Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
Hi Don Could you provide some minimum protocol documentation so that we do not have to use any scripting language? The tcl script seems very simple. Is it possible to just open greencheeks.homelinux.org:6867, send login and then read/write commands? This way everyone would be free to implement the connection its own way, handle reconnection automatically in case of power down, etc. In my case, using a scripting language not only requires to install unnecessary software for an otherwise trivial task, but writing a small bridge application that is called by the script and communicates with the GUI running the engine. The GUI could handle the connection much better. I am very interested in being an active member of the 19x19 server when its ready. (And I am ready myself, mid-July, I hope.) Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
Jacques, On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 11:03 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Could the source code of this client be open? I just finished the translation of the old TCL script cgosGtp.tcl to plain C (for those of us who don't want to run a scripting language interpreter just to connect to CGOS). You can find it here: http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg53/go/cgosGtp.tar.gz Please note that this is not quite what you are looking for, but I intend to do the same translation with the new script as soon as it has stabilized. Don, I translated your script almost without changes. I changed the log output to use the arrows a bit more consistently, though. And the program waits for an answer to the quit command sent to the engine; this is according to the GTP specification which requests The controller must receive the response before the connection is closed on its side. Hellwig ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 12:39 +0200, Hellwig Geisse wrote: Jacques, On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 11:03 +0100, Jacques Basaldúa wrote: Could the source code of this client be open? I just finished the translation of the old TCL script cgosGtp.tcl to plain C (for those of us who don't want to run a scripting language interpreter just to connect to CGOS). You can find it here: http://homepages.fh-giessen.de/~hg53/go/cgosGtp.tar.gz Please note that this is not quite what you are looking for, but I intend to do the same translation with the new script as soon as it has stabilized. Don, I translated your script almost without changes. I changed the log output to use the arrows a bit more consistently, though. And the program waits for an answer to the quit command sent to the engine; this is according to the GTP specification which requests The controller must receive the response before the connection is closed on its side. Thank you for that. The new client is still in a primitive state and there are a few rough edges - one example is that it exits when there is a connection problem which is not the behavior we really want. There is also the issue of what to do if the engine itself dies. I'm not sure what happens in this case, but I need to do a bit more development in this area to get it right. I want the reconnection time-out to be gradually increasing, in case of long network outages - no point hammering the server if things will be down a signficant length of time. Things like that need to be improved and feedback is welcome. And I have received good feedback already - so thanks everyone. - Don Hellwig ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Mon, Mar 26, 2007 at 10:06:47PM -0400, Jason House wrote: I don't see any games that have an outcome other than winning by points or resignation. Any forfeits or games that are on hold? I see a few games with B+Illegal, or suchlike. But I remember when I was fooling with my stderr problem, I started a few games that were rejected because illegal moves. yet the listing shows no Illegal games for Halgo. Something wrong there? -Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 08:24 -0400, Jason House wrote: On 3/27/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Jason House wrote: I don't see any games that have an outcome other than winning by points or resignation. Any forfeits or games that are on hold? I have seen games lost by 'forfeit' (typically super-ko) and lost by time. There are only 3 non score based ways to win or lose a game: 1. Illegal 2. Time 3. Resign There are no disconnect forfeits - you simply lose on time as if you walked away from the game on purpose. In the case of an illegal move, a comment is included in the SGF file to attempt to explain the nature of the illegal move if it can be determined. For instance I think there is an error comment for moving to an occupied point. The most common illegal move is a ko violation. - Don On the old server or the new one? I was thinking a proper testing of the server should include clients that do the wrong thing and make sure the server handles it properly. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Would it be possible to publish a little library for others in C? I will have a place on the main page to download goodies like this. Yes, but it is still in a transitions phase from the old CGOS to the new CGOS. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
Hi Don, I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. What does everything think about that? I guess you mean everyone? :-) Or maybe I missed something :-/. I think it is better and worse in the same time. 5 minutes is better because it allows you to rate your program twice as fast, and the rating is likely to be similar. The bad thing is that real good games happen with more time, so I wonder how far the estimation would be from the strength of the program in real conditions. Of course we can count on the scalability of the algorithm, but still. I personally do almost all my tests with 3k simulations per move, and count on the scalability. But I wanted to raise the point. For example I think things like seki would take importance only with stronger programs so only with more time. I don't have a strong opinion on that. Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 13:26 -0700, Ken Friedenbach wrote: 1 second is probably too much when network lag is not an issue, and not enough when it is... Is there some way to use ping every N moves, to get a better setting on a per connection basis? Probably, but I don't want to trust clients not to cheat by delaying their response to ping.You probably think this is incredibly paranoid of me, but if you've lived in the computer chess world you would understand why I feel this way :-) Of course you can do a statistical analysis of the response times to a number of pings and gather statistical evidence that a client is cheating or not, but this can probably be defeated with clever algorithms to vary the responses! Now I'm really being paranoid!At any rate, I don't want to get into this.I think I will just use a fixed 1/2 second forgiveness factor. - Don Ken Friedenbach On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Don Dailey wrote: The 2 minute server is interesting, the short time control has still allowed for very strong programs including Mogo. I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. What does everything think about that? The server adds 1 second gift to each move silently, in order to allow for server overheads and network lags and glitches. This is pretty generous and actually adds a minute or more the the length of the games. I think this should probably be cut to 1/2 second instead of a full second and I will make that change. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 11:47 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote: Would it be possible to publish a little library for others in C? I will have a place on the main page to download goodies like this. Yes, but it is still in a transitions phase from the old CGOS to the new CGOS. Yes, I haven't finalized the protocol yet. If I make any changes, I'll be sure to let you know. - Don Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:10 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote: Hi Don, I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. What does everything think about that? I guess you mean everyone? :-) Or maybe I missed something :-/. I want the opinon of inanimate objects :-) I think it is better and worse in the same time. 5 minutes is better because it allows you to rate your program twice as fast, and the rating is likely to be similar. The bad thing is that real good games happen with more time, so I wonder how far the estimation would be from the strength of the program in real conditions. Of course we can count on the scalability of the algorithm, but still. But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it is standard for 19x19 or 9x9? At any rate, I will probably go with 5 minutes unless I get a lot of protests, in which case I will stay with 10 minutes. I have considered the pro's and con's below. I personally do almost all my tests with 3k simulations per move, and count on the scalability. But I wanted to raise the point. For example I think things like seki would take importance only with stronger programs so only with more time. I don't have a strong opinion on that. There are many considerations, both positive and negative, but mostly positive I think: 1. Rate games faster. 2. Server is more dynamic - for the impatient :-) 3. Less waiting time when you log on and between games. 4. Quality of game a bit lower unfortunately. 5. All testing, not just getting ratings, is accelerated. 6. 5 minutes not a major change. We will probabably soon have a 19x19 server too, in which case I would not favor such a fast time control. I would like to get opinions on what it should be for 19x19 or other board sizes - but I'm gravitating towards 15 minutes per side on 19x19. - Don Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it is standard for 19x19 or 9x9? I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example. At any rate, I will probably go with 5 minutes unless I get a lot of protests, in which case I will stay with 10 minutes. I have considered the pro's and con's below. Ok thank you. You have a stronger opinion than mine :) Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote: But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it is standard for 19x19 or 9x9? I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example. At any rate, I will probably go with 5 minutes unless I get a lot of protests, in which case I will stay with 10 minutes. I have considered the pro's and con's below. Ok thank you. You have a stronger opinion than mine :) Sylvain Actually, I only slightly prefer 5 minutes - it seems like it would be a benefit all things considered. But as I said, I'm willing to concede - I will do what the group as a whole prefers. So far nobody has spoken out in favor of 5 minutes except me - so it might end up being 10 minutes after all! - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:14:37PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 15:31 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: I see a few games with B+Illegal, or suchlike. But I remember when I was fooling with my stderr problem, I started a few games that were rejected because illegal moves. yet the listing shows no Illegal games for Halgo. Something wrong there? sqlite select gid, w, b, res from games where w like %Halgo% and res like B+Illegal ; gid w bres -- - --- -- 333 halgo-1.7-10k gnugo_3.7.9 B+Illegal 336 halgo-1.7-10k gnugo_3.7.9 B+Illegal Ok! Those games must have scrolled off the list of games when I came to think of them today. Those 2min games happen fast... Seems like your system works as expected. - Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote: I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running. How about sorting the cross-tables by opponent name (please don't distinguish upper/lower-case). Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:33:36PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. What does everything think about that? Fine by me. The server adds 1 second gift to each move silently, in order to allow for server overheads and network lags and glitches. This is pretty generous and actually adds a minute or more the the length of the games. I think this should probably be cut to 1/2 second instead of a full second and I will make that change. Quite fine by me. My quick program halgo-1.7-10k always seemed to have 120 seconds left, no matter what happened. Maybe even 0.1 seconds would be sufficient. In fact I don't quite see the point in adding the extra time. Both players get as much, and both are supposed to have the same amount of time available, so it should not make much of a difference. I can se an argument for it, in the case the opponent plays silly moves just to kill time, and hope to win on time. But we already play the games to the bitter end, so that should not matter so much. Maybe the time should only be added after a player has passed once? I am still not sure about all the consequences of this, but I don't see it as a major problem, one way or the other. - Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:15:49PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: Actually, I only slightly prefer 5 minutes - it seems like it would be a benefit all things considered. But as I said, I'm willing to concede - I will do what the group as a whole prefers. So far nobody has spoken out in favor of 5 minutes except me - so it might end up being 10 minutes after all! Then let me cast a vote for 5 minutes - although it is a very weak vote, as I do not have a strong opinion. But the 2min tests have shown that I seem to have a powerful enough computer to do what I wanted to do... Being able to play more games in a given time is clearly a bonus. - Heikki P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the rounds would still be with most of the players. -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote: P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the rounds would still be with most of the players. That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against each other. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
I vote for 5 minutes per side in the name of faster ratings, faster testing and faster games for casual observers to observe. Plus, computers are getting faster every day and 9x9 Go algorithms are getting better every day so it seems reasonable to speed-up the time controls from what it was when CGOS started. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 15:41 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote: I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running. How about sorting the cross-tables by opponent name (please don't distinguish upper/lower-case). They are currently sorted by ELO rating, which was one of the number 1 requests. I suppose with a little java-script we could make it selectable. But for the default I think it's more useful to sort by strength. - Don Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote: P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the rounds would still be with most of the players. That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against each other. Christoph I've really struggled with this one. In the end, scheduling is far easier and has far less side effects if I make them discreet. There is also a feature in the server to report informational messages - one of them reports the time until the next round, which hopefully makes the wait more bearable. Of course it's just an estimate and it's almost always overstated. A little analysis shows that this does not decrease the playing rate much at all for programs that use most of their time. For the really fast programs, you will clearly get scheduled less often. I usually make decisions, where there is an issue, in favor of the stronger programs as long as it doesn't introduce gross unfairness to the weaker programs.In this case I don't want to introduce a scheduling algorithm that encourages random players to play zillions of games. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The way the cross-tables are sorted in the new CGOS, by strength, seems much nicer to me. I hope it stays this way. And 5 minute games sounds like a good compromise. I'm enjoying the 2 minute (really 3 minute, I guess) games. My only complaint about the 1 second leeway is that it makes it look as if my program is taking 100 times longer than most of its opponents. It makes getting creamed by Mogo just all that much more galling. ;) I think I'm going to change the leeway to a much more modest 1/4 second. A number of opponent are playing for free. - Don Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote: I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running. How about sorting the cross-tables by opponent name (please don't distinguish upper/lower-case). Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by hand to John Tromp so he can comment on the game; I couldn't do this twice as fast. :) I also like the argument that some innovative ideas might just not work very well in fast games, so it would be better to keep them longer. I don't like the idea of giving extra time every move. The effect is very similar to adding a fixed amount of time, since go games have fairly constant lengths. Lags are probably tiny these days for most people anyway. And you do get an update of how much time you have left, so if you do something simple like spending a constant fraction of the time left each turn, your program will adjust itself to the lag and not run out of time. In short, I don't see what problem this solves. Álvaro. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS
Ok, I just changed the time leeway factor to 1/4 second. It will be interesting to see how/if this changes some of the times. - Don On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:48 -0400, Don Dailey wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The way the cross-tables are sorted in the new CGOS, by strength, seems much nicer to me. I hope it stays this way. And 5 minute games sounds like a good compromise. I'm enjoying the 2 minute (really 3 minute, I guess) games. My only complaint about the 1 second leeway is that it makes it look as if my program is taking 100 times longer than most of its opponents. It makes getting creamed by Mogo just all that much more galling. ;) I think I'm going to change the leeway to a much more modest 1/4 second. A number of opponent are playing for free. - Don Dave Hillis -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Tue, 27 Mar 2007 6:41 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] Help me test CGOS On Mon, 26 Mar 2007, Don Dailey wrote: I have a prototype of the new CGOS server up and running. How about sorting the cross-tables by opponent name (please don't distinguish upper/lower-case). Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ __ Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- 2 GB of storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote: I don't like the idea of giving extra time every move. The effect is very similar to adding a fixed amount of time, since go games have fairly constant lengths. Lags are probably tiny these days for most people anyway. And you do get an update of how much time you have left, so if you do something simple like spending a constant fraction of the time left each turn, your program will adjust itself to the lag and not run out of time. In short, I don't see what problem this solves. There is a fixed amount of overhead that is being charged to the programs unfairly even under the very best of conditions, and I'm just trying to compensate for that. The idea is to guarantee that the time actually spent computing the move is an upper bound on the time the server believes was spent. Without some small fudge this is clearly impossible. Based on the times being reported on CGOS, I believe that factor should be much smaller than the 1 second I was adding. So I decreased to 1/4 second. I have also had two separate reports of programs losing on time despite the fact that they were playing instantly due to various factors which might include interface speed, network lag, even CGOS server overheads (although this appears to be quite small.) I don't want programs to lose that way. So a tiny fudge is subtracted from time spent as long as it doesn't drop it below zero. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On 3/27/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote: Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by hand to John Tromp so he can comment on the game; I couldn't do this twice as fast. :) I also like the argument that some innovative ideas might just not work very well in fast games, so it would be better to keep them longer. One feature I'm working on is to be able to watch the games as they are being played. Then you won't have to broadcast them to John. Can't John just log into your machine and watch the games? Or I think it's easy for him to set up an ssh pipe and use gogui to watch the games from his computer. I was planning to implement something like what you are describing, but if we could watch the games live on cgos that would be awesome! Álvaro. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
My vote is that if you want to trim 9x9 down to 5 minutes then I would like to keep 19x19 longer, more like 30 minutes than 15. Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods in your scheduling algorithm. Cheers, David On 27, Mar 2007, at 2:41 PM, Don Dailey wrote: We will probabably soon have a 19x19 server too, in which case I would not favor such a fast time control. I would like to get opinions on what it should be for 19x19 or other board sizes - but I'm gravitating towards 15 minutes per side on 19x19. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:36 -0700, David Doshay wrote: Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods in your scheduling algorithm. Do you mean play one time control, then on the next round play a different time control? - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
