On Sat, 2007-03-17 at 23:32 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote: > Hi Don, > > > I remember when CGOS first came up, I expected it to be a > > few years before a program could achieve 2000.0 on the CGOS > > scale. > I hope you are more optimistic on the future.
I thought I was just being realistic, based on previous progress in computer GO which has been basically a crawl. I did not anticipate the amazing success of Monte Carlo techniques. Even though I predicted it, I didn't expect it to go so far so fast. > > At some point the Anchor program will be too weak to be taken > > seriously and we will have to replace it! > Having an anchor at a much higher level would be very useful, in order > to have the rating converge more quickly (and accurately). I think the > last version of Lazarus would do a great job, for at least two > (essential) reasons: very strong (rated at 2100 ELO) and keep the > transitivity (very important) i.e. the winning rate of Lazarus against > every other programs matches the difference in ELO. > I know it does not match the "do not take resources" requirement, and > you would have to dedicate a computer for that. But with the number of > programs at +- 2000 ELO, the 1500 AnchorMan is far too weak. > Fortunately, ggexp is almost always connected and strong. Another possible candidate is Mogo, running at 3K play-outs, like the version running on CGOS right now. An idea I have is to fix up a binary of some strong program like Lazarus or Mogo, with the level and essential parameters hard coded to be an Anchor player. Ask 2 or 3 people to run these clones under different names as Anchor players. Then there would usually be an Anchor available to play. Do you think any version of gnugo is suitable as an anchor? - Don > Sylvain _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
