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
12 matches
Mail list logo
