date:20071028

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 moment it will take especially long to establish a rating because
almost every program is unrated.   I doubt the current ratings are very
accurate as a result of this.But you don't have to watch the games, 
just set it and forget it for a while.

I am strongly considering an improvement where fast games are played to
fill the time. 

I also think 30 is good because dual core and more will become more and
more common.   I have a dual core and it's wonderful - I can do
something like play on cgos and also do other things with very little
effect on the cgos game.

- Don

  

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 do think that the rating differences inbetween programs due
 to a shorter time setting do not change significantly (more
 than a few stones), while the rating difference of a newer
 program version (an update) within the pool can be shown with
 a better accuracy, due to the more games that will be played.
  
 2) I am using my (single cpu) computer also for other things, and
 if I want to stop the cgos calculations I don't want to wait
 up to one hour before I can use it again.
 (It also takes longer before the first game starts).
  
 Just my opinion here.
  
 I noticed on cgos 19x19 that when crazystone stopped
 playing, it's name was not displayed on the cgos list
 anymore.
 What's is the cause 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 is not a tournament in any sense. It should be
  a tool for developers, I believe. Then, fairness is not so important
  because I can estimate my program's performace at longer time
  control easily. Most important thing for me is to know my program's
  rating _quickly_.
 
  I'd like to ask shorter time settings.
 
  -Hideki
 
  Olivier Teytaud: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
  
  Ok for 30 minutes after the testing phase (for the tests
  I guess that 10 minutes is too long :-) ).
  
  For the moment I am trying to get the authorization
  of opening a port for socket connection -
  for the moment I guess only
  people in the same laboratory as me can connect to
  the machine, what is not a satisfactory behavior :-)
  
  Olivier
  ___
  computer-go mailing list
  computer-go@computer-go.org
  http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
  --
  [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
  ___
  computer-go mailing list
  computer-go@computer-go.org
  http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


 
 Pas je zoekresultaten aan op JOUW wensen met Live.nl! Live.nl
 http://www.live.com/?mkt=nl-nl
 

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Jeff Nowakowski

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 the pool and strength of programs available for CGOS.

If all you want is a quick and dirty rating for minor updates, why don't
you just run your program against Gnu Go and/or MoGo at fast time
settings on your own machine?  Then when you think you have a stable and
significant improvement, run your program on CGOS for a beefier test?
This is how MoGo achieved dominance in 9x9.

-Jeff

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Edward de Grijs


 
 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 
 sudden death is brutally short for 19x19. You are limiting the pool and 
 strength of programs available for CGOS.
 
Hi, maybe so, but can you name some programs which cannot cope 
with 10 minutes thinking time for 19x19?
Note that my own program is a MC program which will play weaker
in relation to for instance gnugo which the shorter thinking time, but
I find that not important because as a programmer I want to see 
the relative progress over time.
 
 If all you want is a quick and dirty rating for minor updates, why don't you 
 just run your program against Gnu Go and/or MoGo at fast time settings on 
 your own machine? Then when you think you have a stable and significant 
 improvement, run your program on CGOS for a beefier test? This is how MoGo 
 achieved dominance in 9x9.
 
This is just what I do with about 1 minute for each 13x13 game :-)
In the past it happened that there were so many MoGo versions running 
on CGOS that it was questioned here in this mailing list if this could be 
reduced to create more diversity, if I remember this correctly.
So CGOS was used by the MoGo team to get in impression about the
rating of different updates in relation other programs then gnugo.
And diversity is also the reason I like to test on CGOS.
If it takes to long to establish a rating on CGOS I more often will use
my own pool of programs (only gnugo for now) but then with different 
programs available, instead of establish a rating on CGOS which 
takes about 120 games or about 60 hours (estimation) of computer 
time.
 
Maybe I am confused about the goals of CGOS? I thought that 
programmers could use it to get a good impression of improvements
over time.
And I also like to see the progress of other programs over time.
I think this is also interesting to see for others.
 
Edward.
 
 
 
  
 
_
Live.nl: je eigen persoonlijk startpagina met nieuws en feeds die JIJ 
belangrijk vindt!
http://www.live.com/getstarted.aspx___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Jeff Nowakowski

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 programs.

 Maybe I am confused about the goals of CGOS? I thought that 
 programmers could use it to get a good impression of improvements
 over time.

Sure, to track improvements, but also to see which program is the
strongest.  Having the strongest program at a very fast speed is not as
interesting as having the strongest program at a reasonable speed, for
some definition of reasonable.

I think getting a very fast rating on minor updates should not be the
goal of CGOS -- you can do that on your own machine with Gnu Go, MoGo,
and your own test suites.  CGOS should be more like a continuous
tournament to test major updates of programs.  Waiting a day or two to
get a rating at reasonable time controls then shouldn't be a big deal.

That's my 2 cents, anyways.

-Jeff

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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
on the side,   actual competitions seemed to reveal problems and bugs.   

So what I thought would be useful to the computer go community would be
a forum for testing that could also stimulate competition and would have
some meaning.  In other words, I didn't make CGOS only as a way to
test your program or even just to get a rating, but as a way to
stimulate competition. That's a big key to most improvements in most
fields,   and nothing brings this out more than real competition with
real numbers. I wanted it to mean something if your program makes it
to the top 10 on CGOS,  etc.

You will probably notice that CGOS results have been used in papers
written about computer GO,  to verify that the techniques used in the
paper have some validity. What I've always hated is unverifiable
papers.There  is a summary section near the end where the techniques
being presented are experimentally verified with their own self-tests
- which nobody else can usually verify because the program is not open
to the public. CGOS is superb for that too - it's a public forum to
expose your creations - good, bad or ugly, to the world.

In computer chess, and I assume also in computer go,   there is more
status associated with games which are played at time controls us humans
think are serious.Also, there is much more status associated with
games that are public as opposed to private testing.   Status is
good in this context for computer go.  It's why I made the choices I
did and why I think longer time controls are better for the computer go
community as a whole.

I agree that there are reasonable arguments for faster time controls,  I
don't discount those reasons,  but when all things are considered
together,  I think the reasons for having longer time controls make more
sense. I believe even 30 minutes is fast, but it's a good compromise
in my opinion.

- Don

 


 Hi, maybe so, but can you name some programs which cannot cope
 with 10 minutes thinking time for 19x19?
 Note that my own program is a MC program which will play weaker
 in relation to for instance gnugo which the shorter thinking time, but
 I find that not important because as a programmer I want to see
 the relative progress over time.
  
  
 Maybe I am confused about the goals of CGOS? I thought that
 programmers could use it to get a good impression of improvements
 over time.
 And I also like to see the progress of other programs over time.
 I think this is also interesting to see for others.
  
 Edward.
  
  
  
   
  

 
 Publiceer JOUW leven online met Windows Live Spaces: weblog, foto,
 video en muziek! Het is gratis! Het is gratis!
 http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnksac003001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.imagine-msn.com/spaces

 

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 full board
*/
{  0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,10,12, 15, 20, 28 };  /* lots, so in endgame can
look at lots of moves */
int maxvariations[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of leafs per move tried */
{  0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,  10,  13 };
char maxscorebrdepth[NUMLEVELS] =   /* max depth for any branches in
getscore scorebestmove */
{  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 }; 
char maxscoredepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for getscore */
{  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3,  3,  4 };
int maxlifecalls[NUMLEVELS] =  /* total evaluations, should be around
maxmoves*maxvariations */
{  0, 5, 9,13,20,30,45,65,95,200,400 };

/* LEVELS:1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10  */
unsigned char taclibs[NUMLEVELS] = /* max liberties in a tactical fight
*/
{  0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4,  4,  4 };
unsigned char eyetaclibs[NUMLEVELS] = /* max liberties for eye diagonal
*/
{  0, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3,  3,  3 };
int cancapsize[NUMLEVELS] = /* size of search in canbecaptured */
{  0, 7,10,15,20,30,40,60,80,110,150 };
unsigned char eyecapsize[NUMLEVELS] = /* size of search for eyes diags */
{  0, 2, 3, 4, 5,10, 15,20,25,30, 40 };
unsigned char eyecapdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* depth of search for eyes diags */
{  0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6,  6,  6 };
unsigned char conncapsize[NUMLEVELS] = /* size of search for connections */
{  0, 4, 6, 8,10, 20,30,40,55,80,100 };
unsigned char conncapdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* depth of search for connections
*/
{  0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 12, 14 };
char mvmost[NUMLEVELS] =/* number of moves considered for ladder at each
ply */
{  0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3,  3,  3 };
char eyemost[NUMLEVELS] =/* number of moves considered for ladder at
each ply */
{  0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 };
char connmost[NUMLEVELS] =/* number of moves considered for ladder at
each ply */
{  0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 };
int maxbranchdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* maximum depth for branches in tactical
move tree (unless move values are close) */
{  0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4,  4,  4 };
int maxtacdiff[NUMLEVELS] =  /* maximum difference between best tac move and
this move*/
{  0,16,16,16,32,64,64,96,120,180,250 };
int mintacval[NUMLEVELS] =   /* minimum value move has to be considered
tacticaly */
{  0, 0, 0, 0, 0,-10,-10, -10,-16,-20,-31 };
int numpotmoves[NUMLEVELS] =   /* Number of moves to read for adpot() to
capture group */
{  0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 };


/* LEVELS:1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10 */
int maxjosvariations[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of joseki variations -
endpoints per first level joseki move */
{  0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3,  4,  6 }; 
int maxpatvariations[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of pattern variations per
move */
{  0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4,  5,  6 }; 
int maxjosbranches[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of joseki variations per move
at depth 1 */
{  0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2,  2,  3 }; 
unsigned char mdist[NUMLEVELS] =  /* distance to radiate influence from
live groups */
{  0, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12,  13,  13 };


/* Fights: no fight reading below level 5 */
/* LEVELS:1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10 */
int maxfightbranches[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of fight variations per
move */
{  0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 }; 
char maxfightdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for reading fight */
{  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,  7,  9 };
int maxfightbrdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for branches in reading fight
*/
{  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4,  5,  5 };
int maxsemdiff[NUMLEVELS] =  /* maximum difference between best semeai move
and this move*/
{  0, 8,16,24,32,40,50,60,80,90,100 };


  
  i have a copy of 11. is there any way to crank it up other 
 than level
  10. maybe a config file somewhere? have you considered a highly 
  configurable version 12 for some of us on the list?
  


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Ray Tayek


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
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 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 full board
 */
 {  0, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,10,12, 15, 20, 28 };  /* lots, so in endgame can
 look at lots of moves */
 int maxvariations[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of leafs per move tried */
 {  0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7,  10,  13 };
 char maxscorebrdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for any branches in
 getscore scorebestmove */
   {  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 }; 
 char maxscoredepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for getscore */
 {  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3,  3,  4 };
 int maxlifecalls[NUMLEVELS] =  /* total evaluations, should be around
 maxmoves*maxvariations */
 {  0, 5, 9,13,20,30,45,65,95,200,400 };
 
 /* LEVELS:1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10  */
 unsigned char taclibs[NUMLEVELS] = /* max liberties in a tactical fight
 */
 {  0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4,  4,  4 };
 unsigned char eyetaclibs[NUMLEVELS] = /* max liberties for eye diagonal
 */
 {  0, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3,  3,  3 };
 int cancapsize[NUMLEVELS] = /* size of search in canbecaptured */
 {  0, 7,10,15,20,30,40,60,80,110,150 };
 unsigned char eyecapsize[NUMLEVELS] = /* size of search for eyes diags */
 {  0, 2, 3, 4, 5,10, 15,20,25,30, 40 };
 unsigned char eyecapdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* depth of search for eyes diags */
 {  0, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6,  6,  6 };
 unsigned char conncapsize[NUMLEVELS] = /* size of search for connections */
 {  0, 4, 6, 8,10, 20,30,40,55,80,100 };
 unsigned char conncapdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* depth of search for connections
 */
 {  0, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9,10, 12, 14 };
 char mvmost[NUMLEVELS] =/* number of moves considered for ladder at each
 ply */
 {  0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3,  3,  3 };
 char eyemost[NUMLEVELS] =/* number of moves considered for ladder at
 each ply */
 {  0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 };
 char connmost[NUMLEVELS] =/* number of moves considered for ladder at
 each ply */
 {  0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 };
 int maxbranchdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* maximum depth for branches in tactical
 move tree (unless move values are close) */
 {  0, 1, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 4,  4,  4 };
 int maxtacdiff[NUMLEVELS] =  /* maximum difference between best tac move and
 this move*/
 {  0,16,16,16,32,64,64,96,120,180,250 };
 int mintacval[NUMLEVELS] =   /* minimum value move has to be considered
 tacticaly */
   {  0, 0, 0, 0, 0,-10,-10, -10,-16,-20,-31 };
 int numpotmoves[NUMLEVELS] =   /* Number of moves to read for adpot() to
 capture group */
   {  0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2 };
 
 
 /* LEVELS:1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10 */
 int maxjosvariations[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of joseki variations -
 endpoints per first level joseki move */
 {  0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 3,  4,  6 }; 
 int maxpatvariations[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of pattern variations per
 move */
 {  0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4,  5,  6 }; 
 int maxjosbranches[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of joseki variations per move
 at depth 1 */
 {  0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2,  2,  3 }; 
 unsigned char mdist[NUMLEVELS] =  /* distance to radiate influence from
 live groups */
 {  0, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 11, 12, 12,  13,  13 };
 
 
 /* Fights: no fight reading below level 5 */
 /* LEVELS:1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   9  10 */
 int maxfightbranches[NUMLEVELS] =  /* max number of fight variations per
 move */
 {  0, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2,  3,  3 }; 
 char maxfightdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for reading fight */
 {  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6,  7,  9 };
 int maxfightbrdepth[NUMLEVELS] = /* max depth for branches in reading fight
 */
 {  0, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 3, 4,  5,  5 };
 int maxsemdiff[NUMLEVELS] =  /* maximum difference between best semeai move
 and this move*/
   {  0, 8,16,24,32,40,50,60,80,90,100 };
 
 
   
   i have a copy of 11. is there any way to crank it up other 
  than level
   10. maybe a config file somewhere? have you considered a highly 
   configurable version 12 for some of us on the list?
   
 
 
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Hideki Kato

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 brutally short for 19x19.
You are limiting the pool and strength of programs available for CGOS.

If all you want is a quick and dirty rating for minor updates, why don't
you just run your program against Gnu Go and/or MoGo at fast time
settings on your own machine?  Then when you think you have a stable and
significant improvement, run your program on CGOS for a beefier test?
This is how MoGo achieved dominance in 9x9.

We need thousands of games to get a few percent of standard deviation 
on both 9x9 and 19x19.  So, of course I do what you wrote.  When a 
game on cgos takes about one hour, a handred games take a handred 
hours, ie, four days.  When I want to know my program's winning 
rate against a paticular program that I don't have in hand, it takes 
four days times the number of programs running on cgos at an average.  
So, it takes a few weeks in total which is tooo long for me.

In constrast, I can guess my program's scalability by local 
competitions against GNU Go and/or MoGo.

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?

I argue ten or fifteen minutes setting is enough and better for 
many developers than thirty minutes.

-Hideki

-Jeff

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 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 argue ten or fifteen minutes setting is enough and better for 
 many developers than thirty minutes.

 -Hideki

   
 -Jeff

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 
 --
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

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 reason, games finish faster), and only switch to 19x19 when I'm
good enough at the basics to be near the top of 9x9.

If too many of us do that, 19x19 may suffer a similar fate to what it
did in the past (that might not be true with Many Faces and others
joining this time around). I think the idea of multiplexing in many 9x9
games between a few 19x19 games is a good feature that I'd likely take
advantage of... Probably not enough to get my bot out of the yellow,
but enough to get a flavor of how it performs on 19x19.

On Sun, 2007-10-28 at 12:03 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
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
on the side, actual competitions seemed to reveal problems and bugs.

So what I thought would be useful to the computer go community would be
a forum for testing that could also stimulate competition and would have
some meaning. In other words, I didn't make CGOS only as a way to
test your program or even just to get a rating, but as a way to
stimulate competition. That's a big key to most improvements in most
fields, and nothing brings this out more than real competition with
real numbers. I wanted it to mean something if your program makes it
to the top 10 on CGOS, etc.

You will probably notice that CGOS results have been used in papers
written about computer GO, to verify that the techniques used in the
paper have some validity. What I've always hated is unverifiable
papers.There is a summary section near the end where the techniques
being presented are experimentally verified with their own self-tests
- which nobody else can usually verify because the program is not open
to the public. CGOS is superb for that too - it's a public forum to
expose your creations - good, bad or ugly, to the world.

In computer chess, and I assume also in computer go, there is more
status associated with games which are played at time controls us humans
think are serious.Also, there is much more status associated with
games that are public as opposed to private testing. Status is
good in this context for computer go. It's why I made the choices I
did and why I think longer time controls are better for the computer go
community as a whole.

I agree that there are reasonable arguments for faster time controls, I
don't discount those reasons, but when all things are considered
together, I think the reasons for having longer time controls make more
sense. I believe even 30 minutes is fast, but it's a good compromise
in my opinion.

- Don

Hi, maybe so, but can you name some programs which cannot cope
with 10 minutes thinking time for 19x19?
Note that my own program is a MC program which will play weaker
in relation to for instance gnugo which the shorter thinking time, but
I find that not important because as a programmer I want to see
the relative progress over time.

Maybe I am confused about the goals of CGOS? I thought that
programmers could use it to get a good impression of improvements
over time.
And I also like to see the progress of other programs over time.
I think this is also interesting to see for others.

Edward.

Publiceer JOUW leven online met Windows Live Spaces: weblog, foto,
video en muziek! Het is gratis! Het is gratis!
http://clk.atdmt.com/MSN/go/msnnksac003001msn/direct/01/?href=http://www.imagine-msn.com/spaces

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 in the game it includes a pass move in the search, so it does 3
evaluations rather than 2.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Olivier Teytaud
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 9:15 AM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 The cgos 19x19 server is seemingly ok,
 the port 6919 is now opened for all the universe.
 
 The name of the machine is cgos.lri.fr (and not 
 pc5-120.lri.fr as previously).
 
 The port is 6919. It is 19x19, 10 minutes per side for 
 testing; I will move to something longer later (depending on 
 what people prefer, I'll do a weighted average of durations 
 suggested on the mailing list :-) ).
 
 http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
 
 Unfortunately, I'll be away from my email
 from tomorrow to wednesday and will not be able to
 correct the troubles that people will almost surely find
 in this installation; sorry for that.
 The installation is a bit complicated in order to avoid 
 troubles due to the firewall and I am almost sure that some 
 troubles will appear very soon :-)
 
 All comments welcome (in particular in the next hours as I am 
 still close to my computer a few hours :-) ). [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 
 
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org 
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 knowledge.

David

 
 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?
 
 I argue ten or fifteen minutes setting is enough and better for 
 many developers than thirty minutes.
 
 -Hideki


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Hideki Kato


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
them fair or unfair?

Those settings are established earlier, ie, when we had poor pcs. As 
David mentioned, we had much less cpu power and needed 30 minutes for 
best performance.

When we use almost the same method the absolute value of time setting 
is not a problem.  But now we have two different approaches, 
classical and MC, too long time setting gives some advantage to MC 
programs. 

 From the view point of innovations, however, it's not to be said 
unfair.  When comparing performaces of several implementations of 
different approaches, ie, MC and classical, one scales better for 
time and the other is not, _at a moment_, it may be better to set the 
time being enough for classical programs.

-Hideki

- Don





 I argue ten or fifteen minutes setting is enough and better for 
 many developers than thirty minutes.

 -Hideki

   
 -Jeff

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 
 --
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread terry mcintyre

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; they were designed 
to run on  50 MHz machines,  a decade back.

It might be that, for the short term, variations of Monte Carlo on  quad  cpus  
can make better use of  30 minute or longer time controls than the traditional 
single-threaded programs. What better incentive to the developers to  try 
multi-threading?  They'll need a strong incentive to do so, since it is a 
non-trivial step. 

But consumers of Go programs will benefit from stronger, more interesting 
competition.

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.

Many thanks to Don and everyone else for making CGOS possible! 


Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind 
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster




__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com ___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

[computer-go] CGOS 19 TC

2007-10-28 Thread Joshua Shriver

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 the engines I've seen.

Guess my question is, how resource intensive is the server code? Could
we split it?
Have the server running on one port for 10min blitz, and another port
with 30+minute games? My only concern is fragmenting the amount of
players. Not sure how many active people play, but if it's little it
might make the pool to small.

What are all of your thoughts?
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Christoph Birk


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

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] CGOS 19 TC


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  
for
30 min. If no time is specified then the match is with whichever  
player is

available next and most appropriate for the pairings.

It may make the pairing code a little more complicated, but it allows  
for

choice.

Cheers,
David



On 28, Oct 2007, at 11:26 AM, Joshua Shriver wrote:

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 the engines I've seen.

Guess my question is, how resource intensive is the server code? Could
we split it?
Have the server running on one port for 10min blitz, and another port
with 30+minute games? My only concern is fragmenting the amount of
players. Not sure how many active people play, but if it's little it
might make the pool to small.

What are all of your thoughts?
-Josh
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Christoph Birk

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 mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread dhillismail

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

-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 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; they were designed 
to run on? 50 MHz machines,? a decade back.

It might be that, for the short term, variations of Monte Carlo on? quad? cpus? 
can make better use of? 30 minute or longer time controls than the traditional 
single-threaded programs. What better incentive to the developers to? try 
multi-threading?? They'll need a strong incentive to do so, since it is a 
non-trivial step. 

But consumers of Go programs will benefit from stronger, more interesting 
competition.

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.

Many thanks to Don and everyone else for making CGOS possible! 

Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be kind 
masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster 

__
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Edward de Grijs



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 ratings 
are not to be trusted, but I think that they can be. For MC 
programs this only mean that they are about 1 or 2 stones 
weaker (at 10 min. instead of 30 min) in relation to (already 
fast) traditional programs. 
The resulting difference against humans I do not know.
If someone builds a different engine, (not MC) I can image 
that the time can be important, but only if the program needs 
that kind of time control.
For MC programs one have to realise that the difference 
between the best program and the average programs is 
about 8 stones or more, (a very rough estimation of mine). 
So the time control only accounts here for only about 2 stones, 
which will not help the new programs to perform much better.
Those large differences could be corrected by introducing 
handicap stones, but I realise that will not be easy to 
combine with an elo rating scale.
 
This brings me to the beginning of the newly started CGOS 19x19:
I thought one of the first goals was to get an impression 
between the strenght of MFGO and CrazyStone.
I do not see any discussions related to that, while it is very 
interesting what is happening (or has happened already)
Crazystone was about 2000 elo, mfgo is about 1800.
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?))
What I think is happening is that Crazystone seems to be 
about 7 stones (or more) stronger than MFGO at these time 
controls, when CrazyStone will use 6 cores or so (which Remi 
has used in the past).
How: Crazystone used about 3 minutes for each game, one 
using 1 cpu, so it has handicapped himself (maybe Remi is 
nice to David?). 
When using almost the full 30 minutes it will be about 3 stones 
or 300 elo stronger. Combined with 6 cores that will be another 
2 or 3 stones or 250 elo. 
So we are looking at Crazystone 2550 elo, MFGO 1800 elo
which roughly corresponds to 7 stones!
 

Just food for though, and my opinion and my rough estimates 
which will be erratic (with a certain deviation:-)
 
Edward
 
 
_
De mooiste afbeeldingen van Angelina Jolie vind je met Live Search
http://search.live.com/images/results.aspx?q=angelina%20jolieFORM=QBIR___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS (CS vs MFG)

2007-10-28 Thread Rémi Coulom


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 the rating is much more. Also I stopped 
CS-8-26-10k-1CPU, because it was deterministic, and so is Many Faces. So 
they were playing the same game again and again. I have now connected a 
parallel version, running on two cores, which makes it random.


Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 games. 

If longer time controls actually favor a certain type of program,  then
we have a choice:

  1.  Choose a time control that favors programs that excel at time
controls that produce weaker play.
 
  2.  Choose a time control that favors programs that excel at time
controls that produce stronger play.


You obviously can't choose a time control that works best for any kind
of program,  but you certainly don't want to favor programs that can
only win if they play quickly,  if our goal is to encourage the
development of the strongest possible programs.


- Don





Hideki Kato wrote:
 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
 them fair or unfair?
 

 Those settings are established earlier, ie, when we had poor pcs. As 
 David mentioned, we had much less cpu power and needed 30 minutes for 
 best performance.

 When we use almost the same method the absolute value of time setting 
 is not a problem.  But now we have two different approaches, 
 classical and MC, too long time setting gives some advantage to MC 
 programs. 

  From the view point of innovations, however, it's not to be said 
 unfair.  When comparing performaces of several implementations of 
 different approaches, ie, MC and classical, one scales better for 
 time and the other is not, _at a moment_, it may be better to set the 
 time being enough for classical programs.

 -Hideki

   
 - Don





 
 I argue ten or fifteen minutes setting is enough and better for 
 many developers than thirty minutes.

 -Hideki

   
   
 -Jeff

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 
 
 --
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
   
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 
 --
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] CGOS 19 TC

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 prevent you from playing the long games too.   And
you could choose to only play in the fast or slow games or both.

- Don


Joshua Shriver wrote:
 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 the engines I've seen.

 Guess my question is, how resource intensive is the server code? Could
 we split it?
 Have the server running on one port for 10min blitz, and another port
 with 30+minute games? My only concern is fragmenting the amount of
 players. Not sure how many active people play, but if it's little it
 might make the pool to small.

 What are all of your thoughts?
 -Josh
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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
both, but the slow games will get precedent.The fast games will be
played basically to fill the time between long slow rounds and also
enable a bot to get both a slow and fast rating. 

This won't be that complicated to add.If it works, we could do this
with 9x9 games too. 

There are some optimizations too.  If a slow round completes and none of
the fast programs want to play slow games, we can start the next slow
round immediately. Basically, the scheduling is exactly the same as
I do now,  there are just two sets of scheduling rounds, one fast and
one slow.   The only other difference is that when a slow round
completes,  the server waits on any slow players who might be playing a
fast game. I think I would make the fast games significantly faster
than the slow games, so that the wait between slow rounds is
minimal. But that of course would be configurable. 

You will be able to specify that you only want fast games if that's what
you want.   Or that you only want slow games.   The default will be both
types of games.

In this way,  we can get the best of both worlds.   Fast bots can play
fast games exclusively if that's what they want to do.   The variety of
opponents will be a little more limited for fast bots,  but as long as
there are at least 2 bots willing to play a fast game, a game will happen.

- Don







[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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

 -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 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; they were
 designed to run on  50 MHz machines,  a decade back.

 It might be that, for the short term, variations of Monte Carlo on 
 quad  cpus  can make better use of  30 minute or longer time controls
 than the traditional single-threaded programs. What better incentive
 to the developers to  try multi-threading?  They'll need a strong
 incentive to do so, since it is a non-trivial step.

 But consumers of Go programs will benefit from stronger, more
 interesting competition.

 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.

 Many thanks to Don and everyone else for making CGOS possible!

 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be
 kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster



 __
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
 http://mail.yahoo.com http://mail.yahoo.com/
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 
 *Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail*
 http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aim/en-us/index.htm
 -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
 

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS



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

This handicap can be simulated of course.   It's wouldn't be exactly the
same as a real handicap game, but the program giving the handicap could
agree to pass on the first N moves. However, with CGOS scoring the
weaker program could immediately pass and win the game! Some of my
programs would just automatically pass if it won the game on score.

- Don

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 really strong programs post
versions that do this. 

- Don





Don Dailey wrote:
 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

 
 This handicap can be simulated of course.   It's wouldn't be exactly the
 same as a real handicap game, but the program giving the handicap could
 agree to pass on the first N moves. However, with CGOS scoring the
 weaker program could immediately pass and win the game! Some of my
 programs would just automatically pass if it won the game on score.

 - Don

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


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.In this way a program can play both fast and slow games or
 both, but the slow games will get precedent.The fast games will be
 played basically to fill the time between long slow rounds and also
 enable a bot to get both a slow and fast rating.

This sounds like a reasonable compromise. I have only one question: What
about slow players that want fast games too?  I assume most slow players
will play slow games and therefore use up nearly all of the time
available.  Depending on the pool of slow players, some dual fast+slow
players may only play slow games.  I have two ideas that might help
solve this if it's an issue:
1. Occasionally allow a fast round between slow rounds
2. Occasionally have a dual player sit out from a slow round if the
number of slow games to fast games exceeds some threshold.

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 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 really strong programs post
 versions that do this. 
 
 - Don
 
 
 
 
 
 Don Dailey wrote:
  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
 
  
  This handicap can be simulated of course.   It's wouldn't be exactly the
  same as a real handicap game, but the program giving the handicap could
  agree to pass on the first N moves. However, with CGOS scoring the
  weaker program could immediately pass and win the game! Some of my
  programs would just automatically pass if it won the game on score.
 
  - Don
 
  ___
  computer-go mailing list
  computer-go@computer-go.org
  http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS (CS vs MFG)

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 MFG)

 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 the rating is much more. Also I stopped 
 CS-8-26-10k-1CPU, because it was deterministic, and so is 
 Many Faces. So 
 they were playing the same game again and again. I have now 
 connected a 
 parallel version, running on two cores, which makes it random.

 Rémi
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org 
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 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
 both, but the slow games will get precedent.The fast games will be
 played basically to fill the time between long slow rounds and also
 enable a bot to get both a slow and fast rating.
 

 This sounds like a reasonable compromise. I have only one question: What
 about slow players that want fast games too?  I assume most slow players
 will play slow games and therefore use up nearly all of the time
 available.  Depending on the pool of slow players, some dual fast+slow
 players may only play slow games.  I have two ideas that might help
 solve this if it's an issue:
 1. Occasionally allow a fast round between slow rounds
 2. Occasionally have a dual player sit out from a slow round if the
 number of slow games to fast games exceeds some threshold.

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] CGOS 19 TC

2007-10-28 Thread Hideki Kato

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.

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 prevent you from playing the long games too.   And
you could choose to only play in the fast or slow games or both.

- Don


Joshua Shriver wrote:
 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 the engines I've seen.

 Guess my question is, how resource intensive is the server code? Could
 we split it?
 Have the server running on one port for 10min blitz, and another port
 with 30+minute games? My only concern is fragmenting the amount of
 players. Not sure how many active people play, but if it's little it
 might make the pool to small.

 What are all of your thoughts?
 -Josh
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

   
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


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, neither did my option #2 :)

 
 - 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 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
  both, but the slow games will get precedent.The fast games will be
  played basically to fill the time between long slow rounds and also
  enable a bot to get both a slow and fast rating.
  
 
  This sounds like a reasonable compromise. I have only one question: What
  about slow players that want fast games too?  I assume most slow players
  will play slow games and therefore use up nearly all of the time
  available.  Depending on the pool of slow players, some dual fast+slow
  players may only play slow games.  I have two ideas that might help
  solve this if it's an issue:
  1. Occasionally allow a fast round between slow rounds
  2. Occasionally have a dual player sit out from a slow round if the
  number of slow games to fast games exceeds some threshold.
 
  ___
  computer-go mailing list
  computer-go@computer-go.org
  http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
 

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread dhillismail

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 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
both, but the slow games will get precedent.The fast games will be
played basically to fill the time between long slow rounds and also
enable a bot to get both a slow and fast rating. 

This won't be that complicated to add.If it works, we could do this
with 9x9 games too. 

There are some optimizations too.  If a slow round completes and none of
the fast programs want to play slow games, we can start the next slow
round immediately. Basically, the scheduling is exactly the same as
I do now,  there are just two sets of scheduling rounds, one fast and
one slow.   The only other difference is that when a slow round
completes,  the server waits on any slow players who might be playing a
fast game. I think I would make the fast games significantly faster
than the slow games, so that the wait between slow rounds is
minimal. But that of course would be configurable. 

You will be able to specify that you only want fast games if that's what
you want.   Or that you only want slow games.   The default will be both
types of games.

In this way,  we can get the best of both worlds.   Fast bots can play
fast games exclusively if that's what they want to do.   The variety of
opponents will be a little more limited for fast bots,  but as long as
there are at least 2 bots willing to play a fast game, a game will happen.

- Don

[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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

 -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 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; they were
 designed to run on  50 MHz machines,  a decade back.

 It might be that, for the short term, variations of Monte Carlo on 
 quad  cpus  can make better use of  30 minute or longer time controls
 than the traditional single-threaded programs. What better incentive
 to the developers to  try multi-threading?  They'll need a strong
 incentive to do so, since it is a non-trivial step.

 But consumers of Go programs will benefit from stronger, more
 interesting competition.

 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.

 Many thanks to Don and everyone else for making CGOS possible!

 Terry McIntyre [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 They mean to govern well; but they mean to govern. They promise to be
 kind masters; but they mean to be masters. -- Daniel Webster

 __
 Do You Yahoo!?
 Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
 http://mail.yahoo.com http://mail.yahoo.com/
 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

 *Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail*
 http://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aim/en-us/index.htm
 -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading spam and email virus protection.

 ___
 computer-go mailing list
 computer-go@computer-go.org
 http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and industry-leading 
spam and email virus protection.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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 can be established.

 I agree with Don. 10 minutes sudden death is brutally short for  
19x19.
 You are limiting the pool and strength of programs available for  
CGOS.

Hi, maybe so, but can you name some programs which cannot cope
with 10 minutes thinking time for 19x19?

SlugGo can cope with 10 minutes for a 19x19 game, but because of the
way it is a wrapper over GnuGo with different and parallel search, at 10
min per game it is almost indistinguishable from Gnu. There is not  
enough

time to search enough for SlugGo to choose different moves.

Cheers,
David

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-28 Thread Christoph Birk


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 handicap games since it's tricky  
with

ELO ratings.


I suggest just making them a new instance:
eg. 'MFGO-2H'  == ManyFaces giving 2 stones handicap

Christoph

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS handicaps


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 clubs do this: after N games in a row won or lost
between a specific pair of players, change the handicap by one.

On cgos it would not have to be the exact same player, but rather
just another player with a similar ELO rating. Eventually we should
find a rough correspondence, or a curve, between ELO difference
and handicap, and that could be used as the starting point in the
next handicap session.

I think this is in line the tournament purpose of cgos.

Cheers,
David



On 28, Oct 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 handicap games since it's tricky  
with

ELO ratings.

We talked about this at one time and it was a very complicated issue.
Do we award compensation for handicap stones, etc.   Also there is an
issue of how to figure this into the ELO rating formula.

I don't  want to get into another round of discussing this right now.
I might implement this in a later server version but probably not any
time soon.


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


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 program can play both fast and slow  
games or

both, but the slow games will get precedent.The fast games will be
played basically to fill the time between long slow rounds and also
enable a bot to get both a slow and fast rating.

...
You will be able to specify that you only want fast games if that's  
what
you want.   Or that you only want slow games.   The default will be  
both

types of games.


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS handicaps