From time to time I have put highly experimental and very different
programs on CGOS and I don't care if they play themselves
What I meant to say is that I don't care if they play other programs of
mine.
- Don
Don Dailey wrote:
> I am considering to enforce this basic protocol on the server soon:
>
> Programs of the same "family" will not be paired against each other.
>
> A family of programs have the same name up to the first hyphen and the
> same password.
>
> So if I have these programs:
>
> Name password
> --------------- --------------
> Lazarus-1.2 foobar
> Lazarus-1.3 foobar
> Lazarus-1.4 foobar
> Lazarus-1.5 winniepooh
>
> Then Lazarus-1.5 will be allowed to play either of the other programs
> listed, but those other programs will not be allow to play each other
> as they are considered relatives.
>
> We cannot prevent programs from playing each other no matter what we
> do, they can always change the name and password. However this gives
> the programmers the ability to prevent multiple versions of his
> program from playing each other if he chooses. Most programmers
> probably log onto CGOS in order to play other peoples programs.
>
> >From time to time I have put highly experimental and very different
> programs on CGOS and I don't care if they play themselves - they are
> not really different versions of the same program. In this case I
> always give them different names anyway. I pretty much always use
> the same password so I can control this easily with the name.
>
> - Don
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Rémi Coulom wrote:
>> Don Dailey wrote:
>>> It would be great if you would provide recommendations for a simple
>>> conversion formula when you are ready based on this study. Also,
>>> if you have any suggestions in general for CGOS ratings the
>>> cgos-developers would be willing to listen to your suggestions.
>>>
>>> - Don
>> My suggestion would be to tell programmers to use a different login
>> each time they change version or hardware (most do that, already),
>> and use bayeselo to rank the programs.
>>
>> This would be best if combined with a mechanism to recognize that two
>> logins are versions of the same program (for instance, if they use
>> the same password), and avoid pairing them.
>>
>> Regarding correspondance with human ranks, and handicap value, I
>> cannot tell yet. It is very clear to me that the Elo-rating model is
>> very wrong for the game of Go, because strength is not
>> one-dimensional, especially when mixing bots and humans. The best way
>> to evaluate a bot in terms of human rating is to make it play against
>> humans, on KGS for instance. Unfortunately, there is no 9x9 rating
>> there. I will compute 9x9 ratings with the KGS data I have.
>>
>> What I have observed with Crazy Stone is that gaining Elo points
>> against humans is more difficult than gaining Elo points against GNU
>> Go, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against MC
>> programs, which is more difficult than gaining Elo points against
>> itself. But it is more an intuition than a scientific study.
>>
>> 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/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
