>From what I have discovered so far, there is no compelling reason to change anchors. What I really was hoping we could do is UPGRADE the anchor, since many programs are now far stronger than 1800.
Fuego is pretty strong, but not when it plays at the same CPU intensity as gnugo. I went up to 5000 simulations and the match is fairly close and the time is about the same. Going from 3000 to 5000 was quite a remarkable jump in strength and no doubt we could run at 10,000 and have substantial superiority - but that's not really what I had in mind. So I think I agree with all the comments I have received so far - and my own observations and testing, there is no compelling reasons to change. Now if fuego was substantially stronger using less resources, I would be more eager to change after carefully calibrating the difference, but that is not the case, at least not at 19x19. There is another way to keep ratings stable and that is to monitor key players over time and build a deflation/inflation mechanism into the server to keep it in tune. For instance if there were no anchors, the server could monitor gnugo and if it were to gradually drop in rating, I could make minor adjustments to the ratings of winners and losers to compensate gradually over time. For example the winner could get 1% more ELO and the loser could lose 1% less ELO when in inflation mode and just the opposite when in deflation mode. In this way I could feed points into the rating pool, or gradually extract them as needed. I don't plan to do this, but there is more than one way to skin a cat. If we use more than one player as anchors, I would still pick one player as the standard, and periodically adjust the "other" anchors based on their global perormance rating - since they will all tend to drift around relative to each other and I would not want to make any assumptions about what the other anchors should be. We cannot just say gnugo is 1800, fuego is 2000, etc because we don't really know the exact difference between the 2. But we could refine this over time. - Don On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 11:34 PM, David Fotland <[email protected]>wrote: > I'd also prefer to use gnugo as an anchor. Since fuego is under > development, new versions will be playing with an odler version of itself. > Fuego will win more often against its old version. I don't care about it > distorting Fuego's rating, but it will distort the rating system. If new > fuego is on with few other programs it will gain rating points, then when > other programs come new fuego will give them the other program as its > rating > drops. The effect will be to make the rating system less stable, so it's > hard to use cgos to evaluate new versions of programs to see if they are > stronger. > > I think it's best to use an anchor that's not under active development. I > like gnugo since there is lots of published results against it, and it is > not changing rapidly. Also it has a different style than the monte carlo > programs, so it's more likely to expose bugs in the monte carlo programs. > > David > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:computer-go- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Hideki Kato > > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 PM > > To: computer-go > > Subject: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength > > > > I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version for 9x9 and two > > instances of GNU Go for 13x13, five programs in total, on a dual-core > > Athlon at home. > > > > I strongly believe current anchors are resource friendly enough for > > older pentium 3, 4 or even Celeron processors and not necessary being > > changed. > > > > Changing anchors is a big problem, similar to changing the > > International prototypes. Also, GNU Go is used as a reference in > > almost every computer-go research these days. > > > > I'm against that idea, especially for 19x19. > > > > Hideki > > > > Don Dailey: <[email protected] > >: > > >I'm trying now to get a rough idea about the strength of fuego and it's > > >suitablity as the anchor player. > > > > > >Right now the numbers are very rough as I need more samples. I'm > > currently > > >looking at: > > > > > > 1. 9x9 fuego at 1000 simulations > > > > > > 2. 19x19 fuego at 3000 simulations. > > > > > > > > >I'm testing against the current CGOS anchors, so FatMan vs fuego at 9x9 > > and > > >gnugo-3.7.10 at 19x19. > > > > > > > > >At 9x9 fuego appears to be substantially stronger than FatMan, perhaps > > >100-200 ELO. It also is far faster at 1000 simulation than fatman > which > > >requires many more simulations to reach anchor strength. So there is > no > > >questions about fuego being a capable anchor for small boards. At this > > >level on 9x9 FatMan is also stronger than gnugo, so fuego is far > stronger > > >than gnugo on 9x9 and is very resource friendly too. > > > > > >At 19x19 the story is a bit different. gnugo appears to be > significantly > > >stronger, but about twice as slow. There is not enough data to narrow > > this > > >down much, but it appears to be over 200 ELO weaker at this level. > > > > > >Since fuego is using only about half the CPU resources of gnugo, I can > > >increase the level. I've only played 30 games at 19x19, so this > > >conclusion is subject to signficant error, but it's enough to conclude > > that > > >it's almost certainly weaker at this level but perhaps not when run at > the > > >same CPU intensity as gnugo. > > > > > >Of course at higher levels yet, fuego would be far stronger than > > >gnugo-3.7.10 as seen in the 19x19 cgos tables. But I'm hoping not to > > push > > >the anchors too hard - hopefully they can be run on someones older spare > > >computer or set unobtrusively in the background on someones desktop > > >machine. > > > > > > > > >- Don > > >---- inline file > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
