Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-28 Thread Jacques Basaldúa
Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it is standard for 19x19 or 9x9? For 19x19 I find it a little too fast. I would prefer fastest: 4 sec/move (x240 moves) = 16 min slowest: 30 sec/move (x240 moves) = 2 hours I would like to try both. Usually fast because, as you pointed, you get useful res

Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-28 Thread Vlad Dumitrescu
Hi, regarding time controls and the impossibility to please everyone, I'd like to make a suggestion: Let the engines specify a preferred time control and use a scheduler that takes that into account (as a strong recommendation). For example if there are two engines wanting to play at 10 minutes,

RE: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-28 Thread Don Dailey
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:25 +0200, Edward de Grijs wrote: > >From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > >I am considering to change the time control when I change > >over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems > >more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play > >quite

RE: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-28 Thread Edward de Grijs
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. Hello all, I prefer very short t

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Heikki Levanto
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:43:23PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote: > > > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are > > > free? > > > > That introduces a bias towards p

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:36 -0700, David Doshay wrote: > Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods > in your scheduling algorithm. Do you mean play one time control, then on the next round play a different time control? - Don __

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread David Doshay
My vote is that if you want to trim 9x9 down to 5 minutes then I would like to keep 19x19 longer, more like 30 minutes than 15. Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods in your scheduling algorithm. Cheers, David On 27, Mar 2007, at 2:41 PM, Don Dailey wrote: We will

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Álvaro Begué
On 3/27/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote: > Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference > toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke, > don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broad

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote: > Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference > toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke, > don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by > hand to John Tromp so he can com

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote: > I don't like the idea of giving extra time every move. The effect is > very similar to adding a fixed amount of time, since go games have > fairly constant lengths. Lags are probably tiny these days for most > people anyway. And you do get an

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Álvaro Begué
Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke, don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by hand to John Tromp so he can comment on the game; I couldn't do this twice as fast. :) I also

Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 08:05 +0900, Darren Cook wrote: > > I am considering to change the time control when I change > > over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. > > I'd prefer the longer time control, though I guess my vote has to be > weak as my program wouldn't be there until Summer at the ea

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote: > > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are > > free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the > > rounds would still be with most of the playe

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Chris Fant
I vote for 5 minutes per side in the name of faster ratings, faster testing and faster games for casual observers to observe. Plus, computers are getting faster every day and 9x9 Go algorithms are getting better every day so it seems reasonable to speed-up the time controls from what it was when

Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Darren Cook
> I am considering to change the time control when I change > over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. I'd prefer the longer time control, though I guess my vote has to be weak as my program wouldn't be there until Summer at the earliest. > the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly ev

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Christoph Birk
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote: P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the rounds would still be with most of the players. That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Heikki Levanto
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:15:49PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > Actually, I only slightly prefer 5 minutes - it seems like it would > be a benefit all things considered. But as I said, I'm willing to > concede - I will do what the group as a whole prefers. So > far nobody has spoken out in favor

Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Heikki Levanto
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:33:36PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: > I am considering to change the time control when I change > over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems > more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play > quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. > > Wh

Re: Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote: > > But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it > > is standard for 19x19 or 9x9? > I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example. > > > At any rate, I will probably go with > > 5 minutes unless I get a lot of

Re:[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Sylvain Gelly
But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it is standard for 19x19 or 9x9? I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example. At any rate, I will probably go with 5 minutes unless I get a lot of protests, in which case I will stay with 10 minutes. I have considered

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:10 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote: > Hi Don, > > > I am considering to change the time control when I change > > over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems > > more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play > > quite strongly even at 2 minutes p

Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 13:26 -0700, Ken Friedenbach wrote: > 1 second is probably too much when network lag is not an issue, > and not enough when it is... > > Is there some way to use ping every N moves, to get > a better setting on a per connection basis? Probably, but I don't want to trust clie

Re: [spam probable] [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Sylvain Gelly
Hi Don, I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game. What does everything think about that? I guess you mean everyon

Re: [computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Ken Friedenbach
1 second is probably too much when network lag is not an issue, and not enough when it is... Is there some way to use ping every N moves, to get a better setting on a per connection basis? Ken Friedenbach On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Don Dailey wrote: The 2 minute server is interesting, the

[computer-go] Time Control for the new CGOS

2007-03-27 Thread Don Dailey
The 2 minute server is interesting, the short time control has still allowed for very strong programs including Mogo. I am considering to change the time control when I change over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which pla