-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 I appreciate the vote of confidence, but my point is that if you want some kind of "certified" rating CGOS is not a good choice. You can run anything on CGOS and claim anything. You could even substitute a strong human player, if you wanted to.
So even though it's "open" in one big sense it's really closed in another sense. It's almost like internet identities, you can hide and mis-represent yourself easily. - - Don Christoph Birk wrote: > On Thu, 11 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote: >> Right now we know that Mogo dominates in 9x9. Without CGOS this would >> be speculation based on who won the last tournament. But CGOS is not >> the right way although it's a useful tool. There needs to be some >> kind of testing agency that is fair and unbiased, visible, and >> everything is out in the open. > > I disagree. CGOS is the best way to go. It is much more open than > any "independent testing agency" could be. > > Christoph > > ps. thanks again for running CGOS :-) > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHDnZQDsOllbwnSikRAqjuAKCauNlfYMYiOpPY3GYAv+UqN4NIBgCgnDQu VKpwM8hhdZgeGb/KhZe01vc= =CiOB -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
