On Jul 31, 2008, at 9:00 AM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
My question to the group, especially those using CGOS, is whether you
would be in favor, or opposed to replacing 9x9 with 13x13?
With a mid-ranged bot (1735 ELO), I still have more to do on 9x9. I
don't mind moving to 13x13 except that games will take longer. It
already took me 5(?) days to get a stable rank for 8 variations of my
bot.
I avoid the 19x19 server because of the long games and reduced
competition. Not to mention it's tougher :)
I expect new bots to prefer 9x9 and mature bots to prefer 19x19.
- Don
On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 08:05 -0400, Jason House wrote:
On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to
rank
bots based on KGS games.
I'm pretty sure the site stopped doing rankings when KGS moved to
gokgs.com
If you can figure out how to make it
schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it.
I doubt you'd get the CGOS style for either of these out of the box.
Scheduling for automatch is likely a first-come, first-serve basis,
probably with some kind of anti-repeat feature. Having engines
reconnect at the start of a round could help fairness issues.
Randomized connection times could be helpful too.
KGS would limit games to within 9 stones and would automatically give
handicap, but I consider that a good thing.
Obviously, the more wms helps (or lets us provide code, the better
things will be. I doubt we'd get anywhere without Nick Wedd backing
the idea, and he probably wouldn't if you don't. A KGS alternative
may
never be as good as a custom computer go server, but if it's close,
it
has other side benefits... Game caches, wider human audiences,
potential integration with human play, etc
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/
_______________________________________________
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/
