It is two years and six months since I chose the format that we use for
the monthly bot tournaments on KGS. Since then, things have changed:
UCT has been invented, processing power has increased, pondering has
been implemented in more programs, and CGOS is running. I get
occasional requests for changes to the format of the KGS tournaments; I
generally think, "yes, that's a good idea", and then forget to do
anything about it. So I have decided to poll the members of this list,
about what changes they think desirable.
HOW THINGS ARE NOW
The current settings for the tournaments are listed at
http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/future.html
Each event consists of two tournaments, one Formal (with entry
restrictions) and one Open. The events go in a cycle: 19x19+19x19,
9x9+13x13, 13x13+9x9. For each board size, the time limits (which are
all sudden death) also cycle. The cycles are: 19x19 - 58m, 28m, 18m;
13x13: 13m, 18m, 28m; 9x9: 8m, 13m, 28m.
All events are Swiss, with fixed numbers of rounds.
WHY THEY ARE LIKE THIS
The Formal/Open restriction was created to encourage commercial programs
to compete. These programs' authors were wary of entering them in
events in which they might have to play a whole bunch of GNU Go
versions, so the Formal division was set up with the restriction that no
more than one copy of GNU Go (or of anything else) could compete. But
this has had only limited success in attracting entries from commercial
programs.
However running two tournaments at once is not a bad idea. While I am
running a bot tournament, I am forced to be sitting at my computer and
watching what is happening on KGS, but I am rarely overworked. So it
quite suits me to be also running another bot tournament. I imagine
that competitors may feel the same way.
A snag with running two tournaments at once is that people may wish
to enter both, but have access to only limited processing power. This
involves a time hit on both programs. If the programs do not ponder,
the time hit is only about 25% (assuming their opponents play at they
same speed as they do; but if they ponder it is 50%.
Absolute time settings are used so that I can know when each round will
begin, and when the event will end. For shorter events (fewer rounds,
or faster time limits) these issues are less important.
My presence to administer these events is, unfortunately, still
necessary, though I am required to intervene much less than in the early
days. In the most recent event, I had to score the SimpleBot vs.
scottbot game manually, and then terminate the game: I believe that if
I had not done so, these bots would never have left the game, and would
have failed to play in the next round. I am not willing to devote more
than eight continuous hours to an event. However, for an event with
slow time limits, I only really need to be present around the start and
end of each round, so I could manage a 16-hour event (it would have to
start at about 09:00 GMT)
ISSUES TO VOTE ON
(1.)
Do we want to keep separate Formal and Open divisions?
Keep two divisions [____]
Just have one [____]
(I might restrict entry to the Formal division, to programs that have
already competed in the Open division, behaved well, and won at least
one game there.)
(2.)
Do we want to keep three board sizes? Or to get rid of 13x13?
Keep 19x19, 13x13, and 9x9 [____]
Just have 19x19 and 9x9 [____]
(3.)
Do we want to continue with three different time settings for each board
size?
Keep three time settings [____]
Just have two settings [____]
(4.)
Do we want the time settings to be
as they are now [____]
faster [____]
slower [____]
Note that faster time settings give more flexibility. They allow more
rounds, and they reduce the need for a pre-established schedule,
allowing time systems other than absolute time.
(5.)
Should we
continue to use Absolute (sudden death) time [____]
change to using Canadian [____]
change to using byo-yomi [____]
(6.)
Do we want the events to
take longer [____]
be about as long as they are now [____]
be over sooner [____]
(7.)
Do we want to
stay with fixed-length Swiss [____]
switch to Round Robin [____]
HOW TO VOTE
You can vote by responding here, if you want everyone to read your
opinions; or by email to me, at the address this message was posted
from. I shall not reveal the way anyone voted, nor who made the
comments and suggestions made in emails to me; but I will report on the
total votes, and on the comments and suggestions.
As well as simply voting (by indicating your order of preference for
each set of alternatives), you may explain your reasons, and suggest
other possibilities. I promise to read these, and to put all the
responses into a folder where I won't lose them.
Nick
--
Nick Wedd [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
