That was a great page while it lasted! Sure it could have been tweaked some more;?probably the ultra-blitz games shouldn't?be counted. The fundamental problem with deriving a bot's rating from 9x9 KGS games is that the people involved tend not to play seriously. But it was still fun.
- Dave Hillis -----Original Message----- From: Christian Nilsson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> Sent: Thu, 31 Jul 2008 2:46 pm Subject: Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most? On Thu, Jul 31, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 I'm afraid I am responsible for that awful page. :) The move to gokgs.com also brought some changes to the structure of the game archives ( I basically downloaded the game history of each Bot each hour or so and grabbed the data from it ) . I never liked the ugly hack I made into that page and the changes made to KGS definitely put a stop to my motivation... Collecting the data from KGS archives isn't all that hard, although I'd expect direct access to the database would be easier. Getting that kind of access is probably not going to happen... /Christian > > >> 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 w ant 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]> w rote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 s ets 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 >>>>>>>> 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/ >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
