At least for Many Faces 11, if you run it at the top level, it will play the same no matter what hardware you use since the search parameters are fixed.
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2007 10:33 AM > To: computer-go > Subject: Re: [computer-go] best approach forward > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > David Fotland wrote: > > I agree. Computer go needs someone who will play large > tournaments are > > publish results. I'm also curious how Many Faces would do against > > Mogo on 19x19 in a long match. Mogo is much better at > endgames, and > > is much greedier, but Many Faces is much stronger tactically. > > Certainly if there were ratings it would motivate me to > work on Many > > Faces more. I think games against mogo would help me find bugs in > > Many Faces. > > > > Are you volunteering? Is the 19x19 cgos still going? I could put > > Many Faces on it if there is any interest. > > > > David > > I believe Many Faces is probably stronger than Mogo but I don't know > that this has been proven. But that's my point, I don't think anyone > really knows for sure where any of the top programs really > stand unless they know due to private testing on their own or > anecdotal claims. > > But what I had in mind in some kind of ratings agency where > the conditions are controlled and everything is completely open. > > Here is what is required: > > 1. Someone with at least 2 equal DEDICATED computers plus a server. > 2. Someone willing to do the work. > 3. Software to manage the testing. > > Anyone wishing to get on the "rating list" would have to > submit a binary or executable of some kind to the "testing agency." > > Some kind of restriction concerning which programs get > tested. With a limited resource testing agency you can't > have hundreds of programs and versions being tested. > > Of course something like CGOS is simpler, but there is no way > to verify > what is being run and what hardware it is being run on. There is > nothing to stop you from running Many Faces or some other > program and claiming it is your program or running on an 8 > processor system and > claiming it's 1 processor. (although it often becomes obvious after > some time. I suspect that if someone got Many Faces running > you or someone else would be able to detect this sooner or > later if you were paying attention.) > > Perhaps something like CGOS would be required to qualify. Get your > program running well on CGOS, after so many games and a good > rating you > earn the right to submit a program to the agency. Or perhaps the > agency evaluates any submitted programs and decides which > ones get rated. > > The computers don't have to be equivalent either. But each > machine/software combination has to be considered a separate identity. > Example: > > 1. Many Faces version X running on core 2 duo e6700 > 2. Many Faces quad version X running on xyz > > and so on. > > Unfortunately, this does require some dedication on someones > part and a > bit of trust. All games should be public and so should the testing > methodology, etc. > > My point is that this probably won't happen in computer Go > but it happened long ago in computer chess. > > - - Don > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) > Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org > > iD4DBQFHDl48DsOllbwnSikRAmUCAJi5IoVkDQUrfHxPlEf4hNZh0OPTAJ9VlGoC > +vQLi+uYD/w6u+soc5Z3bQ== > =ylOv > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > 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/
