Don, One possible option would be to have fixed size servers for 9x9 and 19x19--and make the third a variable sized server with each bot stating which sizes it is willing to play leaving it up to the scheduler to set the parameters for each game. That way, no bot would play any sizes it didn't want to, and yet very small and very large sizes could be accommodated for willing bots. Something to consider if a fixed size 13x13 server is underutilized.
Ben. ----- Original Message ---- From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> Sent: Friday, August 1, 2008 6:50:23 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] CGOS server boardsize I don't seriously plan to do this. However, if I did each bot could choose whether to sit out certain rounds. - Don On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 19:31 -0400, George Dahl wrote: > One thing to consider is that for some bots it may be very very hard > to change the board size. My (as yet incomplete) bot will be like > this. It will require thousands of CPU hours to adapt itself to a new > board size so I want to work with as few board sizes as possible since > I need to collect training data for each one. > - George > > On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about rotating board sizes? Each round changes the board > size. > Just an idea. > > One time long ago I considered making a server where there > were no time > controls. You just played at whatever pace you choose. The > server > would try to keep your bot busy playing many different games > simultaneously. Whenever your move is complete, the server > hands you a > new position to compute which likely would be from some other > game. > > Slower bots of course play less games. Scheduling for this is > an > interesting problem, especially if avoiding mismatches is a > priority. > > - Don > > > > > On Fri, 2008-08-01 at 13:09 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote: > > On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > Something that has worked well in other games would be to > change the > > > third CGOS every month. Each month, the parameters would > be announced > > > and the CGOS started empty except for the anchor(s). At > the end of the > > > month, the bot at the top?would be?the winner. That would > allow us to > > > experiment with novel settings like 11x11 boards or 20 > seconds per game > > > that might be interesting for a short while but maybe not > for long. It > > > can be a way of keeping things fresh and leveling the > playing field a > > > little. > > > > It also would need a lot more maintenance ... > > IMHO there would not much to be learned from (eg) 11x11. > > I think of CGOS as a testing arena, not a monthly tournament > > to find the best program at some arbitrary setting. > > > > Christoph > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/
