On May 12, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots
or the programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:33 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> Do you claim it's possible to avoid time losses by better coding? If so,
> I'm very interested in what you have in mind. Measuring lag isn't the
> answer: if your opponent is willing to play 2500 moves and you can make
> at most 2
> Do you claim it's possible to avoid time losses by better coding? If so,
> I'm very interested in what you have in mind. Measuring lag isn't the
> answer: if your opponent is willing to play 2500 moves and you can make at
> most 2 per second because of lag, then you will lose no matter what you
Carter Cheng wrote:
I have looked over the language specification for D and it has alot of nice
features however the maturity issue is a big one for me and unless there is a
huge gain in productivity I suspect I will stick to C++.
For me there was a huge gain in productivity once I got ove
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot always
I have looked over the language specification for D and it has alot of nice
features however the maturity issue is a big one for me and unless there is a
huge gain in productivity I suspect I will stick to C++.
Admittedly C++ is not probably not the best language to prototype in and it
would be
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot a
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
> programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
> compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot always
> moves instantly
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If it is indeed a KGS flaw I may add a workaround to Leela as simple
as doing time = time / 10 as soon as winrate >95% or so. There is
still a possibility of losing on time then but it should happen less.
That is a
Don Dailey wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If it is indeed a KGS flaw I may add a workaround to Leela as simple
as doing time = time / 10 as soon as winrate >95% or so. There is
still a possibility of losing on time then but it should happen less.
That is almost the identical heuristic
10 matches
Mail list logo
