefer to not rate games between members of the same family just for the sake of appearance and accusations of nepotism. (Although you can't really prevent nepotism.) And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some academic sense. I think it is an appropriate analogy. It's part of your equipment. Every sport or field of endeavor has these variables beyond your control. But more to the point, if I could take this variable out of the equation I would gladly do so. But I cannot detect the difference between a network outage and cheating. What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western and can just estimate the value of the name but it's so heavy and important, isn't it? Hall of fame is not a good name and it's not really called that. It's the 9x9 all time ratings but I almost called it hall of fame because originally I intended to only include the top 50 players.I chose not to for 3 reasons: 1. Many players are represented multiple times. 2. It's more useful to be able to see every program. 3. Fame doesn't imply you are the best. You might just be sentimental favorite like gnugo. - Don -Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many games. They cannot be hanging up very often. When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. I don't think there is a major problem here. As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the computing system. If you provider is having glitches that affect your program I can't account for that.It's the same if you lose your connection and lose on time as a result.It's part of your equipment, it's as if you had automobile
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
What is the proper way to interpret the score and opponent columns? On Dec 9, 2007 7:30 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just put up the improved hall of fame page. I'm using the values Rémi suggests and the values look more in line with CGOS. Also, FatMan-1 is fixed at 1800 instead of FatMan and there are links to the crosstable pages. * http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html* I'm not sure how often I will update the page - probably just once per month right at the beginning of the month. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Let me refer you to the bayeselo web site, this is not my work but due to Rémi Coulom http://remi.coulom.free.fr/.I am simply using his software to build the table: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/ The score is simply how well the program scored against it's totally opposition. It's not particularly meaningful because stronger players tend to have stronger opponents, still it is interesting statistic to have available. When a program like MoGo scores 95% despite the fact that it is paired mostly against strong players, it is impressive. The opponent is the average rating of the opponents of each game.So when you combine score and opponent you have something very useful. For instance: greenpeep0.5.1 with an ELO of 2621 scored 90% against an average opponent of 2043 MoGo_G3.4aewith an ELO of 2571 scored 95% against an average opponent of 2009 So even though MoGo won more of it's games, it's average opponent was weaker and this was enough to give greenpeep about 50 more ELO rating points. It's more impressive to score 90% against a strong field than 95% against a somewhat weaker field. - Don Jason House wrote: What is the proper way to interpret the score and opponent columns? On Dec 9, 2007 7:30 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just put up the improved hall of fame page. I'm using the values Rémi suggests and the values look more in line with CGOS. Also, FatMan-1 is fixed at 1800 instead of FatMan and there are links to the crosstable pages. * http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html* I'm not sure how often I will update the page - probably just once per month right at the beginning of the month. - Don ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
Another example I found is the impressive Valkyria program. Version 2.7 won 92% of it's games, more than even the top rated greenpeep0.5.1. However, the average rating of Valkyria's opponents was only 1722. This is quite a difference. So Valkyria is rated only compared to greenpeep 2621 despite the fact that it wins more! Of course is still impressive and Valkyria is number 17 out of all the programs that have played over 200 games (over 200 of them.) - Don Don Dailey wrote: Let me refer you to the bayeselo web site, this is not my work but due to Rémi Coulom http://remi.coulom.free.fr/.I am simply using his software to build the table: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/ The score is simply how well the program scored against it's totally opposition. It's not particularly meaningful because stronger players tend to have stronger opponents, still it is interesting statistic to have available. When a program like MoGo scores 95% despite the fact that it is paired mostly against strong players, it is impressive. The opponent is the average rating of the opponents of each game.So when you combine score and opponent you have something very useful. For instance: greenpeep0.5.1 with an ELO of 2621 scored 90% against an average opponent of 2043 MoGo_G3.4aewith an ELO of 2571 scored 95% against an average opponent of 2009 So even though MoGo won more of it's games, it's average opponent was weaker and this was enough to give greenpeep about 50 more ELO rating points. It's more impressive to score 90% against a strong field than 95% against a somewhat weaker field. - Don Jason House wrote: What is the proper way to interpret the score and opponent columns? On Dec 9, 2007 7:30 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I just put up the improved hall of fame page. I'm using the values Rémi suggests and the values look more in line with CGOS. Also, FatMan-1 is fixed at 1800 instead of FatMan and there are links to the crosstable pages. * http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html* I'm not sure how often I will update the page - probably just once per month right at the beginning of the month. - Don ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
Don Dailey wrote: Another example I found is the impressive Valkyria program. Version 2.7 won 92% of it's games, more than even the top rated greenpeep0.5.1. However, the average rating of Valkyria's opponents was only 1722. This is quite a difference. So Valkyria is rated only compared to greenpeep 2621 despite the fact that it wins more! Of course is still impressive and Valkyria is number 17 out of all the programs that have played over 200 games (over 200 of them.) - Don Hi, I would like to add a note to this discussion to explain that the computed rating is not a function of winning rate and average opponent. Simply take this simple example into consideration: player A: 1 win and 1 loss against a player of rating 1500 1 win against a player of rating 500 1 loss against a player of rating 4500 - 50% against an average of 2000 player B: 1 win and 1 loss against a player of rating 2000 1 win against a player of rating 1000 1 loss against a player of rating 3000 - 50% against an average of 2000 Although they have the same average opponent, and the same winning rate, player A's evaluation should be much lower than player B's. Maybe this was clear to Don already, but his message sounds a little like it would be possible to estimate rating from winning rate and average opponent. It is not. Some rating algorithms try to do it anyway (like EloStat, and the rating system of the French Chess Federation), but they are very badly flawed. Real-life examples where they fail badly can be found on bayeselo's page: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/ (look for average of ratings in the page) Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Don Dailey wrote: I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. Hi, The only subtlety here, is that bayeselo is tuned for chess, and assumes that draws are possible, and White has a small advantage over Black. In order to make it work maybe a little better with Go results, you could do this (assuming games.pgn contains game results): readpgn games.pgn elo advantage 0 ;no advantage for playing White drawelo 0.01 ;draws are extremely unlikely mm exactdist ratings No draw at all would be drawelo 0, but it generates some numerical problems in the algorithm for computing confidence intervals. I don't expect changing these parameters would change the final ranking much, anyway. Maybe they would be a little more compressed, because a win in chess means more in terms of strength difference than a win in Go. I would be very interested if you could lower your threshold to 197 games, and include december results, which would include Crazy Stone in the list ;-) Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don Another idea: in order to give more significance to the results, games between different versions of the same program should be excluded. These games tend to strongly overestimate the strength of the stronger version. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
To answer several emails in one: Hideki: One question, why the rating of FatMan-1 is not 1800? They are probably not identical - if one plays much faster than another, it will slightly cripple programs that think on the opponents time.That's the only explanation I can think of. Also, I fixed FatMan to 1800, not FatMan-1 because FatMan has more games. However, I am going to change this to FatMan-1 since it has many more RECENT games. Of course on CGOS they are both fixed at 1800.This will cause a shift in the entire rating pool of course. Hideki: And, I'll be happier if there are links to programs on HOF so that I Hideki: can see their rating pages. This is easy - next version will do this. Rémi: Readpgn games.pgn Rémi: elo Rémi: advantage 0 ;no advantage for playing White Rémi: drawelo 0.01 ;draws are extremely unlikely Rémi: mm Rémi: exactdist Rémi: ratings I'll switch over to this. Rémi: No draw at all would be drawelo 0, but it generates some numerical Rémi: problems in the algorithm for computing confidence intervals. Ahh! I tried to set this to zero and got bizarre results so I left it alone. Now I know what to do. Rémi: I would be very interested if you could lower your threshold to 197 Rémi: games, and include december results, which would include Crazy Stone in Rémi: the list ;-) I plan to do this at the end of each month, strictly by month by an automated script (it's mostly automated now including a little module to convert the results to a pgn format that bayeselo can read. But until I get this fully automated I will just include all the games available from now on. I think Crazy Stone was at the top before I applied these constraints.I want there to be a price for admission to get programs to play lots of games. Rémi: Another idea: in order to give more significance to the results, games Rémi: between different versions of the same program should be excluded. These Rémi: games tend to strongly overestimate the strength of the stronger version. There is no way to do this without adding some more infrastructure. It is impossible to determine with complete confidence which version is which and even if I could, how do I determine which version is the one that should be representing the program family? There are simple heuristics that might work most of the time but are not completely reliable.The convention I once suggested for assigning versions to programs isn't widely followed and isn't enforced. The idea was to version your program like this: Lazarus-1-0 where everything before they first hyphen was the generic program name and everything after the (first) hyphen is the version number. But a malicious user could kick your program off by using your name (with a different version number.) It's possible to enforce this policy by letting the server impose it - your password applies to the first characters before the hyphen. Even then, how does the server determine which version is representative? When I developed Lazarus I added many experimental versions which didn't make the cut but had more recent version numbers. I would not want those versions to carry the flag for the Lazarus family of programs.So the only way to get this working right is to add more infrastructure to CGOS. I think what is better is to provide a way for users to specify that they don't want to play their own program. We could consider a family of programs to be specified by password. OR, it might be reasonable to just say that if you don't want your program to play different versions of itself, the password must match as well as all characters before the first hyphen. So essentially you are forced to version with a hyphen if you want this behavior. Does that sound like a reasonable improvement to the system? Rémi Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don Another idea: in order to give more significance to the results, games between different versions of the same program should be excluded. These games tend to strongly overestimate the strength of the stronger version. Rémi ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
I just put up the improved hall of fame page. I'm using the values Rémi suggests and the values look more in line with CGOS. Also, FatMan-1 is fixed at 1800 instead of FatMan and there are links to the crosstable pages. * http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html* I'm not sure how often I will update the page - probably just once per month right at the beginning of the month. - Don Don Dailey wrote: To answer several emails in one: Hideki: One question, why the rating of FatMan-1 is not 1800? They are probably not identical - if one plays much faster than another, it will slightly cripple programs that think on the opponents time.That's the only explanation I can think of. Also, I fixed FatMan to 1800, not FatMan-1 because FatMan has more games. However, I am going to change this to FatMan-1 since it has many more RECENT games. Of course on CGOS they are both fixed at 1800.This will cause a shift in the entire rating pool of course. Hideki: And, I'll be happier if there are links to programs on HOF so that I Hideki: can see their rating pages. This is easy - next version will do this. Rémi: Readpgn games.pgn Rémi: elo Rémi: advantage 0 ;no advantage for playing White Rémi: drawelo 0.01 ;draws are extremely unlikely Rémi: mm Rémi: exactdist Rémi: ratings I'll switch over to this. Rémi: No draw at all would be drawelo 0, but it generates some numerical Rémi: problems in the algorithm for computing confidence intervals. Ahh! I tried to set this to zero and got bizarre results so I left it alone. Now I know what to do. Rémi: I would be very interested if you could lower your threshold to 197 Rémi: games, and include december results, which would include Crazy Stone in Rémi: the list ;-) I plan to do this at the end of each month, strictly by month by an automated script (it's mostly automated now including a little module to convert the results to a pgn format that bayeselo can read. But until I get this fully automated I will just include all the games available from now on. I think Crazy Stone was at the top before I applied these constraints.I want there to be a price for admission to get programs to play lots of games. Rémi: Another idea: in order to give more significance to the results, games Rémi: between different versions of the same program should be excluded. These Rémi: games tend to strongly overestimate the strength of the stronger version. There is no way to do this without adding some more infrastructure. It is impossible to determine with complete confidence which version is which and even if I could, how do I determine which version is the one that should be representing the program family? There are simple heuristics that might work most of the time but are not completely reliable.The convention I once suggested for assigning versions to programs isn't widely followed and isn't enforced. The idea was to version your program like this: Lazarus-1-0 where everything before they first hyphen was the generic program name and everything after the (first) hyphen is the version number. But a malicious user could kick your program off by using your name (with a different version number.) It's possible to enforce this policy by letting the server impose it - your password applies to the first characters before the hyphen. Even then, how does the server determine which version is representative? When I developed Lazarus I added many experimental versions which didn't make the cut but had more recent version numbers. I would not want those versions to carry the flag for the Lazarus family of programs.So the only way to get this working right is to add more infrastructure to CGOS. I think what is better is to provide a way for users to specify that they don't want to play their own program. We could consider a family of programs to be specified by password. OR, it might be reasonable to just say that if you don't want your program to play different versions of itself, the password must match as well as all characters before the first hyphen. So essentially you are forced to version with a hyphen if you want this behavior. Does that sound like a reasonable improvement to the system? Rémi Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don Another idea: in order to give more significance to the results, games between different versions of the same program should be excluded. These games tend to
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
Since what date? SlugGo played for several months on COGS and is not shown. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought that it played more than 200 games. Maybe it was not as many as 200 games of any particular version ... Cheers, David On 8, Dec 2007, at 6:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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] Hall of fame for CGOS
This only shows games played on the new server which changed over in the middle of April 2007. I don't plan to include those games as it would be a bit of pain to incorporate them. As it is, I may restrict this to 1 or 2 years depending on how long it take to process the data.I'm hoping I won't have to do that. - Don David Doshay wrote: Since what date? SlugGo played for several months on COGS and is not shown. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought that it played more than 200 games. Maybe it was not as many as 200 games of any particular version ... Cheers, David On 8, Dec 2007, at 6:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS
Hi Don, Thank you for giving us such an excellent Xmas present. One question, why the rating of FatMan-1 is not 1800? And, I'll be happier if there are links to programs on HOF so that I can see their rating pages. Hideki Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. - Don ___ 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/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
