Don, Why we have to have three servers for three boardsizes? Isn't it possoble to build a server that handle any boarsize?
-Hideki Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >There has been some discussion about which additional board sizes to use >for the server once it is running. > >Of course running all 3 board sizes is a possibility now that we will >have server space, but my fear all along has been that they will kill >each other. There is something to be said about numbers and you want as >many programs as possible playing on the server you want to test on. > >Instead of asking for a lot of opinions however, I think it makes sense >to put all 3 servers up and see what happens for a while. In other >words you will vote with your participation. I think we will see that >programs will gravitate more towards one server than another and I don't >know which one that will be. If they all get reasonable usage I will >leave them all up, but if one tends to get very little usage, I will >bring it down later. I'll let them all stay up for a reasonable length >of time. > >So there will be 9x9, 13x13 and 19x19, at least for the first month or >so, depending on usage. > >For time controls, I have changed my previous position, I think I >prefer somewhat faster time controls. There are disadvantages but >almost many advantages. The foremost advantages is that I believe it >encourages participation, more programs are likely to test on the >server if they do not have to wait unduly long for solid results. >Another advantage is that the games are more fun to watch. > >Right now, the time control for 9x9 assuming the average number of moves >is roughly equivalent to the number of points on the board is about 3.7 >seconds per move or 5 minutes. Using this same exact reasoning if we >try to match the same rate of play per move we have this table: > > 9x9 - 300 seconds or 5 minutes > 13x13 - 625 seconds or 10 minutes, 18 seconds. > 19x19 - 1336 seconds or 22 minutes, 16 seconds per move. > >There is no particular reason that the time control has to be in >multiples of 5 minutes except that we humans seems to be offended if >things are rounded nicely for us. > >So we could accept those values as is, or we could round it to what to >our sensibilities seems somehow more "normal" and use 5 minutes 10 >minutes and 20 minutes for 9x9, 13x13 and 19x19 respectively. > >If we want to speed things up a bit, we might consider going from 3.7 >seconds per move to 2.5 seconds per move. This gives the following >approximate table: > > 9x9 - 202.5 seconds or 3 minutes, 22 seconds > 13x13 - 422.5 seconds or 7 minutes 2 seconds > 19x19 - 902.5 seconds or 15 minutes 2 seconds > >These could be rounded to 3 minutes, 7 minutes and 15 minutes or kept as >is. > >There is some argument for making the bigger boards play faster based on >the notion that you SHOULD play faster since the game will have a lot >more moves in it. > >In this case, the time control could be set the same for all board >sizes, perhaps 15 minutes per game or even 10 minutes per game. There >is some appeal to having this kind of consistency, but of course the >quality of the games on the big boards would suffer accordingly. Of >course we don't care about absolute quality since we are testing >programs against each other and we accept that they play much better at >longer time controls. > >But we could set the average time per move faster if we were not >comfortable with just making them all the same. We could do something >like 5, 10, 15 or something like that. > >In addition to the time control, there is currently a 0.75 second gift >which is configurable. The gift makes it possible for some programs >with high latency connection issues to finish ridiculously long games >without defaulting on time despite the fact that they are playing >instantly. So fast time controls shouldn't be dominated by network >speed considerations. > >My current default choice is: > > 9x9 - 5 minutes. (to keep it the same as it is.) > 13x13 - 10 minutes. > 19x19 - 15 or 20 minutes. > >Feedback? > >- Don > > > > > > > >- Don > > > >_______________________________________________ >computer-go mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
