Of course KGS is certainly more polished than CGOS. However, it looks like we can eventually solve the growing pains of CGOS, I am working on something now.
My question to the group, especially those using CGOS, is whether you would be in favor, or opposed to replacing 9x9 with 13x13? - Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 08:05 -0400, Jason House wrote: > On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank > > bots based on KGS games. > > I'm pretty sure the site stopped doing rankings when KGS moved to > gokgs.com > > > > If you can figure out how to make it > > schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it. > > I doubt you'd get the CGOS style for either of these out of the box. > > Scheduling for automatch is likely a first-come, first-serve basis, > probably with some kind of anti-repeat feature. Having engines > reconnect at the start of a round could help fairness issues. > Randomized connection times could be helpful too. > > KGS would limit games to within 9 stones and would automatically give > handicap, but I consider that a good thing. > > Obviously, the more wms helps (or lets us provide code, the better > things will be. I doubt we'd get anywhere without Nick Wedd backing > the idea, and he probably wouldn't if you don't. A KGS alternative may > never be as good as a custom computer go server, but if it's close, it > has other side benefits... Game caches, wider human audiences, > potential integration with human play, etc > > > > > > > > I want to be > > able to put my bot on line, leave it alone for a day or more, and > > know > > it will play only other computers under a consistent rule set and > > get a > > ranking. Also I want to know that you can't just disconnect and to > > abort lost games. I don't want the same player playing it 20 games > > in a > > row and so on. If you can get all that to happen without WMS > > support, > > then I'm definitely interested. > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:20 -0400, Jason House wrote: > >> Where there's a will, there's a way. It may not be hard to use auto > >> match with the self-proclamed bot ranks as a first step > >> approximation. > >> All that's needed for that is to allow bots to be paired against each > >> other. Ratings could be computed offline and used by a kgsGtp wrapper > >> to update the self-proclaimed ratings between games. > >> > >> Everything else could be incremental tweaks as issues are identified. > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> I like KGS and the maturity of it compared to CGOS. However, > >>> it's a > >>> different problem. KGS doesn't schedule games for you. > >>> > >>> I also tried to persuade WMS to rate 9x9 bot games, but he was > >>> unwilling > >>> to add more indexes and overhead to the database. And even if he > >>> agreed, sometimes I want to play other bots, although I like the > >>> idea of > >>> being able to play humans when I want that. Still, it's a > >>> scheduling > >>> issue that KGS just doesn't support. > >>> > >>> If WMS had made a computer go server that looks like KGS but does > >>> the > >>> scheduling and rating for bots only (or given a choice with humans > >>> too) > >>> and such, I would have never written CGOS. If he does it later, I > >>> would probably prefer it to CGOS and would use it instead. > >>> > >>> - Don > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:35 -0400, Jason House wrote: > >>>> Maybe we should approach wms about using KGS. Rank and pairings > >>>> could > >>>> be computed separately. Once upon a time, there was a page that > >>>> computed 9x9 bot ratings > >>>> > >>>> Sent from my iPhone > >>>> > >>>> On Jul 30, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> There seems to be something special about 9x9 go for computers, > >>>>> it's > >>>>> very popular, perhaps because it's so much more approachable. > >>>>> > >>>>> However I personally think it's time to start looking at bigger > >>>>> board > >>>>> sizes seriously. If it were up to me, we would move to 11x11 on > >>>>> CGOS > >>>>> but I fear that would be especially unpopular because it's not one > >>>>> of > >>>>> the 3 "standard" sizes. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we were to look at 13x13 I don't think I would want to continue > >>>>> supporting the 9x9 server, I would want to replace it with 13x13. > >>>>> > >>>>> There is also the issue of space and performance. I think we are > >>>>> pushing the limits of what boardspace can handle, especially in > >>>>> terms of > >>>>> space. I can't complain too much because it's a gift that we can > >>>>> use it > >>>>> at all but I'm constantly fighting a small storage limit. I'm > >>>>> not > >>>>> sure > >>>>> what the performance issues are but the 19x19 server seems fast > >>>>> and > >>>>> responsive in comparison to the 9x9 server. I do not have any > >>>>> idea > >>>>> why > >>>>> this is. But what I'm trying to say is that we can't have > >>>>> BOTH a > >>>>> 9x9 > >>>>> and 13x13 due to resource limitations and if we move to 13x13 I > >>>>> think we > >>>>> would need a bit more capable server to be happy and comfortable. > >>>>> > >>>>> I have some contacts at universities that I could approach with > >>>>> regard > >>>>> to this, that I have never considered before. But I would first > >>>>> like > >>>>> to see if changing from 9x9 to 13x13 would create a lot of anxiety > >>>>> with > >>>>> people. 9x9 does seem amazingly popular and I would hate to > >>>>> "kill" > >>>>> CGOS > >>>>> by moving to 13x13 if nobody is interested or would support it. > >>>>> > >>>>> - Don > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 11:48 -0700, Peter Drake wrote: > >>>>>> More hardware would help, of course. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> More data would be good. Particularly useful would be game > >>>>>> records > >>>>>> (for training) and sets of whole-board positions (9x9 and 19x19). > >>>>>> Pattern libraries and opening libraries would be good, too, but > >>>>>> incorporating them into existing programs may be difficult. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I think the interesting algorithmic area is somehow localizing > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> search. My team is working on it... > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The community is quite good. I wonder if a 13x13 CGOS would help, > >>>>>> because many of us are doing well at 9x9, but 19x19 is MUCH > >>>>>> harder. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Peter Drake > >>>>>> http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jul 27, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Darren Cook wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program > >>>>>>> that is > >>>>>>> at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 > >>>>>>> board > >>>>>>> has > >>>>>>> given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the > >>>>>>> authors > >>>>>>> of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in > >>>>>>> strength. > >>>>>>> There seem to be four broad categories: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you > >>>>>>> just > >>>>>>> need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * More data > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? > >>>>>>> search? > >>>>>>> other?) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> * More community > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open > >>>>>>> source > >>>>>>> projects, etc. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, > >>>>>>> marked > >>>>>>> up > >>>>>>> with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern > >>>>>>> libraries; > >>>>>>> test suites; opening libraries. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Darren > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer > >>>>>>> http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic > >>>>>>> open source dictionary/semantic network) > >>>>>>> http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) > >>>>>>> http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, > >>>>>>> linux, ...) > >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>> 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/ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/
