Re: [computer-go] Cgos server progress
On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 9:24 PM, Brian Sheppard wrote: > You are making really amazing progress! I sincerely appreciate > your work on this. CGOS is a fantastic service, which I believe > has fostered as much progress as anything/anybody out there. I appreciate the pat on the back. I want to make it nicer for everyone if I can including myself - I use it too! - Don > > > Sincerely, > Brian > > ___ > 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 server progress
You are making really amazing progress! I sincerely appreciate your work on this. CGOS is a fantastic service, which I believe has fostered as much progress as anything/anybody out there. Sincerely, Brian ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Cgos server progress
At the moment the server creates SGF files and places them in the directory hierarchy just as the current CGOS does. I run a script manually every month to create the archives and build a web page to link to them. So I plan to give full access to archived games. But I want to do things better this time. My plan is to do things with ajax and/or PHP on demand. You should be able to grab all the games for some period of time, or all the games for a given player. The same with the crosstables. Currently, a separate cron process builds the crosstables for each program in existence, there being about 3000 total users, the vast majority of them inactive of course.So if I could use PHP for doing this. But it is going to take some time for me to get all of that going, including some web page to display the current status for everyone, which again will be more dynamic than what I was doing before. So until I get all of that working, I will start with a simple static page that I rebuild every few minutes to show the ratings of the players, probably looking a lot like what we already have. I also want the feature that the server will play a test game with your bot - to help authors debug their gtp implementation and their connection to CGOS. That will be pretty simple but I have not done that part yet. Those games won't get recorded or rated. - Don On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Łukasz Lew wrote: > Hi Don, > > Will a webpage change? > In particular, will we get access to archived games? > > Lukasz > > 2009/6/22 Don Dailey : > > The new cgos server is almost ready - but needs some more polishing up. > > > > I have an instance of it running while testing 50 programs using 3 > different > > computers and it appears to be robust so far, after fixing some bugs of > > course. > > > > I am trying to crash it by killing the connections and killing the > processes > > and anything malicious I can do. So far so good. > > > > It's a single server, not separate servers. For instance this one > server > > could support many different board sizes and/or time controls, etc. > These I > > call "venues" and each is handled as if it's running on a separate server > > even though it isn't. Even login names and passwords are separate as is > the > > rating systems. > > > > It's coded in C and it really feels fast. Low memory, low CPU overhead > and > > very resource friendly. > > > > It's not quite ready yet, but I will probably be calling for some > testing > > soon. I want to take the old CGOS off-line and run this one a few days > to > > work out any glitches before going official with it. The client (and > > any clients that any of you have built) will require a very simple > > modification.I was able to change the regular CGOS client in just a > > minute or two.The modification is required to support venues (to > specify > > which board size you want to play on.) > > > > I will make it so the old client will still work but the venue will be a > > specified default (which will be 9x9, 5 minutes.) > > > > I plan to let the server itself play games too, but only to fill out the > > case where there are no players available. You will be able to play on > any > > ODD board size from 9x9 to 19x19 although it probably won't be much fun > > unless there are a few others playing on those boards too, but you would > > always be able to get a game even if it was by the weak server player. > > > > I'm of course interested in an algorithms for playing relatively strong > move > > instantly for the server. Something along the lines of Lardo, which has > no > > search and does not do simulations or anything iterative or recursive > like > > this. Just a set of trivial rules. Lardo is about 700 ELO on 9x9, > > substantially stronger than random of course.I may experiment with > > bulding such a bot. The initial server fill in player may play mostly > > random however until I take the time to do this.I don't remember the > > rules I used in Lardo, and I don't even know if I still have the source > code > > for it, but I think the rules are documented in this forum somewhere. > > > > Boardsize 9 will be 5 minutes and each additional odd board size higher > will > > add 2 minutes.As it turns out, this works out for 19x19 to be 15 > > minutes. > > > > Currently, I plan to use komi of 7.5 for everything. It seems like > this > > is a reasonable choice since both the 9x9 and 19x19 server are using 7.5. > > > > > > > > > > - 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.
Re: [computer-go] Cgos server progress
Hi Don, Will a webpage change? In particular, will we get access to archived games? Lukasz 2009/6/22 Don Dailey : > The new cgos server is almost ready - but needs some more polishing up. > > I have an instance of it running while testing 50 programs using 3 different > computers and it appears to be robust so far, after fixing some bugs of > course. > > I am trying to crash it by killing the connections and killing the processes > and anything malicious I can do. So far so good. > > It's a single server, not separate servers. For instance this one server > could support many different board sizes and/or time controls, etc. These I > call "venues" and each is handled as if it's running on a separate server > even though it isn't. Even login names and passwords are separate as is the > rating systems. > > It's coded in C and it really feels fast. Low memory, low CPU overhead and > very resource friendly. > > It's not quite ready yet, but I will probably be calling for some testing > soon. I want to take the old CGOS off-line and run this one a few days to > work out any glitches before going official with it. The client (and > any clients that any of you have built) will require a very simple > modification. I was able to change the regular CGOS client in just a > minute or two. The modification is required to support venues (to specify > which board size you want to play on.) > > I will make it so the old client will still work but the venue will be a > specified default (which will be 9x9, 5 minutes.) > > I plan to let the server itself play games too, but only to fill out the > case where there are no players available. You will be able to play on any > ODD board size from 9x9 to 19x19 although it probably won't be much fun > unless there are a few others playing on those boards too, but you would > always be able to get a game even if it was by the weak server player. > > I'm of course interested in an algorithms for playing relatively strong move > instantly for the server. Something along the lines of Lardo, which has no > search and does not do simulations or anything iterative or recursive like > this. Just a set of trivial rules. Lardo is about 700 ELO on 9x9, > substantially stronger than random of course. I may experiment with > bulding such a bot. The initial server fill in player may play mostly > random however until I take the time to do this. I don't remember the > rules I used in Lardo, and I don't even know if I still have the source code > for it, but I think the rules are documented in this forum somewhere. > > Boardsize 9 will be 5 minutes and each additional odd board size higher will > add 2 minutes. As it turns out, this works out for 19x19 to be 15 > minutes. > > Currently, I plan to use komi of 7.5 for everything. It seems like this > is a reasonable choice since both the 9x9 and 19x19 server are using 7.5. > > > > > - 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] Havannah - Go - LittleGolem
Try this link http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/games/gamedetail.jsp?gtid=havannah (not sure if it works if you don't have an account). Personally I'm really annoyed by many of these bots, because they do not resign and play all possible forcing moves so the games can be really long which is an issue on turn based servers. Moreover they enter tournaments, so if you want to play in them you have to play with these bots. Lukasz Lew On Sun, Jun 21, 2009 at 20:29, Michael Williams wrote: > Are the games archived? Does the public have access to those archives? > > Ingo Althöfer wrote: >> >> Hello, >> >> some time ago I had asked if discussions on "computer Havannah" were >> welcome here in the list. >> The reactions were positive, but (by different >> reasons) actors preferred not to use the opportunity. >> >> In the meantime a "computer Havannah" scene has >> developed on the game server >> http://www.littlegolem.net >> >> There it is possible to play Havannah on many different >> board sizes (side lengths 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). >> Active programmers are Thomas Reinhardt (D, with TOBRT), Richard Lorentz >> (US, with Wanderer), Richard Pijl (NL, with >> gambler), ab (=anonymous, D, with havai). On small boards (4 and 5) the >> computers are doing really well in the meantime, >> but from size 6 on their games look strange. >> >> It is also possible to run *** GO bots *** there, for instance >> Gnugo is doing so. >> >> >> Some more information on LittleGolem: >> >> * Registration is required, but it is without cost, easy, >> and without complications. >> >> * Thinking time per move is 36 hours in the average (with >> a buffer of 240 hours; and 20 days of vacation per year). >> >> * It is good style to choose names of the type "xxx_c" for computer >> accounts. If you do not do this, you should write at least in the profile >> that a computer is playing. >> >> * Some participants on LittleGolem are not playing, but only >> participating in the interesting fora (one general forum; one >> special forum for each game). For new players it reqires to >> have some games completed, otherwise you can not write, but only >> read. (This is a measure against spam bots.) >> >> * At the moment there is, for each player, only one go rating (showing >> performance on 9, 13, 19) and only one Havannah performance, >> mixed over all board sizes. But I think there is some hope that this >> general rating will be split in size-dependent ratings again. >> >> Feel free to join LittleGolem. >> Ingo. >> >> PS: My account on Little Golem is "Ingo Althofer". >> http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/info/player.jsp?plid=11860 > > ___ > 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 server progress
The new cgos server is almost ready - but needs some more polishing up. I have an instance of it running while testing 50 programs using 3 different computers and it appears to be robust so far, after fixing some bugs of course. I am trying to crash it by killing the connections and killing the processes and anything malicious I can do. So far so good. It's a single server, not separate servers. For instance this one server could support many different board sizes and/or time controls, etc. These I call "venues" and each is handled as if it's running on a separate server even though it isn't. Even login names and passwords are separate as is the rating systems. It's coded in C and it really feels fast. Low memory, low CPU overhead and very resource friendly. It's not quite ready yet, but I will probably be calling for some testing soon. I want to take the old CGOS off-line and run this one a few days to work out any glitches before going official with it. The client (and any clients that any of you have built) will require a very simple modification.I was able to change the regular CGOS client in just a minute or two.The modification is required to support venues (to specify which board size you want to play on.) I will make it so the old client will still work but the venue will be a specified default (which will be 9x9, 5 minutes.) I plan to let the server itself play games too, but only to fill out the case where there are no players available. You will be able to play on any ODD board size from 9x9 to 19x19 although it probably won't be much fun unless there are a few others playing on those boards too, but you would always be able to get a game even if it was by the weak server player. I'm of course interested in an algorithms for playing relatively strong move instantly for the server. Something along the lines of Lardo, which has no search and does not do simulations or anything iterative or recursive like this. Just a set of trivial rules. Lardo is about 700 ELO on 9x9, substantially stronger than random of course.I may experiment with bulding such a bot. The initial server fill in player may play mostly random however until I take the time to do this.I don't remember the rules I used in Lardo, and I don't even know if I still have the source code for it, but I think the rules are documented in this forum somewhere. Boardsize 9 will be 5 minutes and each additional odd board size higher will add 2 minutes.As it turns out, this works out for 19x19 to be 15 minutes. Currently, I plan to use komi of 7.5 for everything. It seems like this is a reasonable choice since both the 9x9 and 19x19 server are using 7.5. - Don ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Havannah - Go - LittleGolem
Are the games archived? Does the public have access to those archives? Ingo Althöfer wrote: Hello, some time ago I had asked if discussions on "computer Havannah" were welcome here in the list. The reactions were positive, but (by different reasons) actors preferred not to use the opportunity. In the meantime a "computer Havannah" scene has developed on the game server http://www.littlegolem.net There it is possible to play Havannah on many different board sizes (side lengths 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Active programmers are Thomas Reinhardt (D, with TOBRT), Richard Lorentz (US, with Wanderer), Richard Pijl (NL, with gambler), ab (=anonymous, D, with havai). On small boards (4 and 5) the computers are doing really well in the meantime, but from size 6 on their games look strange. It is also possible to run *** GO bots *** there, for instance Gnugo is doing so. Some more information on LittleGolem: * Registration is required, but it is without cost, easy, and without complications. * Thinking time per move is 36 hours in the average (with a buffer of 240 hours; and 20 days of vacation per year). * It is good style to choose names of the type "xxx_c" for computer accounts. If you do not do this, you should write at least in the profile that a computer is playing. * Some participants on LittleGolem are not playing, but only participating in the interesting fora (one general forum; one special forum for each game). For new players it reqires to have some games completed, otherwise you can not write, but only read. (This is a measure against spam bots.) * At the moment there is, for each player, only one go rating (showing performance on 9, 13, 19) and only one Havannah performance, mixed over all board sizes. But I think there is some hope that this general rating will be split in size-dependent ratings again. Feel free to join LittleGolem. Ingo. PS: My account on Little Golem is "Ingo Althofer". http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/info/player.jsp?plid=11860 ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Congratulations to Zen for winning the KGS tournament
Thank you very much to Nick for running it. David ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] Havannah - Go - LittleGolem
Hello, some time ago I had asked if discussions on "computer Havannah" were welcome here in the list. The reactions were positive, but (by different reasons) actors preferred not to use the opportunity. In the meantime a "computer Havannah" scene has developed on the game server http://www.littlegolem.net There it is possible to play Havannah on many different board sizes (side lengths 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). Active programmers are Thomas Reinhardt (D, with TOBRT), Richard Lorentz (US, with Wanderer), Richard Pijl (NL, with gambler), ab (=anonymous, D, with havai). On small boards (4 and 5) the computers are doing really well in the meantime, but from size 6 on their games look strange. It is also possible to run *** GO bots *** there, for instance Gnugo is doing so. Some more information on LittleGolem: * Registration is required, but it is without cost, easy, and without complications. * Thinking time per move is 36 hours in the average (with a buffer of 240 hours; and 20 days of vacation per year). * It is good style to choose names of the type "xxx_c" for computer accounts. If you do not do this, you should write at least in the profile that a computer is playing. * Some participants on LittleGolem are not playing, but only participating in the interesting fora (one general forum; one special forum for each game). For new players it reqires to have some games completed, otherwise you can not write, but only read. (This is a measure against spam bots.) * At the moment there is, for each player, only one go rating (showing performance on 9, 13, 19) and only one Havannah performance, mixed over all board sizes. But I think there is some hope that this general rating will be split in size-dependent ratings again. Feel free to join LittleGolem. Ingo. PS: My account on Little Golem is "Ingo Althofer". http://www.littlegolem.net/jsp/info/player.jsp?plid=11860 -- 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/
