Where there's a will, there's a way. It may not be hard to use auto
match with the self-proclamed bot ranks as a first step approximation.
All that's needed for that is to allow bots to be paired against each
other. Ratings could be computed offline and used by a kgsGtp wrapper
to update the self-proclaimed ratings between games.
Everything else could be incremental tweaks as issues are identified.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
