I know, this is a lot of work, but what about "caegories" ? 2015-10-07 14:06 GMT-03:00 Rémi Coulom <remi.cou...@free.fr>:
> Hi Nick, > > I don’t care much about having a limit on processing power. I’d be happy > either way. > > Cloud computing platforms like Amazon EC2 allows to rent powerful servers > at a low price. The machine I used for the tournament cost me 0.3$/hour or > so. So the argument that only rich or academic people can get powerful > hardware is not good. A cluster of 8 such machines would still be quite > cheap. And making an efficient distributed search algorithm is an > interesting and challenging technical problem. So I feel it is interesting > to allow big clusters. > > I can beat them on a single machine anyway ;-) > > Thanks for organizing the KGS tournaments, by the way. > > Rémi > > > On 7 oct. 2015, at 12:27, Nick Wedd <mapr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am thinking of making some small changes to the way I run bot > tournaments on KGS. If you have ever taken part in a KGS bot tournament, I > would like to hear your opinions on three things. > > > 1. Limit on processor power? > > This is the main point on which I want your opinions. The other two are > trivial. > > Several people have suggested to me that these events would be fairer if > there were a limit on the computing power of the entrants. I would like to > do this, but I don't know how. I have little understanding of the > terminology, I don't know how *e.g.* multiple cores in one computer > compare with multiple computers on one network, and I don't know how to > count a graphics card. *If* someone can find a way to specify an upper > limit to permitted power which is clear and easy to understand, and *if* most > entrants would favor imposing such a limit, I will discuss what it should > be, and apply it. I am not able to check what entrants are really running > on, but I will trust people. > > > 2. Zeroes in the "Annual Championship" table. > > The table at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/annual/index.html has a 0 in a > cell where a program competed but did not score, and a blank where it did > not compete (at least it should do, I sometimes get it wrong). I would > prefer to omit these zeroes, they seem a bit rude. Also there is no clear > distinction between competing and not competing - how should I treat a > program which crashes and disappears after two rounds, or one (like AyaMC > last Sunday) which plays in every round but is broken and has no chance of > winning? I realise that the zeroes some convey information that may be of > interest. Should I continue to use them, or just leave those cells blank? > > > 3. Live crosstable > > When I write up my reports, I include a crosstable, like the one near the > top of http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/116/index.html . This is easy > for me, I run a script which reads the data from the KGS page ( > http://www.gokgs.com/tournEntrants.jsp?sort=s&id=990 in this case) and > builds the crosstable in html, which I copy into the tournament report. It > only works for Swiss (and maybe Round Robin) tournaments. It works while > the tournament is still running, though only between rounds.I could build a > current crosstable each round during a tournament if there is any demand > for it. > > -- > Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > > > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > Computer-go@computer-go.org > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > -- Dracux *http://www.dracux.com <http://www.dracux.com>*
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
