Re: [computer-go] cgos clients
Lukasz, your client doesn't seem to be displaying all the info for some reason: " -c specified name of config file - this is MANDATORY -k sepcifies a file to create which will stop client after current game -p specifies which player plays first game -s display a sample configuration file to stdout and exit " If you add multiple engines, the priority fields will be added up, normalized to 1.0 and a player will be chosen probabilistically. Christian p.s. remember also http://cgos-python.sourceforge.net/, which does not have this feature (yet!), but has others :) On 17/06/2009 00:29, Łukasz Lew wrote: Hi, I have a couple of question about cgos client programs. Why there are two links to clients 32bit linux? The first one is on page http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/ http://cgos.boardspace.net/public/cgos3-x86_32.zip and is broken, but the page refers to it as version 1.1 compared to the one on the main page http://cgos.boardspace.net/ http://cgos.boardspace.net/software/cgosGtp-linux-x86_32.tar.gz which works but the version is 0.98. Can I add some more engines to config file without restarting cgos client? What is the -p PLAYER_FIRST option ? cgosGtp 0.98 alpha - engine client for CGOS Linux-x86_64 by Don Dailey Usage: /home/lew/cgos/cgosGtp-linux-x86_64/main.tcl -c CONFIG_FILE -k KILL_FILE -p PLAYER_FIRST -s What is the priority in config file? Thanks Lukasz ___ 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 clients
There's another place to find binaries: http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=209690&package_id=252733 There's a lot of duplicated pages lying around. The sf.net site has a wiki with old content. I have no clue what the standard way cgos users are supposed to find information/binaries. In recent times, I've simply compiled it from source rather than worry about it :( Maybe the new cgos is a good excuse to clean things up. I'm the admin of the sf.net stuff, but Don calls the shots! On Wed, 2009-06-17 at 01:29 +0200, Łukasz Lew wrote: > Hi, > > I have a couple of question about cgos client programs. > > Why there are two links to clients 32bit linux? > > The first one is on page > http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/ > http://cgos.boardspace.net/public/cgos3-x86_32.zip > and is broken, but the page refers to it as version 1.1 compared to > the one on the main page > http://cgos.boardspace.net/ > http://cgos.boardspace.net/software/cgosGtp-linux-x86_32.tar.gz > which works but the version is 0.98. > > Can I add some more engines to config file without restarting cgos client? > > What is the -p PLAYER_FIRST option ? > > cgosGtp 0.98 alpha - engine client for CGOS Linux-x86_64 by Don Dailey > Usage: /home/lew/cgos/cgosGtp-linux-x86_64/main.tcl -c CONFIG_FILE > -k KILL_FILE -p PLAYER_FIRST -s > > What is the priority in config file? > > Thanks > Lukasz > ___ > 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] cgos clients
Hi, I have a couple of question about cgos client programs. Why there are two links to clients 32bit linux? The first one is on page http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/ http://cgos.boardspace.net/public/cgos3-x86_32.zip and is broken, but the page refers to it as version 1.1 compared to the one on the main page http://cgos.boardspace.net/ http://cgos.boardspace.net/software/cgosGtp-linux-x86_32.tar.gz which works but the version is 0.98. Can I add some more engines to config file without restarting cgos client? What is the -p PLAYER_FIRST option ? cgosGtp 0.98 alpha - engine client for CGOS Linux-x86_64 by Don Dailey Usage: /home/lew/cgos/cgosGtp-linux-x86_64/main.tcl -c CONFIG_FILE -k KILL_FILE -p PLAYER_FIRST -s What is the priority in config file? Thanks Lukasz ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
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 that opinion. If there is a second venue, I'd prefer longer time controls. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
Separate rating pools are a given. I will not rate 2 separate time controls as if they are the same, even though that is done in human games. - Don On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Michael Williams < michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 would be a problem only for hardcoded bots with no time control. >> >> The advantage would be that we would see how different algorithms (bots) >> scale. >> If the ratings would be very similar for most bots, it would mean that >> we can get faster testing of new ideas. >> We would know which ideas can be tested of fast time control. >> >> Lukasz >> >> 2009/6/16 Don Dailey : >> >>> >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 >>> venues can be added if the server ever gets popular enough that we have >>> 40 >>> or 50 players always on line. But they will be separate venues >>> scheduled >>> independently. >>> >>> >>> - Don >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: >>> 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 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/ >> >> > ___ > 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] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
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 be able to protect the engine, by either keeping it out of games it cannot support or issuing it with reconfiguration commands. Christian Michael Williams wrote: 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 would be a problem only for hardcoded bots with no time control. The advantage would be that we would see how different algorithms (bots) scale. If the ratings would be very similar for most bots, it would mean that we can get faster testing of new ideas. We would know which ideas can be tested of fast time control. Lukasz 2009/6/16 Don Dailey : >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 venues can be added if the server ever gets popular enough that we have 40 or 50 players always on line. But they will be separate venues scheduled independently. - Don On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: 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 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Christian Nentwich Director, Model Two Zero Ltd. +44-(0)7747-061302 http://www.modeltwozero.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
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 would be a problem only for hardcoded bots with no time control. The advantage would be that we would see how different algorithms (bots) scale. If the ratings would be very similar for most bots, it would mean that we can get faster testing of new ideas. We would know which ideas can be tested of fast time control. Lukasz 2009/6/16 Don Dailey : >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 venues can be added if the server ever gets popular enough that we have 40 or 50 players always on line. But they will be separate venues scheduled independently. - Don On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: 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 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/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
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 we would see how different algorithms (bots) scale. If the ratings would be very similar for most bots, it would mean that we can get faster testing of new ideas. We would know which ideas can be tested of fast time control. Lukasz 2009/6/16 Don Dailey : > >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 > venues can be added if the server ever gets popular enough that we have 40 > or 50 players always on line. But they will be separate venues scheduled > independently. > > > - Don > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: >> >> 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 >> 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] building a combinatorial game theory bot
Sounds interesting. Have you considered learning these "temperatures" from pro games? -- GRATIS für alle GMX-Mitglieder: Die maxdome Movie-FLAT! Jetzt freischalten unter http://portal.gmx.net/de/go/maxdome01 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] building a combinatorial game theory bot
Hi, I've decided to build a go program based on combinatorial game theory, And I'm looking for any pointers or advice that might save me trouble later. I looked a little in the archives, and while there are references to CGT in a few places, I haven't seen any attempts to build a full engine around it. I found cgsuite at http://cgsuite.sourceforge.net/, which is very helpful for understanding the underlying algorithms and source code. Has anyone tried this before, and do they have some warnings or advice to share? My basic plan is this: In the beginning, partition the board into hard "subgames" maybe 3x3 blocks or similar. Calculate the temperature for each subgame, and play thermostrat as described. I don't expect this program to play very well, but it should be lightning fast: at each move, only the local subgame needs to be re-evaluated (and perhaps adjacent subgames, since captures may run across the games). Once that code works, I want to start on the hard part: dynamically resizing the subgames based on play. I imagine in the early game there's really only one game, and as midgame approaches the board slowly breaks up into mostly independant chunks. I haven't worked out the details of this yet, but my basic idea is to start with very small subgames and merge them when it seems likely two games affect each other, using some heuristics based on shared liberties, etc. Well, that's my idea, does it sound like it my work? -Tom Nelson ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
>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 venues can be added if the server ever gets popular enough that we have 40 or 50 players always on line. But they will be separate venues scheduled independently. - Don On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 8:08 AM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: > 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 > 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] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
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 computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] New CGOS - need your thoughts.
I'm not seriously considering that - I'm just thinking out loud. - Don 2009/6/16 David Fotland > If more than one venue is mandatory I probably won’t be able to join, > since I want to spend my limited programming time making the engine > stronger, not programming multiple time controls. Please allow me to play > with just a singe time limit without changing my cgos interface code. > > > > David > > > > *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 > wrote: > > 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 David > suggested and another one that is quite a bit faster. > > Another possibility is to make BOTH venues mandatory - but my fear is that > some programs may not be able to play fast enough and would always time > out.Or they may not implement a proper time control algorithm and thus > would not be able to adapt to 2 different time controls without being > reinitialized with different parameters. > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On Jun 15, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Don Dailey wrote: > > I've been working on the new server and I'm almost at the point where > I can think about time controls - and since this is primarily for > developers, I would like to get your thoughts. > > First, a brief explanation of how the time control works. When the > client starts up it will inform the server of which venues it is > willing to play in. It must choose an available boardsize and then > any of N different time controls. Initially, N will probably be > 2 or 3. For each board size, a time control is called a "venue." > > Let's assume there are 3 venues for boardsize 9x9. The time control > for each venue will be significantly different from the others. > One will be very fast, one will be very slow and there will be one in > between. > > Each time control will be in sync with the others and the process will > be recursive. So the basic scheduling algorithm is to NOT start a new > round for a given venue until any players who have registered to play > in this venue and are currently playing in FASTER venues are available > for scheduling. > > In addition to this, new rounds are not scheduled for any particular > venue as long as the next slower venue is stalled waiting for these faster > venues to complete. > > I hope this idea allows more choice and keeps players busy a greater > percentage of the time by allowing them to fill dead space with fast > games. > > Each bot can choose which venues to play in. If you only want to play > fast games, then you can. > > Now the questions I pose to you are these: > > How many venues for each boardsize? (two, three, more?) > > What time controls should they be? > > It's almost certainly the case that certain combinations of time > control venues will work together better than others. There will > always be the issue of waiting for games to complete and in fact this > may make the problem a bit worse for those programs that only want to > play in the longest venue. I suggest that each venue is spaced at > least a factor of 2 apart in time. For instance 1 minute, 2 minutes, > 4 minutes, etc. > > My own suggestion for 9x9 is to have 3 venues of 1 minute, 5 minutes > and 15 minutes per game per player. > > It's also not too late to change our minds and not have venues if we > think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. > > - 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/ > ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
