I merely suggest that introducing two servers at the same time would effect in too small number of players on any of them. Delaying 19x19 by 3 months is natural and give people time to develop new scalable techniques at 13x13.
In other words I believe that lone 19x19 is to big jump and many people will be not interested, while both 13x13 and 19x19 at the same time will leave 13x13 with too small number of players. Lukasz On 12/12/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
What happens in March? Or are you suggesting that we do 13x13 until March? - Don On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 17:54 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote: > I vote for 13x13 with 15 minutes. > 19x19 , 30 minutes , in march. > > Lukasz Lew > > On 12/12/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have a few proposals. My preference is 13x13 at 20 minutes per > > game, but I think the idea of having 19x19 is more popular. > > > > If we do 19x19 I don't think the monte carlo programs would have much of > > a chance with current hardware if we use a fast time control. Of > > course personally I'm trying to encourage the development of new > > techniques and idea and particularly Monte Carlo although all programs > > are welcome. > > > > So I'm leaning towards 30 minute games at 19x19 but I'm still listening > > to feedback. > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:05 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > You anticipated my next question - the time control. > > > > > > I was thinkin gof 30 minutes too. Any feedback? > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 21:10 -0800, David Fotland wrote: > > > > I'd like to see 19x19. No one plays the game on any other board size than > > > > 19x19, so the other sizes are not very interesting. The current strong > > > > programs are all tuned only for 19x19, and the patterns and strategy are > > > > quite different at other board sizes. > > > > > > > > Of course you should keep the 9x9 server running as well, since it's > > > > probably easier to tune algorithms on the smaller board size. You probably > > > > want longer games at 19x19. I'd like to see 30 minutes per side, since > > > > that's pretty typical for human games. > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:49 PM > > > > > To: computer-go > > > > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you have a specific size in mind? It seems like a 19x19 server > > > > > would be the natural thing. > > > > > > > > > > I could run the old server until I get the new one finished. > > > > > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:29 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > > > > > > A few months ago I suggested a number of stepwise increases > > > > > in board > > > > > > size to see how the algorithms scaled. It seems to me > > > > > having just 2 > > > > > > data points does not say enough about how the MC (or any other) > > > > > > algorithm scales, so I wanted to be able to graph some measure of > > > > > > strength against increasing board size. > > > > > > > > > > > > The responses showed some interest in the normal board > > > > > sizes, but not > > > > > > enough for me to think it was worth it to host the servers. > > > > > Several of > > > > > > the program authors indicated that they could only run one > > > > > size at a > > > > > > time, and I assumed that this meant that having multiple > > > > > CGOS servers > > > > > > would only detract from the usefulness of the 9x9, so I did > > > > > not start > > > > > > any other size of server. > > > > > > > > > > > > If things have changed, I have the resources to be a CGOS-N host. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11, Dec 2006, at 7:53 PM, David Fotland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly UCT and monte carlo is very well suited to 9x9 go. It > > > > > > > works much > > > > > > > better than the traditional computer go algorithms, and > > > > > it is much, > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > simpler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any plans to set up a CGOS server for 19x19 go? I'd > > > > > > > like to see > > > > > > > how well UCT/MC scales to 19x19 go. I don't think it will work > > > > > > > well at > > > > > > > 19x19, but I'd like to see some experiments to see if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > computer-go mailing list > > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > computer-go mailing list > > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > computer-go mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > computer-go mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > computer-go mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
