Yes, the 19x19 server is down.
It's up and running now.
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Have you selected the room with bot's name as a member?
Yes. Seemingly only public rooms are possible for bots.
I'm interested in if someone has a solution for private rooms.
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Have you selected the room with bot's name as a member?
-Hideki
Olivier Teytaud: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The crosstables are back, but the sgf archives ar not.
Sorry, many troubles since the maintenance of the website... i'm
on that.
___
computer-go
Le mardi 22 janvier 2008, Olivier Teytaud a écrit :
Have you selected the room with bot's name as a member?
Yes. Seemingly only public rooms are possible for bots.
I'm interested in if someone has a solution for private rooms.
I know that Aloril is running one mogobot clone in my go
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
the 19x19 CGOS ranking page is back (but might be still unstable)
and Leela seemingly performs quite well.
The crosstables will come back soon also.
The crosstables are back, but the sgf archives ar not.
I get:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access
The crosstables are back, but the sgf archives ar not.
Sorry, many troubles since the maintenance of the website... i'm
on that.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
I'd love to CGOS use something like sourceforge for tracking feature
requests, bugs, and even source code.
On 11/1/07, Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have re-launched the cgos 19x19 web-updater for
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html.
I suggest that bug-reports and
Don Dailey wrote:
Of course that's better, but I'm talking about a quick and
dirty solution. I may never implement handicap games since it's
tricky with ELO ratings.
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is
too strong, Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too
strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart
It would be easy to change the cgos3.tcl script to enable self-handicap
in this way. I would make this
change if crazy-stone or mogo would agree to put up a copy.
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.
If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning. i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only cooperating programs will have their
One way to handle handicaps without a server change which could be
easily implemented with the client is to to simply make the first N
moves random - but it would not resemble a traditional handicap system
in any way. Plus the first N moves might end up being pretty good
moves so it would be
:28:44 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:23:46 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
One way to handle handicaps without a server change which could be
easily implemented with the client is to to simply make the first N
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart
The whole idea is to not have to change the server. If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.
I remember us talking about this before - we went back and forth on how
to implement handicap with chinese scoring and CGOS but I don't remember
what conclusion I
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
The whole idea is to not have to change the server. If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.
But this is a trivial change compared to dealing with an
ad hoc ELO/handicap conversion.
Christoph
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
or to simply not include the results of such games,
so as not to break the protocol for machines that
wanted to have such games take place.
What would break?
Server - clientB: genmove
clientB - Server:PASS
server - clientW: play PASS
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning. i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only
So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?
Or simply to not rate them? Or is it to not consider 2 passes a draw
unless 20 moves have been played?
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might
ah, well, okay then. :)
s.
- Original Message
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:24:41 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
or to simply not include
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like this:
pass
pass
pass
etc.
I think it is very unlikely for any program to pass in the early
game (my would not :-)
And if, there is no harm done, as at
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like this:
pass
pass
pass
etc.
And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
program will start
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?
No, just have the server not stop games before move-20.
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like
My only arugment is that it would look silly - but it would be correct.
But I guess passing on the first few moves will always look silly.
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which
, 26 Oct 2007 07:32:42 +0900 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re:
[computer-go] 19x19 CGOS To: computer-go@computer-go.org I prefer shorter
time control. The object I use cgos is to measure my program's performance
against other programs. Cgos is not a tournament in any sense. It should
of this?
Edward.
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 07:32:42 +0900
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
I prefer shorter time control.
The object I use cgos is to measure my program's performance against
other programs. Cgos
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 11:54 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Hi all,
For CGOS 19x19 I prefer a short time control (10min/game) because:
1) More quickly a more accurate rating can be established.
I agree with Don. 10 minutes sudden death is brutally short for 19x19.
You are limiting
Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun,
2007-10-28 at 11:54 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote: Hi all, For CGOS
19x19 I prefer a short time control (10min/game) because: 1) More quickly
a more accurate rating can be established. I agree with Don. 10 minutes
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 15:59 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Hi, maybe so, but can you name some programs which cannot cope
with 10 minutes thinking time for 19x19?
I'm working on my own program, and I don't want to be limited to 10
minutes for 19x19. I'll let others speak about their own
Hi Edward,
I can give you the goals of CGOS since I wrote CGOS for my own reasons.
As a chess programmer I noticed that serious events and competitions
were a huge impetus to making programming improvements. A lot of
programmers told me the same thing, that despite the testing they did
Would anyone be interested in a highly configurable version 11 with gtp
interface?
Version 11 has a set of parameters that control the searching that I can
easily read from a file.
/* LEVELS:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 */
int maxmoves[NUMLEVELS] = /* maximum number of moves to try on
At 09:27 AM 10/28/2007, you wrote:
Would anyone be interested in a highly configurable version 11 with gtp
interface?
...
i'll buy one.
thanks
---
vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
While I don't own a copy of Many Faces (and probably won't for a while),
what you suggest would be a big help to my use of it.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 09:27 -0700, David Fotland wrote:
Would anyone be interested in a highly configurable version 11 with gtp
interface?
Version 11 has a set of
Hi all,
Jeff Nowakowski: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 11:54 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Hi all,
For CGOS 19x19 I prefer a short time control (10min/game) because:
1) More quickly a more accurate rating can be established.
I agree with Don. 10 minutes sudden death is
About fairness, as classical programs including GNU Go and ManyFaces
need about ten minutes for their best performace, why do you give
other (Monte Carlo) programs thirty minutes?
What time control do they use in serious tournaments?Do you consider
them fair or unfair?
- Don
I think I agree with Ed, but I also see and appreciate the arguments you
give as well. I also like to watch CGOS games to evaluate my bot, but 1
hour per game is somewhat past my attention span (for real go games
too).
In all likelihood, I'll probably stick to 9x9 for most of my stuff
(largest
I added a copy of Many Faces of Go running at level 1 (with almost no
search) to add some variety for the weak programs. This version looks at
the top 2 suggestions from the move generator, does a 1 ply search without
quiescence, does a full board evaluation for each, and picks the best one.
Late
I'm working on MFGO 12 and I'd like 30 minutes so I can test against a
variety of programs at tournament time limits.
I don't need hundreds of games to tune, since my program is knowledge based.
I'm not just changing parameters and seeing what happens. I'm looking for
bad moves and adding
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
About fairness, as classical programs including GNU Go and ManyFaces
need about ten minutes for their best performace, why do you give
other (Monte Carlo) programs thirty minutes?
What time control do they use in serious tournaments?Do you consider
Regarding Don Dailiey's rationale for CGOS and 30-minute (or longer) time
controls: a hearty AMEN!
The goal here is to improve the quality of play - not merely at blitz pace, but
at slower rate more comparable to the pace of humans.
Some older programs peak at 10 minutes for a 19x19 game;
On Oct 28, 2007, at 11:16 AM, terry mcintyre wrote:
Don's idea of packing in blitz games between the longer games makes
a lot of sense; it would enable a second track for those who want
results more quickly.
I too like that idea.
Christoph
___
I think a lot of the early CGOS ratings were (are?) very skewed. It
had two
anchors at a (arbitrary) fixed distance of 600 but of almost the same
strength
(win-rate 49-51%). It will take several days to overcome that.
Chrisotph
___
computer-go
-Original Message-
From: terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Regarding Don Dailiey's rationale for CGOS and 30-minute (or longer) time
controls: a hearty AMEN!
The goal here
If I combine some reactions so far I understand that
the main motivation to have 30min/game or longer time
controls is that that is more comparable to the pace of
humans, and that is is more easy for some new
programs (not MC based)
I can imagine that some humans will argue that blitz
Edward de Grijs wrote:
The CrazyStone row has dissapeared because not enough
games were played, so there will be a larger standard
deviation around those values (I expect a 1 sigma value of
about 50 elo. It would be interesting to incluse those
numbers on every row (Don?))
Uncertainty about
I'm always going to tend to favor longer time controls. I don't think
anyone here can reasonably argue that the quality of the games goes up
with faster time controls - it's just the opposite.And given a
choice between lower and higher quality games, I would tend to favor
higher quality
Sent: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Regarding Don Dailiey's rationale for CGOS and 30-minute (or longer)
time controls: a hearty AMEN!
The goal here is to improve the quality of play - not merely at blitz
pace, but at slower rate more comparable to the pace
David Fotland wrote:
It's hard to believe crazy stone is 7 stones stronger than mfgo. I'd
like to see some handicap games to show this. 100 ELO might have some
relation 1 handicap stone at low ratings, but at higher strengths, 1
stone handicap must be a smaller ELO difference.
David
What if one program agreed to moving at a1 on the first move? Would
this simulate a handicap pretty well?
You could get up to 4 (or is it 5) by agreeing to move to various corner
intersections.
Is it better to pass than move A1 on the first move?
I suggest it might be interesting if the
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 17:05 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Dave,
Two servers is easy, but 1 server is better.The plan is that I will
combine fast and slow games into one server.When a slow round is
complete, there will be a delay while the current fast round is being
completed.
gtp has specific support for handicap games. If we do handicap, I'd
prefer to see the server use those specialized commands.
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 17:21 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
What if one program agreed to moving at a1 on the first move? Would
this simulate a handicap pretty well?
You
Oops, I forgot to tell it to randomize. I'll restart it with random turned
on.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rémi Coulom
Sent: Sunday, October 28, 2007 1:39 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS (CS vs
A lot of times there will be an odd number of players, in which case a
random slow player will sit out (but would get to play fast games.)
- Don
Jason House wrote:
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 17:05 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Hi Dave,
Two servers is easy, but 1 server is better.The plan is
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 17:33 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
A lot of times there will be an odd number of players, in which case a
random slow player will sit out (but would get to play fast games.)
The odd number thing won't help two dual speed bots play each other at
fast settings. Of course,
Hi Don,
Sounds like a good idea.
- Dave Hillis
-Original Message-
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Sun, 28 Oct 2007 5:05 pm
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Hi Dave,
Two servers is easy, but 1 server is better.The plan
On 28, Oct 2007, at 7:59 AM, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 11:54 +0100, Edward de Grijs wrote:
Hi all,
For CGOS 19x19 I prefer a short time control (10min/game) because:
1) More quickly a more accurate rating
On Oct 28, 2007, at 2:37 PM, Don Dailey wrote
Jason House wrote:
gtp has specific support for handicap games. If we do handicap, I'd
prefer to see the server use those specialized commands.
Of course that's better, but I'm talking about a quick and dirty
solution. I may never implement
I agree that a lengthy discussion right now is probably not needed,
but I want to toss in a thought:
Every now and again, perhaps every 3 months, turn off ELO rating
and instead start using a variant of the 3 games in a row method
for a fixed period of time, perhaps 2 weeks.
Many players at
This sounds very good to me.
Cheers,
David
On 28, Oct 2007, at 2:05 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
The plan is that I will
combine fast and slow games into one server.When a slow round is
complete, there will be a delay while the current fast round is
being
completed.In this way a
I think I would handle this by assuming 100 ELO is 1 stone handicap.
The data on CGOS would eventually tell me if this should be adjusted.
Or I would probably just make it self adjusting.
- Don
David Doshay wrote:
I agree that a lengthy discussion right now is probably not needed,
but I
19x19 server:
I have changed 10 minutes to 30 minutes per side.
I have modified the anchors (but the --positional-superko option
is seemingly not recognized; I'll correct that later).
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
The anchors are:
/usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead
--chinese-rules --level 0
/usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead
--chinese-rules --level 10
The numbers (1200 and 1800) are arbitrary; all suggestions welcome,
as for the command-line
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Olivier Teytaud
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:37 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
The anchors are:
/usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath
--capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
Don Dailey wrote:
Who is running gnugo 10?You must using the right options. Here is
how I run it:
gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules
--positional-superko
You can skip --score aftermath, it has no effect when --mode gtp is
used. (Without --mode gtp it
] On Behalf Of
David Fotland
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:13 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'computer-go'
Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at
fill strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to
see the sgf record. right
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Tayek
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:05 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
At 09:53 AM 10/27/2007, you wrote:
At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was
top of the
list. At 30 minutes it's 1650. Many Faces
On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:53 AM, David Fotland wrote:
At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was top of
the list.
At 30 minutes it's 1650. Many Faces 11 was tuned for the machines
in the
1990s, and clearly it needs work for modern machines.
I don't understand that. The anchor
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christoph Birk
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:07 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:53 AM, David Fotland wrote:
At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was top of
the list.
At 30 minutes it's 1650
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:
NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.
Did it? I thought the anchor (gnugo-level-10) plays just that, at
level10. How would it get stronger?
When the time
limit got longer Many Faces started taking 1 minute instead of 5
:)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christoph Birk
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 3:51 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:
NO, it's because gnugo got stronger
PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christoph Birk
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 3:51 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:
NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.
Did
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:59 PM, David Fotland wrote:
Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts
the level
down between moves. I think with th 30 minute control it is
staying at
level 10 the whole game.
But even now it is only using 3 minutes ... it was not short of
Of
Christoph Birk
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 4:50 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:59 PM, David Fotland wrote:
Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts
the level
down between moves. I think with th 30 minute
Thanks to GNU-people who successfully
connected their bot to the server.
The server seemingly works.
cgos.lri.fr, port 6919.
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
19x19, 10 minutes per side (for the moment, to be increased).
Olivier
___
I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill strength.
It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf record. right now
it gives an error.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Olivier Teytaud
Sent:
Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory that looks
like this:
-[ snip ]---
AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
-[ snip ]-
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill strength.
It ouwld be nice if
Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
of your games right now.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill strength.
It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf record. right now
it gives an
for a 12 MHz x286, it works pretty
well at very short time limits.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
pretty
well at very short time limits.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Are you able
Thanks. It works for me now.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:58 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
As far as I know the viewer works just fine.
Has anyone
] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
of your games right now.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I puton Many
] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
of your games right now.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
Alrighty figured it out
./cgosviewer cgos.lri.fr 6919
Sorry was going from various emails, but it works now :) yuppy
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
of your games right now.
- Don
David Fotland wrote:
I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill
strength. It ouwld be nice if I
] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory
that looks like this:
-[ snip ]---
AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
10 that's fixed at 1800 doesn't remove dead stones, so the
score is often wrong.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go
.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory
that looks like
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
To: computer-go
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory
that looks like this:
-[ snip ]---
AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
-[ snip ]-
- Don
Sorry for the trouble for downloading the SGF files
on the 19x19 server; it is seemingly ok now.
Olivier
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
unsettled situations to read. If you do add more time, 15 or 20 minutes per
side should be enough.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Fant
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:27 PM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go
I just tried it, but I can't connect.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Christoph Birk
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007
On 10/25/07, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just tried it, but I can't connect.
That's expected. Past discussion seems to imply there's some kind of
firewall (or similar) blocking external access.
___
computer-go mailing list
: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
I oppose more time per side.
On 10/23/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
If someone wants to test it, the port is 6919 on machine
pc5-120.lri.fr. 10 minutes
I'd argue that 30 minutes is a good compromise.
Among humans, that would be a brisk pace but not blitz - common time controls
are 60 or 90 minutes, and much longer for some pro tournaments.
For computers, 30 minutes should give enough time to bump up the standard of
play a few more kyu, while
search sizes are fixed at
something like 200 nodes per search.
David
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:53 AM
To: computer-go
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
Hi David
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
David Fotland
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:04 PM
To: 'computer-go'
Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
I have no problem with longer time controls. Many Faces 11
was tuned to play in about 45 minutes on hardware available
in 2000. It won't
I'm not sure what the status of the 19x19 server is, if it looks like
it isn't going to happen I have another option.
Technically it works, but an authorization (for opening the ports
for computers out of the laboratory) is still missing.
But, if someone else wants to install it, no problem
1 - 100 of 132 matches
Mail list logo
