The web site displays the wrong time-control. That will be confusing
to people. Can you fix that?
Unfortunately, I can not change things from where I am until wednesday.
I'll fix all I can, starting from November 1st (or before if I can find a
stable internet connection).
Olivier
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 do think that the rating differences inbetween programs due
to a shorter time setting do not change significantly (more
than a few stones),
I like the long time controls. I disagree about the rating
difference, it makes a lot of difference because some programs respond
to time more than others.It even makes a big difference in my own
programs. 30 minutes is still way shorter than what is played in
competitions.
At the
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;
There is a lot of talk about time controls, and would like to add my input.
I agree we should have longer time controls. I'm in the very early
stages of my Go engine. With my current time line I dont anticipate
having a running engine for at least a year. My design is a good bit
different than
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
___
My choice is 30 min per side, but I understand that some people are more
interested in 10 min per side, so I suggest that the cgos protocol
have a
requested time option. If a player requests 10 min then there is an
attempt
to match it against another player requesting the same time, likewise
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
Couldn't there just be two servers? There were multiple volunteers. A server
with long games might draw more viewers but fewer participants. Shorter games
would be more helpful for those of us working on weak 19x19 programs that other
people are less interested in anyway.
- Dave Hillis
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
My thoughts are that it would fragment the players, we would get much
less activity on either server and we need lot's of variety.
However, I'm really liking the idea of playing quick 19x19 matches
between rounds. It's the best of both worlds.I would arrange it so
that this would never
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.In this way a program can play both fast and slow games or
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
Hi Don,
Thanks very much for your effort to work cgoses. I'd like to support
your idea and expect you will implement it.
-Hideki
Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
My thoughts are that it would fragment the players, we would get much
less activity on either server and we need lot's of variety.
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 is
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
