I prefer keeping 9x9. We have 9x9 for quick testing of changes (because the games are fast), and 19x19 for testing play on a full board. I don't think 13x13 adds anything. It's slower, so I would still use 9x9 for quick tests. It's not a board size that anyone uses, so I would still use 19x19 to test for full boards.
David > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey > Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2008 6:00 AM > To: computer-go > Subject: Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most? > > Of course KGS is certainly more polished than CGOS. > > However, it looks like we can eventually solve the growing pains of > CGOS, I am working on something now. > > My question to the group, especially those using CGOS, is whether you > would be in favor, or opposed to replacing 9x9 with 13x13? > > - 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/
