I'm voting for 2 time settings: One normal and one fast (so maybe 5 min and 1
min on 9x9).
--
GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT!
Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01
___
computer-go mailing list
From what I can see, there is resistance to this idea - so what I'm going to
do is to provide venues which are standalone but makes it possible later to
add a time control.In other words for now there will be only 1 time
control per board size but the server will be flexible enough that other
Maybe we could agree that 1 day out of 7 in a week would be played on
6 times faster time controls.
The same bots, connections, logins, the same number of games per week.
Different rating of course.
This would be a problem only for hardcoded bots with no time control.
The advantage would be that
I vote for 2 venues, each optional. Separate rating pools is a must.
Łukasz Lew wrote:
Maybe we could agree that 1 day out of 7 in a week would be played on
6 times faster time controls.
The same bots, connections, logins, the same number of games per week.
Different rating of course.
This
Whatever the eventual decision is - personally I would love a fast-play
venue as an alternative, with separate rating - please don't worry too
much about engines with fixed playouts, or engines that cannot handle
certain time limits.
The GTP client sitting between the engine and server will
On Mon, 15 Jun 2009, Brian Sheppard wrote:
Please don't do anything that decreases the frequency of games in order
to accommodate programs that want to play on multiple venues. Keep venues
strictly separate. Programs that want to play on multiple venues can just
log in multiple times.
I second
I agree with David. Have one time control per board size.
I like the 5-minute controls for 9x9. You can take your program
down for extensive offline testing and still get 100 games per day.
That is far more data than you can analyze. Still, the speed is
fast enough for ratings to stabilize
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.comwrote:
Given all the negative reaction to nested time control, I have to say I
like it. The pool won't be diluted as long as there's an obvious main venue.
A good compromise might be to have only 2 venues, one such as
I'll express my opinion here, but keep in mind that my engine (cogito)
has only played 44 games as of now on CGOS. I have a few problems with
separate time controls.
--It dilutes the rating pool. If there is only one time control,
everyone can play everyone. If there are separate time controls,
I'm for keeping the number of pools small, to keep their sizes large.
Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Zach Wegner zweg...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll express my opinion here, but keep in mind that my engine (cogito)
has only played 44 games as of now on CGOS. I have a few problems with
separate time controls.
--It dilutes the rating pool. If there is only one time
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org
[mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Monday, June 15, 2009 7:02 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jason House jason.james.ho...@gmail.com
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Handicap games opens a can of worms.
Of course, any program is free to give its opponent any handicap it wants,
by passing in the opening (if the opponent didn't pass last).
It is up to the operator of the bot to decide when and how
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Heikki Levantohei...@lsd.dk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Handicap games opens a can of worms.
Of course, any program is free to give its opponent any handicap it wants,
by passing in the opening (if the opponent didn't pass
Yes, there are lots of problem with this. And some of my bots will
automatically pass if doing so gives it the immediate win, so already I
know of one program that this will not work. As soon as you pass, the game
is over.
Of course CGOS could be modified with a rule not to end the game
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 11:19:51AM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
When I complete the new server, I hope that it will be easier to collect
larger samples of games. I think this will help the situation a little.
There will be multiple time controls, but they will be in sync, so that your
program
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 12:38:22PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
You will be able to select which time controls you are willing to play - the
server will not force you to play in all of them. Some may choose to
play only fast games and other may not be able to play in the fast games,
such as
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 12:36 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
There will be multiple time controls, but they will be in sync, so that
your
program can always play in a shorter time control game without missing a
game at the longer time control.The idea is to keep
Handicap games opens a can of worms. The last time we discussed it,
it was difficult to get any kind of reasonable agreement on how to do it.
There are many variations of rules with regard to handicap stones. On
top of that, we have to think about how to rate such games.
Of course there are
.
-- Allen Thornton, Laws of the Jungle
From: Christoph Birk b...@ociw.edu
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2009 2:59:07 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] New CGOS
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Don Dailey wrote:
Handicap games opens a can of worms
On Jun 5, 2009, at 5:59 PM, Christoph Birk b...@ociw.edu wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Don Dailey wrote:
Handicap games opens a can of worms. The last time we discussed it,
it was difficult to get any kind of reasonable agreement on how to
do it.
Handicap games are for humans ... they get
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Christoph Birk b...@ociw.edu wrote:
Handicap games are for humans ... they get frustrated losing
over and over. Computers have no problems with that.
2009/6/5 terry mcintyre terrymcint...@yahoo.com:
The purpose of a handicap games is to allow a 50% chance of
We have designed a new CGOS engine client that has more features and
should be more convenient to use.
Here are the primary new features:
1. You can run multiple engines if you choose.
2. You can specify server and port.
3. Works with configuration file - so you have multiple configs
Don,
Although I'm not interested in this feature at this point in time I
applaud the effort you put into this server.
Just some information with regards to Mac clients: it turns out Macs
come with a tcl runtime out of the box. So you should point Mac users
simply to the cgos3.tcl file
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 05:46:12PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
The new cgos has a slightly better look:
Looks promising!
I need volunteers for testing. If you want to enter your bot on the
new server as a test, feel free.
I will try to set halgo up to play there.
I will be making some
It's going to be down for a couple of days while I catch up on
other work - but I will want to put it for testing again
later.
I may put up the test version as a 2 minute server and try to
get a lot of programs to hammer it. Of course I don't care
about the quality of the bots in this test
We have a scheduled power outage this weekend.
If you still need a bot on Monday we will put up a SlugGo.
Cheers,
David
On 20, Mar 2007, at 2:46 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I need volunteers for testing.
___
computer-go mailing list
On Tue, Mar 20, 2007 at 05:46:12PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
I need volunteers for testing. If you want to enter your bot on the
new server as a test, feel free.I will be making some minor changes
to the protocol which will eventually break the client - but this client
will work for a
I took the binary down, because it's no longer compatible - I made a
couple of changes and I'm no longer testing the server anyway.
However, I will be testing the server again later and will put up
a new client when I'm ready. Right now I have to take care of
some other obligations.I'll
The new cgos has a slightly better look:
http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/CGOS/
The links to the crosstable not quite there yet, but the
crosstable looks like this:
http://www.greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/CGOS/cross/AnchorFat.html
I need volunteers for testing.
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 14:41 -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
Don,
How is the new version of cgos coming along? From what I understood,
you were very close to finished, but didn't have much time to devote
to it.
It's currently on hold. I'm worried about having a good cross-platform
viewing client.
Are you going to release the source for it? If you are, some of us might be
able to make some suggestions for how to port it to various platforms. Just
a thought. BTW, I know that I appreciate the work you are putting in and
I'm sure others are as well.
- Nick
On 2/3/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 19:18 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
Are you going to release the source for it? If you are, some of us
might be able to make some suggestions for how to port it to various
platforms. Just a thought. BTW, I know that I appreciate the work
you are putting in and I'm sure
On Sat, 2007-02-03 at 19:18 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
Are you going to release the source for it? If you are, some of us
might be able to make some suggestions for how to port it to various
platforms. Just a thought. BTW, I know that I appreciate the work
you are putting in and I'm sure
34 matches
Mail list logo
