I like KGS and the maturity of it compared to CGOS. However, it's a different problem. KGS doesn't schedule games for you.
I also tried to persuade WMS to rate 9x9 bot games, but he was unwilling to add more indexes and overhead to the database. And even if he agreed, sometimes I want to play other bots, although I like the idea of being able to play humans when I want that. Still, it's a scheduling issue that KGS just doesn't support. If WMS had made a computer go server that looks like KGS but does the scheduling and rating for bots only (or given a choice with humans too) and such, I would have never written CGOS. If he does it later, I would probably prefer it to CGOS and would use it instead. - Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:35 -0400, Jason House wrote: > Maybe we should approach wms about using KGS. Rank and pairings could > be computed separately. Once upon a time, there was a page that > computed 9x9 bot ratings > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Jul 30, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > There seems to be something special about 9x9 go for computers, it's > > very popular, perhaps because it's so much more approachable. > > > > However I personally think it's time to start looking at bigger board > > sizes seriously. If it were up to me, we would move to 11x11 on > > CGOS > > but I fear that would be especially unpopular because it's not one of > > the 3 "standard" sizes. > > > > If we were to look at 13x13 I don't think I would want to continue > > supporting the 9x9 server, I would want to replace it with 13x13. > > > > There is also the issue of space and performance. I think we are > > pushing the limits of what boardspace can handle, especially in > > terms of > > space. I can't complain too much because it's a gift that we can > > use it > > at all but I'm constantly fighting a small storage limit. I'm not > > sure > > what the performance issues are but the 19x19 server seems fast and > > responsive in comparison to the 9x9 server. I do not have any idea > > why > > this is. But what I'm trying to say is that we can't have BOTH a > > 9x9 > > and 13x13 due to resource limitations and if we move to 13x13 I > > think we > > would need a bit more capable server to be happy and comfortable. > > > > I have some contacts at universities that I could approach with regard > > to this, that I have never considered before. But I would first like > > to see if changing from 9x9 to 13x13 would create a lot of anxiety > > with > > people. 9x9 does seem amazingly popular and I would hate to "kill" > > CGOS > > by moving to 13x13 if nobody is interested or would support it. > > > > - Don > > > > > > > > On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 11:48 -0700, Peter Drake wrote: > >> More hardware would help, of course. > >> > >> More data would be good. Particularly useful would be game records > >> (for training) and sets of whole-board positions (9x9 and 19x19). > >> Pattern libraries and opening libraries would be good, too, but > >> incorporating them into existing programs may be difficult. > >> > >> I think the interesting algorithmic area is somehow localizing the > >> search. My team is working on it... > >> > >> The community is quite good. I wonder if a 13x13 CGOS would help, > >> because many of us are doing well at 9x9, but 19x19 is MUCH harder. > >> > >> Peter Drake > >> http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ > >> > >> > >> On Jul 27, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Darren Cook wrote: > >> > >>> I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program > >>> that is > >>> at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board > >>> has > >>> given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the > >>> authors > >>> of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in > >>> strength. > >>> There seem to be four broad categories: > >>> > >>> * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just > >>> need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) > >>> > >>> * More data > >>> > >>> * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search? > >>> other?) > >>> > >>> * More community > >>> > >>> By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source > >>> projects, etc. > >>> > >>> By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked > >>> up > >>> with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern > >>> libraries; > >>> test suites; opening libraries. > >>> > >>> Darren > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer > >>> http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic > >>> open source dictionary/semantic network) > >>> http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) > >>> http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, > >>> linux, ...) > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> 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/
