Thanks, Luis. So are you saying, with version 3.8, by manipulating these settings to grep for, I should be able to achieve a rank commensurate with the version 2.0 bot that I've been playing? (whose style and strength is actually very enjoyable and natural to play against, unlike many other non-GNU Go bots, actually)
I would love to help with development if at all possible -- again, zero C experience, more of a dynamic/scripting language/web development programmer here as opposed to systems, but I'd love to learn and have a project about which to be enthusiastic and motivated and learn from. On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 1:29 PM Luis Felipe Strano Moraes < luis.str...@gmail.com> wrote: > James, > > the documentation is a bit sprinkled over the source code, so it will > involve some searching. Most of these options can be found if you grep for > 'mandated_' inside of the source code. For example, some of the > implications of depth are documented within the function set_depth_values > inside of engine/utils.c. If you set one of these toggles from the command > line when launching the client, then it will override one of the mandated_ > variables (so if you set depth, it will override mandated_depth which would > have otherwise been set to -1 and inherited from the level set itself). > > From what I've seen of some of the other ones like KataGo, they might be > able to better mimic more realistic lower ranks, so depending on your > ultimate goal it might indeed be an alternative to explore. > > Having said that, I'm chatting with folks from GNU to see if we can get > development of GNU Go a bit more active again, and hope to have good news > there soon. > > Best regards, > > > On Tue, Aug 1, 2023 at 10:20 AM James Dempsey <james.e.demp...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Luis, do you know where the minimum values of the "options affecting >> strength and speed" you linked me to are documented? I couldn't determine >> from the source code what values would put GNU Go 3.8 at its weakest rank. >> >> GNU Go 2.6 does not support GTP, so I've scratched that idea. >> >> Were you implying that I'd have better luck with a different engine >> (e.g., KataGo) if I wanted to control rank? >> >> On Sat, Jul 22, 2023 at 10:38 AM James Dempsey <james.e.demp...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Ah, thanks Luis, somehow I missed that level of granularity given by >>> those options. >>> >>> I would wonder, though, if `--level` already presets those, and at least >>> from running GNU Go bots on KGS where I've observed `--level 0` and >>> `--level 10` both settle at 4k, would they really make much difference in >>> strength/rank? >>> >>> There's a GNU Go 2.0 bot on KGS that plays at 11k, which is more what >>> I'm looking for, FYI. >>> >>> Thank you. >>> >>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 5:59 PM Luis Felipe Strano Moraes < >>> luis.str...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> James, >>>> >>>> being quite honest, it will be difficult for you to toggle difficulty >>>> by going to older versions. Likely your best bet if you really want to stay >>>> with the GNU Go engine, would be to toy around with some of configurations >>>> that are also exposed (which level in some cases just defines a preset for) >>>> here: https://www.gnu.org/software/gnugo/gnugo_3.html#SEC31 (see >>>> section Other options affecting strength and speed) >>>> >>>> Best regards, >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 2:55 PM James Dempsey < >>>> james.e.demp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Thanks Luis, I replaced `-lang-c89` with `-std=c90` and that let me >>>>> compile successfully. >>>>> >>>>> I wanted to try compiling a weaker version :). Even with setting >>>>> `--level` for 3.8 I see no real difference in strength/rank. >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 4:47 PM Luis Felipe Strano Moraes < >>>>> luis.str...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> James, >>>>>> >>>>>> is there any reason why you are trying to build even older versions? >>>>>> >>>>>> The error there is that that specific compiler flag is not valid for >>>>>> this version of GCC. I'd guess you would have to look at how to switch it >>>>>> for something else to see if it would still build, this seems to be >>>>>> implying it should be using the C89 standard, which you can do in >>>>>> different >>>>>> ways now: >>>>>> https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Standards.html >>>>>> "-ansi, -std=c90 or -std=iso9899:1990" >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm trying to chat with folks from GNU to see if we can sort out >>>>>> making a new release of GNU Go to at the very least solve some >>>>>> compilation >>>>>> issues and make it build again, hopefully have something happen soon on >>>>>> it. >>>>>> >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Jul 21, 2023 at 6:08 AM James Dempsey < >>>>>> james.e.demp...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm experiencing another compilation issue, this time for GNU Go 2.6 >>>>>>> on Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc is >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc (Debian 10.2.1-6) 10.2.1 20210110 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Error is: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I. -I.. -I../engine -I../interface -g >>>>>>>> -O2 -Wall -W -Wpointer-arith -Wbad-function-cast -Wcast-qual >>>>>>>> -Wcast-align >>>>>>>> -Wwrite-strings -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes >>>>>>>> -Wmissing-declarations -Wp,-lang-c89 -c sgf.c >>>>>>>> cc1: error: command-line option ‘-lang-c89’ is valid for the driver >>>>>>>> but not for C >>>>>>>> make[2]: *** [Makefile:155: sgf.o] Error 1 >>>>>>>> make[1]: *** [Makefile:158: all-recursive] Error 1 >>>>>>>> make: *** [Makefile:306: all-recursive-am] Error 2 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> One again, not a C programmer and couldn't exactly make sense of the >>>>>>> answers I had searched for. Any help would be appreciated. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you. >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> gnugo-devel mailing list >>>>>>> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >>>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Luís Felipe Strano Moraes >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> gnugo-devel mailing list >>>>>> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >>>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >>>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> gnugo-devel mailing list >>>>> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >>>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Luís Felipe Strano Moraes >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> gnugo-devel mailing list >>>> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >>>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> gnugo-devel mailing list >> gnugo-devel@gnu.org >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >> > > > -- > Luís Felipe Strano Moraes > _______________________________________________ > gnugo-devel mailing list > gnugo-devel@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel >
_______________________________________________ gnugo-devel mailing list gnugo-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnugo-devel
