Yes, I liked that page too. It was a great effort and I don't think it was so "awful."
- Don On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 16:23 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > 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 <[email protected]> > 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 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/ > > ______________________________________________________________________ > The Famous, the Infamous, the Lame - in your browser. Get the TMZ > Toolbar Now! > _______________________________________________ > 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/
