-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lavergne
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:22 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:05PM -0400, Jason
after a few hours I killed it.
David
-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Thomas Lavergne
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:22 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
[mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:55 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
It is working. That is pretty odd that it would not get scheduled.
As for the new server, I want to do a test
On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 12:39:05PM -0400, Jason House wrote:
That raises an interesting point. I've also put bots up in a setup and
forget scenario, but inevitably the bit is off of CGOS within a few days
and I had no idea when it went down.
What's the right way to solve this issue so such
-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org mailto:boun...@computer-go.org] On
Behalf Of Hideki Kato
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
I'm running
The discussion seems to be heading to a consensus: to use a single
program to anchor the rating system, and it is best to keep the
anchors that we currently use.
Additionally, we want a bunch of more-or-less fixed, more-or-less
standard programs that cover as wide a range as possible, and it is
it's more likely to expose bugs in the monte carlo programs.
David
-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Hideki Kato
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Re: fuego
] On Behalf Of Hideki Kato
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version for 9x9 and two
instances of GNU Go for 13x13, five programs in total, on a
dual-core
Athlon at home.
I strongly believe current
: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
On 9x9 I have been worrying of the lack of strong anchors but not
enough to complain about. What I think is more important is that
stronger programs are actually active on CGOS for longer periods of
time. I tried to contribute more by having versions of Valkyria
I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version for 9x9 and two
instances of GNU Go for 13x13, five programs in total, on a dual-core
Athlon at home.
I strongly believe current anchors are resource friendly enough for
older pentium 3, 4 or even Celeron processors and not necessary being
If it were me, I'd run all anchor candidates against the current CGOS to
determine the anchor value to use for that anchor candidate.
Hideki Kato wrote:
I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version for 9x9 and two
instances of GNU Go for 13x13, five programs in total, on a dual-core
.
David
-Original Message-
From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go-
boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Hideki Kato
Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength
I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version
I agree with keeping the GnuGo anchor.
My understanding is that Don wanted to bundle one or more fast
programs with the server, so that some opponents would always be
available. But I think that the rating of bundled programs should not
be fixed.
Right now we're relying on volunteers to
If I were to change anchors I would of course carefully calibrate them.
But I don't see that fuego is stronger than Gnugo at the low CPU levels I
was hoping to run at. So there is no compelling reason right now to change
anchors.
- Don
On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Michael Williams
14 matches
Mail list logo
