On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:43:23PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
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 introduces a bias towards pairing faster
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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.
Hello all,
I prefer very short
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:25 +0200, Edward de Grijs wrote:
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
Hi,
regarding time controls and the impossibility to please everyone, I'd
like to make a suggestion:
Let the engines specify a preferred time control and use a scheduler
that takes that into account (as a strong recommendation). For example
if there are two engines wanting to play at 10
Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
For 19x19 I find it a little too fast.
I would prefer
fastest: 4 sec/move (x240 moves) = 16 min
slowest: 30 sec/move (x240 moves) = 2 hours
I would like to try both. Usually fast because,
as you pointed, you get useful
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
16 matches
Mail list logo
