2009/6/15 David Fotland <[email protected]> > I don’t like venues, because it spreads out the programs so there are > fewer available opponents. I think we want to encourage as many programs as > possible in the same pool to keep the ratings accurate and have a lot of > different ratings populated. So the fewer venue choices, the more programs > at each venue. > A way around this issue is to make the slowest venue mandatory so that you always get 100% participation. Then you simply specify which venue is too fast.
If I don't do venues, I might experiment a little with this idea: Instead of waiting for all games to complete before scheduling a new round, I may schedule when at least half the players are waiting to play. Everything is a compromise when it comes to scheduling. Something is lost and something is gained. This should decrease the wait time between games on average, but it will decrease scheduling flexibility a bit - for instance there will be more tension between the goal of trying to schedule players closer together in strength while still providing good variety. - Don > > > I would just have 9x9 5 minutes and 19x19 15 minutes. Longer time controls > take too long for ratings to stabilize. > > > > David > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Don Dailey > *Sent:* Monday, June 15, 2009 4:21 PM > *To:* computer-go > *Subject:* [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts. > > > > I've been working on the new server and I'm almost at the point where > I can think about time controls - and since this is primarily for > developers, I would like to get your thoughts. > > First, a brief explanation of how the time control works. When the > client starts up it will inform the server of which venues it is > willing to play in. It must choose an available boardsize and then > any of N different time controls. Initially, N will probably be > 2 or 3. For each board size, a time control is called a "venue." > > Let's assume there are 3 venues for boardsize 9x9. The time control > for each venue will be significantly different from the others. > One will be very fast, one will be very slow and there will be one in > between. > > Each time control will be in sync with the others and the process will > be recursive. So the basic scheduling algorithm is to NOT start a new > round for a given venue until any players who have registered to play > in this venue and are currently playing in FASTER venues are available > for scheduling. > > In addition to this, new rounds are not scheduled for any particular > venue as long as the next slower venue is stalled waiting for these faster > venues to complete. > > I hope this idea allows more choice and keeps players busy a greater > percentage of the time by allowing them to fill dead space with fast > games. > > Each bot can choose which venues to play in. If you only want to play > fast games, then you can. > > Now the questions I pose to you are these: > > How many venues for each boardsize? (two, three, more?) > > What time controls should they be? > > It's almost certainly the case that certain combinations of time > control venues will work together better than others. There will > always be the issue of waiting for games to complete and in fact this > may make the problem a bit worse for those programs that only want to > play in the longest venue. I suggest that each venue is spaced at > least a factor of 2 apart in time. For instance 1 minute, 2 minutes, > 4 minutes, etc. > > My own suggestion for 9x9 is to have 3 venues of 1 minute, 5 minutes > and 15 minutes per game per player. > > It's also not too late to change our minds and not have venues if we > think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. > > - Don > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
