On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote: > > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are > > free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the > > rounds would still be with most of the players. > > That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against > each other. > > Christoph
I've really struggled with this one. In the end, scheduling is far easier and has far less side effects if I make them discreet. There is also a feature in the server to report informational messages - one of them reports the time until the next round, which hopefully makes the wait more bearable. Of course it's just an estimate and it's almost always overstated. A little analysis shows that this does not decrease the playing rate much at all for programs that use most of their time. For the really fast programs, you will clearly get scheduled less often. I usually make decisions, where there is an issue, in favor of the stronger programs as long as it doesn't introduce gross unfairness to the weaker programs. In this case I don't want to introduce a scheduling algorithm that encourages random players to play zillions of games. - 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/
