I've never much cared for the division between formal and open divisions.
I'd much prefer to see separation by bot strength.
Bridge tends to have two kinds of competitions:
Flighted - Separate competitions by skill level (usually 3 levels)
Striated - Everyone plays everyone. Results (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc) reported
by skill level.
I really like the idea of striated competition. Using a go-ish example
A stratta: 4k+
B stratta: 14k-5k
C stratta: -15k
Results tend to take the form of the following:
A B C
bot1 A 1st
bot2 A 2nd
bot3 B 3rd 1st
bot4 A 4th
bot5 C 5th 2nd 1st
bot6 B 6th 3rd
bot7 C 7th 4th 2nd
etc...
Placements in A strata are overall, while placements in lower strata include
only those that are in that strata or lower. This tends to give less
experienced competitors a chance at bragging rights but does not dilute the
competition pool.
PS: Poll answers were sent separately/privately. This e-mail is intended to
start discussion about alternatives to the formal/open divisions (if polling
shows it's time to replace them).
On Jan 18, 2008 12:41 PM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
> [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/
