subject:"RE\: \[computer\-go\] 19x19 CGOS"


It would be easy to change the cgos3.tcl script to enable self-handicap
in this way.   I would make this
change if crazy-stone or mogo would agree to put up a copy.  

- Don



Christoph Birk wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too
 strong, Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
 at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.

 If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2. whatever 4. pass 6. pass
 8. pass. Black cannot pass and win the game because of komi.

 I like this idea. This actually might work even without a server
 change. The self-handicapped program can even play black and pass on the
 2nd,3rd,... move. White still cannot win by passing since there
 are live black stones on the board.

 It is not exactly like real handicaps but it would be interesting
 to see.

 Christoph
 

 ___
 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 Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong, 
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times

at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.

If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2. whatever 4. pass 6. pass 8. 
pass. Black cannot pass and win the game because of komi.


I like this idea. 
This actually might work even without a server change. The 
self-handicapped program can even play black and pass on the

2nd,3rd,... move. White still cannot win by passing since there
are live black stones on the board.

It is not exactly like real handicaps but it would be interesting
to see.

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:

there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning.  i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only cooperating programs will have their results counted.


I agree.
The only change to the server would be to NOT stop games after
2 consecutive passes if the were less than 10 moves played.

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


One way to handle handicaps without a server change which could be
easily implemented with the client is to to simply make the first N
moves random - but it would not resemble a traditional handicap system
in any way. Plus the first N moves might end up being pretty good
moves so it would be applied unevenly.

The problem with any black pass moves is that white immediately passes
too and wins on komi points.Unless there are no white stones on the
board of course.

There is no simple way to fake it with combinations of pass moves with
programs cooperating.  Probably most programs won't pass on the
first 20 moves or so,  but we can't count on that behavior because it's
incorrect.  You should always pass immediately if it wins the game outright.

- Don






John Tromp wrote:
 On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 
 This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
 Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
 at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.

 If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2. whatever 4. pass 6. pass 8.
 pass. Black cannot pass and win the game because of komi.
   

 But to avoid Black from winning by capturing white's stone and passing,
 white needs to make sure to play her stone where it has 4 liberties.
 Even that is not sufficient; white has to play this stone on the 3rd
 line or higher
 (exercise for the reader: how cld black take advantage of some 2nd line 
 moves?)

 regards,
 -John
   
 

 ___
 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

why not just ignore game results that took place in
fewer than 10 moves?

then black can play his handicap stones, white can
pass, and everyone's cool.

s.

- Original Message 
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 4:28:44 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS




On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
 This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
 Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
 at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.


 If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2. whatever 4. pass 6. pass 8.
 pass. Black cannot pass and win the game because of komi.

I like this idea.
This actually might work even without a server change. The

self-handicapped program can even play black and pass on the
2nd,3rd,... move. White still cannot win by passing since there
are live black stones on the board.

I don't think black can ever pass in any simple manner to give handicap.  After 
playing one stone, the remaining empty territory *should* look like nobody's 
territory.  The score would then be black stones vs white stones + komi.  
I'd argue that the right is always greater than the left until territory begins 
to form.  


Similarly, white can safely pass right out of the gate since a black pass would 
make it win.  White can't, however, pass more than 7 times with a komi of 7.5.









__
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/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning.  i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only cooperating programs will have their results counted.

s.

- Original Message 
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:23:46 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

One way to handle handicaps without a server change which could be
easily implemented with the client is to to simply make the first N
moves random - but it would not resemble a traditional handicap system
in any way. Plus the first N moves might end up being pretty good
moves so it would be applied unevenly.

The problem with any black pass moves is that white immediately passes
too and wins on komi points.Unless there are no white stones on the
board of course.

There is no simple way to fake it with combinations of pass moves with
programs cooperating.  Probably most programs won't pass on the
first 20 moves or so,  but we can't count on that behavior because it's
incorrect.  You should always pass immediately if it wins the game
 outright.

- Don

John Tromp wrote:
 On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:

 This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too
 strong,
 Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
 at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.

 If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2. whatever 4. pass 6.
 pass 8.
 pass. Black cannot pass and win the game because of komi.

 But to avoid Black from winning by capturing white's stone and
 passing,
 white needs to make sure to play her stone where it has 4 liberties.
 Even that is not sufficient; white has to play this stone on the 3rd
 line or higher
 (exercise for the reader: how cld black take advantage of some 2nd
 line moves?)

 regards,
 -John

 ___
 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/

__
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/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-29 Thread John Tromp

On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
  This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
  Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
  at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.
 
  If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2. whatever 4. pass 6. pass 8.
  pass. Black cannot pass and win the game because of komi.

But to avoid Black from winning by capturing white's stone and passing,
white needs to make sure to play her stone where it has 4 liberties.
Even that is not sufficient; white has to play this stone on the 3rd
line or higher
(exercise for the reader: how cld black take advantage of some 2nd line moves?)

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

The whole idea is to not have to change the server.  If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.

I remember us talking about this before - we went back and forth on how
to implement handicap with chinese scoring and CGOS but I don't remember
what conclusion I came to. Let's review this:

   1.  We would still attempt to schedule opponents near equal strength.
   2.  We  would still compute ELO ratings.
   3.  Some calculation (perhaps a constant such as 100 at first) to
equate ELO difference to stone handicaps.
   4.  At rating time I would make the ELO compensation based on
handicap and rate accordingly.

For the handicap system,   I have been checking around at various
systems and the GTP protocol.I think the best way which is likely to
cause the least amount of agony among programmers is to have the server
just send the appropriate play b  commands to set up the
position.  The GTP says your engine is supposed to accept moves out
of order.

I would use traditional handicap placement and no compensation (remember
that discussion?) 


- Don



Christoph Birk wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
 or to simply not include the results of such games,
 so as not to break the protocol for machines that
 wanted to have such games take place.

 What would break?
  Server  - clientB:   genmove
  clientB - Server:PASS
  server  - clientW:   play PASS
  server  - clientW:   genmove
  clientW - Server:PASS (W tries to be smart and win)
  server  - clientB:   play PASS(the server does NOT stop the game)
  server  - clientB:   genmove
  clientB - Server:d4
  server  - clientW:   play d4  (W should accept that move)
  server  - clientW:   genmove  (W should generate a move)
  ...

 All that happens is that White would have wasted its move.

 Christoph
 ___
 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 Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:

The whole idea is to not have to change the server.  If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.


But this is a trivial change compared to dealing with an
ad hoc ELO/handicap conversion.

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:

or to simply not include the results of such games,
so as not to break the protocol for machines that
wanted to have such games take place.


What would break?
 Server  - clientB:   genmove
 clientB - Server:PASS
 server  - clientW:   play PASS
 server  - clientW:   genmove
 clientW - Server:PASS (W tries to be smart and win)
 server  - clientB:   play PASS(the server does NOT stop the game)
 server  - clientB:   genmove
 clientB - Server:d4
 server  - clientW:   play d4  (W should accept that move)
 server  - clientW:   genmove  (W should generate a move)
 ...

All that happens is that White would have wasted its move.

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

or to simply not include the results of such games,
so as not to break the protocol for machines that
wanted to have such games take place.

s.

- Original Message 
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:55:52 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
 there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
 i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning.  i think
 it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
 then only cooperating programs will have their results counted.

I agree.
The only change to the server would be to NOT stop games after
2 consecutive passes if the were less than 10 moves played.

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

__
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/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?  

Or simply to not rate them?   Or is it to not consider 2 passes a draw
unless 20 moves have been played?

Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen.   The game might start like this:

   pass
   pass
   pass
   etc.


- Don



Christoph Birk wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
 The whole idea is to not have to change the server.  If I'm going to
 change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.

 But this is a trivial change compared to dealing with an
 ad hoc ELO/handicap conversion.

 Christoph
 ___
 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

ah, well, okay then.  :)

s.

- Original Message 
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:24:41 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
 or to simply not include the results of such games,
 so as not to break the protocol for machines that
 wanted to have such games take place.

What would break?
  Server  - clientB:   genmove
  clientB - Server:PASS
  server  - clientW:   play PASS
  server  - clientW:   genmove
  clientW - Server:PASS (W tries to be smart and win)
  server  - clientB:   play PASS(the server does NOT stop the
 game)
  server  - clientB:   genmove
  clientB - Server:d4
  server  - clientW:   play d4  (W should accept that move)
  server  - clientW:   genmove  (W should generate a move)
  ...

All that happens is that White would have wasted its move.

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

__
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/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

 Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
 which could easily happen.   The game might start like this:

   pass
   pass
   pass
   etc.

 I think it is very unlikely for any program to pass in the early
 game (my would not :-)
 And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
 program will start to move and the other will respond.

They would both pass if they were playing in self-handicap mode.

- Don




 Christoph
 ___
 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 Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:

Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen.   The game might start like this:

  pass
  pass
  pass
  etc.


And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
program will start to move and the other will respond.


If two 'self-handicapped' programs play each other the game will
look like (eg. 2H):
  pass
  pass
  pass
  pass
  d4 ...

And it will be an even game; exactly what it should be, right?

Christoph


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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:

So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?


No, just have the server not stop games before move-20.


Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen.   The game might start like this:

  pass
  pass
  pass
  etc.


I think it is very unlikely for any program to pass in the early
game (my would not :-)
And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
program will start to move and the other will respond.

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

My only arugment is that it would look silly - but it would be correct.

But I guess passing on the first few moves will always look silly.

- Don


Christoph Birk wrote:
 On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
 Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
 which could easily happen.   The game might start like this:

   pass
   pass
   pass
   etc.

 And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
 program will start to move and the other will respond.

 If two 'self-handicapped' programs play each other the game will
 look like (eg. 2H):
   pass
   pass
   pass
   pass
   d4 ...

 And it will be an even game; exactly what it should be, right?

 Christoph


 ___
 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 Edward de Grijs


 
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/
_
Nooit meer offline met Windows Live Messenger op je mobiele telefoon
http://www.getlivemobile.nl/___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

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/

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] 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] 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] 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

2007-10-28 Thread David Doshay

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

2007-10-28 Thread David Doshay


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

2007-10-28 Thread David Doshay


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

I think I would handle this by assuming 100 ELO is 1 stone handicap.   
The data on CGOS would eventually tell me if this should be adjusted.  
Or I would probably just make it self adjusting.

- Don


David Doshay wrote:
 I agree that a lengthy discussion right now is probably not needed,
 but I 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/

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-27 Thread Olivier Teytaud



19x19 server:

I have changed 10 minutes to 30 minutes per side.

I have modified the anchors (but the --positional-superko option
is seemingly not recognized; I'll correct that later).

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-27 Thread Olivier Teytaud


The anchors are:

/usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead
--chinese-rules --level 0

/usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead
--chinese-rules --level 10

The numbers (1200 and 1800) are arbitrary; all suggestions welcome,
as for the command-line above. I have a trouble with the positional
superko, I'll check that soon.

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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

How about leaving gnugo 10 at 1800 and let gungo level 0 float for a while.
See what rating gnugo level 0 gets, then lock it there as an anchor.

If these two programs aren't 600 points apart and you anchor them that way
it will prevent the rating system from stabilizing.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Olivier Teytaud
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 11:37 PM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 The anchors are:
 
 /usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath 
 --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules --level 0
 
 /usr/games/gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath 
 --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules --level 10
 
 The numbers (1200 and 1800) are arbitrary; all suggestions 
 welcome, as for the command-line above. I have a trouble with 
 the positional superko, I'll check that soon.
 
 ___
 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

2007-10-27 Thread Gunnar Farnebäck


Don Dailey wrote:

Who is running gnugo 10?You must using the right options.  Here is
how I run it:

gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules 
--positional-superko


You can skip --score aftermath, it has no effect when --mode gtp is 
used. (Without --mode gtp it would instead try to score the position 
but complain that no position was loaded with the -l option.)



There is also a min-level and max-level setting - not sure what that
does but I think this puts in some default level mode which is reasonbly
strong.


When playing without time controls you only have to specify --level n 
to play at level n, where level 10 is default.


When playing with time controls GNU Go doesn't have infrastructure to 
spend a specific amount of time or abort the move generation based on 
time constraints. Instead it adjusts its playing level after each move, 
decreased level if it plays too slowly, increased level if it plays 
unnecessarily fast. This control is kind of crude and it's advisable to 
limit how high the level may become. Also a lower limit is sometimes 
useful as GNU Go tends to be rather erratic (more so than usual, that 
is) at really low level.


Thus --min-level and --max-level sets these lower and higher limits 
that the time control is allowed to adjust the level between. By default 
min-level is 0 and max-level is 10 or the value set by --level, 
whichever is highest.


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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was top of the list.
At 30 minutes it's 1650.  Many Faces 11 was tuned for the machines in the
1990s, and clearly it needs work for modern machines.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 David Fotland
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:13 PM
 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; 'computer-go'
 Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at 
 fill strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to 
 see the sgf record.  right now it gives an error.
 
 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/
 


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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

ver 11 does 1 ply search with quiescence so there is no way to crank it up.
Ver 12 uses full board alpha beta, but it's too buggy right now to put on
cgos.  if this server stays up for a while, I'll use it for testing of ver
12.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ray Tayek
 Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 11:05 AM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 At 09:53 AM 10/27/2007, you wrote:
 At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was 
 top of the 
 list. At 30 minutes it's 1650.  Many Faces 11 was tuned for the 
 machines in the 1990s, and clearly it needs work for modern machines.
 
 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?
 
 thanks
 
 ---
 vice-chair http://ocjug.org/
 
 
 ___
 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

2007-10-27 Thread Christoph Birk


On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:53 AM, David Fotland wrote:
At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was top of  
the list.
At 30 minutes it's 1650.  Many Faces 11 was tuned for the machines  
in the

1990s, and clearly it needs work for modern machines.


I don't understand that. The anchor does not take advantage of the  
time-limit
change. I always uses about 3 minutes. It probably means that the  
2000 rating

was a fluke.

Christoph



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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.  When the time
limit got longer Many Faces started taking 1 minute instead of 5 minutes, so
there may be a bug in Many Faces GTP interface time control.

DAvid

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Christoph Birk
 Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 12:07 PM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 On Oct 27, 2007, at 9:53 AM, David Fotland wrote:
  At 10 minute time limits Many Faces rated over 2000 and was top of
  the list.
  At 30 minutes it's 1650.  Many Faces 11 was tuned for the machines  
  in the
  1990s, and clearly it needs work for modern machines.
 
 I don't understand that. The anchor does not take advantage of the  
 time-limit
 change. I always uses about 3 minutes. It probably means that the  
 2000 rating
 was a fluke.
 
 Christoph
 
 
 
 ___
 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

2007-10-27 Thread Christoph Birk


On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:

NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.


Did it? I thought the anchor (gnugo-level-10) plays just that, at
level10. How would it get stronger?


When the time
limit got longer Many Faces started taking 1 minute instead of 5  
minutes, so

there may be a bug in Many Faces GTP interface time control.


That might be the explanation.

Christoph

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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts the level
down between moves.  I think with th 30 minute control it is staying at
level 10 the whole game.

I just found a time control bug in Many Faces, and it's been playing at
level 3.  It should get stronger soon :)


 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Christoph Birk
 Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 3:51 PM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:
  NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.
 
 Did it? I thought the anchor (gnugo-level-10) plays just 
 that, at level10. How would it get stronger?
 
  When the time
  limit got longer Many Faces started taking 1 minute instead of 5
  minutes, so
  there may be a bug in Many Faces GTP interface time control.
 
 That might be the explanation.
 
 Christoph
 
 ___
 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

2007-10-27 Thread Don Dailey

Now I remember - the min-level and max-level settings should be set on
the anchor player
to make it play exactly the same strength, whether the machine is loaded
or not,  especially
if the anchor is run on more than one machine.

- Don


David Fotland wrote:
 Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts the level
 down between moves.  I think with th 30 minute control it is staying at
 level 10 the whole game.

 I just found a time control bug in Many Faces, and it's been playing at
 level 3.  It should get stronger soon :)


   
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Christoph Birk
 Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 3:51 PM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:17 PM, David Fotland wrote:
 
 NO, it's because gnugo got stronger with longer time limits.
   
 Did it? I thought the anchor (gnugo-level-10) plays just 
 that, at level10. How would it get stronger?

 
 When the time
 limit got longer Many Faces started taking 1 minute instead of 5
 minutes, so
 there may be a bug in Many Faces GTP interface time control.
   
 That might be the explanation.

 Christoph

 ___
 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

2007-10-27 Thread Christoph Birk


On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:59 PM, David Fotland wrote:

Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts  
the level
down between moves.  I think with th 30 minute control it is  
staying at

level 10 the whole game.


But even now it is only using 3 minutes ... it was not short of time  
even

during 10 minute games.

Christoph

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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

You're right.  the problem was Many Faces was playing at level 3 instead of
10.  I fixed it and now Many Faces is taking 5 minutes per game rather than
1 minute.  It's rating should come back up now.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Christoph Birk
 Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2007 4:50 PM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

 On Oct 27, 2007, at 3:59 PM, David Fotland wrote:

  Because gnugo has time control and when time is short it adjusts
  the level
  down between moves.  I think with th 30 minute control it is  
  staying at
  level 10 the whole game.

 But even now it is only using 3 minutes ... it was not short of time  
 even
 during 10 minute games.

 Christoph

 ___
 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

2007-10-26 Thread Olivier Teytaud


Thanks to GNU-people who successfully
connected their bot to the server.
The server seemingly works.

cgos.lri.fr, port 6919.
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
19x19, 10 minutes per side (for the moment, to be increased).

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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill strength.
It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf record.  right now
it gives an error.

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

Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory that looks
like this:

-[ snip ]---
AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
-[ snip ]-

- Don




David Fotland wrote:
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill strength.
 It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf record.  right now
 it gives an error.

 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/

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
of your games right now.


- Don



David Fotland wrote:
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill strength.
 It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf record.  right now
 it gives an error.

 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/

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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

no, I never got the viewer to work for me.  

I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is only playing at
level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But it's
winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short time limits :)

Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works pretty
well at very short time limits.

David

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
 of your games right now.
 
 
 - Don
 
 
 
 David Fotland wrote:
  I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill 
  strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf 
  record.  right now it gives an error.
 
  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/
 

 ___
 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

Actually,   I just tried the windows viewer on my linux system and it
worked! I guess wine, the windows emulator has come a long way!  

Here is what I did:

 cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919

I did this from a bash shell and it came up just fine on my edgy eft
ubuntu system.

If a windows program runs on linux, it has to work on windows!

- Don




Don Dailey wrote:
 As far as I know the viewer works just fine.  

 Has anyone else tried the windows viewer on the new 19x19 site?
 I haven't tried it with windows, but you must pass the site and port
 number to the viewer from the command line like this:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919


 The viewer is a really nice way to look at games.  A 3rd argument
 will let you view a specific game number:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919  777  
(view game 777)


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:
   
 no, I never got the viewer to work for me.  

 I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is only playing at
 level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But it's
 winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short time limits :)

 Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works pretty
 well at very short time limits.

 David

   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
 of your games right now.


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:
 
   
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill 
 strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf 
 record.  right now it gives an error.

 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/

   
   
 
 ___
 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] 19x19 CGOS

Thanks.  It works for me now.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:58 PM
 To: computer-go
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

 As far as I know the viewer works just fine.  

 Has anyone else tried the windows viewer on the new 19x19 
 site? I haven't tried it with windows, but you must pass the 
 site and port number to the viewer from the command line like this:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919

 The viewer is a really nice way to look at games.  A 3rd 
 argument will let you view a specific game number:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919  777  
(view game 777)

 - Don

 David Fotland wrote:
  no, I never got the viewer to work for me.

  I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is 
 only playing 
  at level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But 
  it's winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short 
 time limits :)

  Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works 
  pretty well at very short time limits.

  David

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of 
 Don Dailey
  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
  To: computer-go
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

  Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am 
 watching one
  of your games right now.

  - Don

  David Fotland wrote:

  I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill
  strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to 
 see the sgf 
  record.  right now it gives an error.

  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/

  ___
  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] 19x19 CGOS

The feature to display a specified game number doesn't work.I had a
version at one time that did this but I think I decided against
releasing it,   I'm not sure why but I remember having a reason.

- Don




Don Dailey wrote:
 As far as I know the viewer works just fine.  

 Has anyone else tried the windows viewer on the new 19x19 site?
 I haven't tried it with windows, but you must pass the site and port
 number to the viewer from the command line like this:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919


 The viewer is a really nice way to look at games.  A 3rd argument
 will let you view a specific game number:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919  777  
(view game 777)


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:
   
 no, I never got the viewer to work for me.  

 I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is only playing at
 level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But it's
 winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short time limits :)

 Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works pretty
 well at very short time limits.

 David

   
 
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
 of your games right now.


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:
 
   
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill 
 strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf 
 record.  right now it gives an error.

 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/

   
   
 
 ___
 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] 19x19 CGOS

I found the version - it's version 0.33 and I never published it.  
You can specify any game ever played on cgos and it will bring
it up. You can also bring several up like this:

  cgosview.exe -server cgos.lri.fr  -port 6919  -games 1 2 3 4 5 99 17

If Olivier puts up a front page of some kind I  will update the viewing
client to work with the new 19x19 site  by default and he can post
them.

- Don




Don Dailey wrote:
 Actually,   I just tried the windows viewer on my linux system and it
 worked! I guess wine, the windows emulator has come a long way!  

 Here is what I did:

  cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919

 I did this from a bash shell and it came up just fine on my edgy eft
 ubuntu system.

 If a windows program runs on linux, it has to work on windows!

 - Don




 Don Dailey wrote:
   
 As far as I know the viewer works just fine.  

 Has anyone else tried the windows viewer on the new 19x19 site?
 I haven't tried it with windows, but you must pass the site and port
 number to the viewer from the command line like this:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919


 The viewer is a really nice way to look at games.  A 3rd argument
 will let you view a specific game number:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919  777  
(view game 777)


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:
   
 
 no, I never got the viewer to work for me.  

 I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is only playing at
 level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But it's
 winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short time limits :)

 Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works pretty
 well at very short time limits.

 David

   
 
   
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
 of your games right now.


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:
 
   
 
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill 
 strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf 
 record.  right now it gives an error.

 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/

   
   
 
   
 ___
 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] 19x19 CGOS

2007-10-26 Thread Joshua Shriver

I'm not able to connect to the 19x19 server either.

I even tried telnet'ing to it.  Cgosviewer keeps telling me could not
execute, but I dont believe it's a binary problem since if I just run
the viewer it comes up (just doesnt connect to anything)

Here is the tail of a traceroute.
8  nri-a-g1-0-0-101.cssi.renater.fr (193.51.187.17) [MPLS: Label 142
Exp 0]  119 ms  137 ms  121 ms
19  orsay-g0-0-0-170.cssi.renater.fr (193.51.179.90)  117 ms  125 ms  121 ms
20  ups-orsay.cssi.renater.fr (193.51.183.29)  137 ms  135 ms  121 ms
21  * 129.175.127.130 (129.175.127.130)  158 ms !A *

-Josh

On 10/26/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 I found the version - it's version 0.33 and I never published it.
 You can specify any game ever played on cgos and it will bring
 it up. You can also bring several up like this:

   cgosview.exe -server cgos.lri.fr  -port 6919  -games 1 2 3 4 5 99 17

 If Olivier puts up a front page of some kind I  will update the viewing
 client to work with the new 19x19 site  by default and he can post
 them.

 - Don




 Don Dailey wrote:
  Actually,   I just tried the windows viewer on my linux system and it
  worked! I guess wine, the windows emulator has come a long way!
 
  Here is what I did:
 
   cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919
 
  I did this from a bash shell and it came up just fine on my edgy eft
  ubuntu system.
 
  If a windows program runs on linux, it has to work on windows!
 
  - Don
 
 
 
 
  Don Dailey wrote:
 
  As far as I know the viewer works just fine.
 
  Has anyone else tried the windows viewer on the new 19x19 site?
  I haven't tried it with windows, but you must pass the site and port
  number to the viewer from the command line like this:
 
 cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919
 
 
  The viewer is a really nice way to look at games.  A 3rd argument
  will let you view a specific game number:
 
 cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919  777
 (view game 777)
 
 
  - Don
 
 
 
  David Fotland wrote:
 
 
  no, I never got the viewer to work for me.
 
  I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is only playing at
  level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But it's
  winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short time limits :)
 
  Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works pretty
  well at very short time limits.
 
  David
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
  To: computer-go
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
  Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
  of your games right now.
 
 
  - Don
 
 
 
  David Fotland wrote:
 
 
 
  I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill
  strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf
  record.  right now it gives an error.
 
  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/
 
 
 
 
 
  ___
  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

2007-10-26 Thread Joshua Shriver

Alrighty figured it out

./cgosviewer cgos.lri.fr  6919

Sorry was going from various emails, but it works now :) yuppy

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

Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

Which version of the viewer do you have? I don't think this works
unless you have
the right version which I don't think I've published yet.

Also,  you might have the wrong server.   He now has it as cgos.lri.fr

So try this:   ./cgosview cgos.lri.fr  6919

You can also try the -server and -port but I don't think it will
work.Sorry about the confusion.


- Don




Joshua Shriver wrote:
  ./cgosviewer -server pc5-120.lri.fr -port 6919
 could not execute

 However if I just run cgosviewer without and cli arguments I can see 9x9 fine.
 -Josh

 On 10/26/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   
 It does work, you are just doing something wrong.   If it comes up,  it
 is working but it is very slow loading the initial set of games - so you
 must be patient,  it could take 15-30 seconds.  It used to be fast,
 I'm not sure why it's slowed down but it's probably a database issue -
 the database is huge now (and I use sqlite3 which is very fast for
 smaller databases, but not as scalable as slower more heavy duty
 databases like mysql.)

 Make sure you have the version of the viewing from the 9x9 website.
 Also,  make sure you are using the right port number,   it used to be
 6819 now it's 6919,   Olivier used a different port for some reason.

 - Don



 Joshua Shriver wrote:
 
 I'm not able to connect to the 19x19 server either.

 I even tried telnet'ing to it.  Cgosviewer keeps telling me could not
 execute, but I dont believe it's a binary problem since if I just run
 the viewer it comes up (just doesnt connect to anything)

 Here is the tail of a traceroute.
 8  nri-a-g1-0-0-101.cssi.renater.fr (193.51.187.17) [MPLS: Label 142
 Exp 0]  119 ms  137 ms  121 ms
 19  orsay-g0-0-0-170.cssi.renater.fr (193.51.179.90)  117 ms  125 ms  121 ms
 20  ups-orsay.cssi.renater.fr (193.51.183.29)  137 ms  135 ms  121 ms
 21  * 129.175.127.130 (129.175.127.130)  158 ms !A *

 -Josh

 On 10/26/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

   
 I found the version - it's version 0.33 and I never published it.
 You can specify any game ever played on cgos and it will bring
 it up. You can also bring several up like this:

   cgosview.exe -server cgos.lri.fr  -port 6919  -games 1 2 3 4 5 99 17

 If Olivier puts up a front page of some kind I  will update the viewing
 client to work with the new 19x19 site  by default and he can post
 them.

 - Don




 Don Dailey wrote:

 
 Actually,   I just tried the windows viewer on my linux system and it
 worked! I guess wine, the windows emulator has come a long way!

 Here is what I did:

  cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919

 I did this from a bash shell and it came up just fine on my edgy eft
 ubuntu system.

 If a windows program runs on linux, it has to work on windows!

 - Don




 Don Dailey wrote:


   
 As far as I know the viewer works just fine.

 Has anyone else tried the windows viewer on the new 19x19 site?
 I haven't tried it with windows, but you must pass the site and port
 number to the viewer from the command line like this:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919


 The viewer is a really nice way to look at games.  A 3rd argument
 will let you view a specific game number:

cgosview.exe  cgos.lri.fr  6919  777
(view game 777)


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:



 
 no, I never got the viewer to work for me.

 I was too conservative with time control so Many Faces is only playing 
 at
 level 8 (of 10), and finishing its games in 2 or 3 minutes.  But it's
 winning them all, so I guess I should prefer short time limits :)

 Since Many Faces was originally written for a 12 MHz x286, it works 
 pretty
 well at very short time limits.

 David





   
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:30 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 Are you able to watch the games in the viewer ok?I am watching one
 of your games right now.


 - Don



 David Fotland wrote:




 
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill
 strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf
 record.  right now it gives an error.

 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

RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS

10 minutes is slightly too fast for Many Faces full strength.  It plays most
of the game at level 10, then drops down.

Also, the gnugo 10 that's fixed at 1800 doesn't remove dead stones, so the
score is often wrong.

 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
 Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory 
 that looks like this:
 
 -[ snip ]---
 AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
 -[ snip ]-
 
 - Don
 
 
 
 
 David Fotland wrote:
  I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill 
  strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf 
  record.  right now it gives an error.
 
  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/
 

 ___
 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

2007-10-26 Thread Chris Fant

Any chance of getting some extra data fields in the viewer, such as
the time remaining for each player?


On 10/27/07, David Fotland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 10 minutes is slightly too fast for Many Faces full strength.  It plays most
 of the game at level 10, then drops down.

 Also, the gnugo 10 that's fixed at 1800 doesn't remove dead stones, so the
 score is often wrong.

  -Original Message-
  From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
  Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
  To: computer-go
  Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
  Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
 
 
  Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory
  that looks like this:
 
  -[ snip ]---
  AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
  -[ snip ]-
 
  - Don
 
 
 
 
  David Fotland wrote:
   I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill
   strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf
   record.  right now it gives an error.
  
   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/
  
  
  ___
  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

Who is running gnugo 10?You must using the right options.  Here is
how I run it:

gnugo --mode gtp --score aftermath --capture-all-dead --chinese-rules 
--positional-superko

There is also a min-level and max-level setting - not sure what that
does but I think this puts in some default level mode which is reasonbly
strong.

- Don




David Fotland wrote:
 10 minutes is slightly too fast for Many Faces full strength.  It plays most
 of the game at level 10, then drops down.

 Also, the gnugo 10 that's fixed at 1800 doesn't remove dead stones, so the
 score is often wrong.

   
 -Original Message-
 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
 Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 6:24 PM
 To: computer-go
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS


 Olivier needs to put a .htaccess file in the SGF directory 
 that looks like this:

 -[ snip ]---
 AddType application/x-go-sgf sgf
 -[ snip ]-

 - Don




 David Fotland wrote:
 
 I puton Many Faces version 11, but it might not be playing at fill 
 strength. It ouwld be nice if I can click on a game to see the sgf 
 record.  right now it gives an error.

 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/

   
   
 ___
 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