What happens in March? Or are you suggesting that we do 13x13 until March?
- Don On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 17:54 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote: > I vote for 13x13 with 15 minutes. > 19x19 , 30 minutes , in march. > > Lukasz Lew > > On 12/12/06, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > We have a few proposals. My preference is 13x13 at 20 minutes per > > game, but I think the idea of having 19x19 is more popular. > > > > If we do 19x19 I don't think the monte carlo programs would have much of > > a chance with current hardware if we use a fast time control. Of > > course personally I'm trying to encourage the development of new > > techniques and idea and particularly Monte Carlo although all programs > > are welcome. > > > > So I'm leaning towards 30 minute games at 19x19 but I'm still listening > > to feedback. > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:05 -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > You anticipated my next question - the time control. > > > > > > I was thinkin gof 30 minutes too. Any feedback? > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 21:10 -0800, David Fotland wrote: > > > > I'd like to see 19x19. No one plays the game on any other board size > > > > than > > > > 19x19, so the other sizes are not very interesting. The current strong > > > > programs are all tuned only for 19x19, and the patterns and strategy are > > > > quite different at other board sizes. > > > > > > > > Of course you should keep the 9x9 server running as well, since it's > > > > probably easier to tune algorithms on the smaller board size. You > > > > probably > > > > want longer games at 19x19. I'd like to see 30 minutes per side, since > > > > that's pretty typical for human games. > > > > > > > > -David > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > > > > > Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 8:49 PM > > > > > To: computer-go > > > > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Did you have a specific size in mind? It seems like a 19x19 server > > > > > would be the natural thing. > > > > > > > > > > I could run the old server until I get the new one finished. > > > > > > > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:29 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > > > > > > A few months ago I suggested a number of stepwise increases > > > > > in board > > > > > > size to see how the algorithms scaled. It seems to me > > > > > having just 2 > > > > > > data points does not say enough about how the MC (or any other) > > > > > > algorithm scales, so I wanted to be able to graph some measure of > > > > > > strength against increasing board size. > > > > > > > > > > > > The responses showed some interest in the normal board > > > > > sizes, but not > > > > > > enough for me to think it was worth it to host the servers. > > > > > Several of > > > > > > the program authors indicated that they could only run one > > > > > size at a > > > > > > time, and I assumed that this meant that having multiple > > > > > CGOS servers > > > > > > would only detract from the usefulness of the 9x9, so I did > > > > > not start > > > > > > any other size of server. > > > > > > > > > > > > If things have changed, I have the resources to be a CGOS-N host. > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 11, Dec 2006, at 7:53 PM, David Fotland wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Clearly UCT and monte carlo is very well suited to 9x9 go. It > > > > > > > works much > > > > > > > better than the traditional computer go algorithms, and > > > > > it is much, > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > simpler. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you have any plans to set up a CGOS server for 19x19 go? I'd > > > > > > > like to see > > > > > > > how well UCT/MC scales to 19x19 go. I don't think it will work > > > > > > > well at > > > > > > > 19x19, but I'd like to see some experiments to see if I'm wrong. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > David > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > 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/
