I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank bots based on KGS games. If you can figure out how to make it schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it. I want to be able to put my bot on line, leave it alone for a day or more, and know it will play only other computers under a consistent rule set and get a ranking. Also I want to know that you can't just disconnect and to abort lost games. I don't want the same player playing it 20 games in a row and so on. If you can get all that to happen without WMS support, then I'm definitely interested.
- Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:20 -0400, Jason House wrote: > 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/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
