On Sat, 2008-08-02 at 15:35 +0900, Hideki Kato wrote: > Don, > > Why we have to have three servers for three boardsizes? Isn't it > possoble to build a server that handle any boarsize?
Of course it is, it's just a lot more work. I had my original prototype up and running in about 1 long day of work (although I have spent a substantial amount of time on it since then.) I designed CGOS to handle any board size but only one at a time. I could have also designed it to handle multiple time controls, rule-sets, etc but I wanted to keep it real simple and it is. Also, I have never done anything quite like a server before, so I didn't want to byte off more than I could chew. - Don > -Hideki > > Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >There has been some discussion about which additional board sizes to use > >for the server once it is running. > > > >Of course running all 3 board sizes is a possibility now that we will > >have server space, but my fear all along has been that they will kill > >each other. There is something to be said about numbers and you want as > >many programs as possible playing on the server you want to test on. > > > >Instead of asking for a lot of opinions however, I think it makes sense > >to put all 3 servers up and see what happens for a while. In other > >words you will vote with your participation. I think we will see that > >programs will gravitate more towards one server than another and I don't > >know which one that will be. If they all get reasonable usage I will > >leave them all up, but if one tends to get very little usage, I will > >bring it down later. I'll let them all stay up for a reasonable length > >of time. > > > >So there will be 9x9, 13x13 and 19x19, at least for the first month or > >so, depending on usage. > > > >For time controls, I have changed my previous position, I think I > >prefer somewhat faster time controls. There are disadvantages but > >almost many advantages. The foremost advantages is that I believe it > >encourages participation, more programs are likely to test on the > >server if they do not have to wait unduly long for solid results. > >Another advantage is that the games are more fun to watch. > > > >Right now, the time control for 9x9 assuming the average number of moves > >is roughly equivalent to the number of points on the board is about 3.7 > >seconds per move or 5 minutes. Using this same exact reasoning if we > >try to match the same rate of play per move we have this table: > > > > 9x9 - 300 seconds or 5 minutes > > 13x13 - 625 seconds or 10 minutes, 18 seconds. > > 19x19 - 1336 seconds or 22 minutes, 16 seconds per move. > > > >There is no particular reason that the time control has to be in > >multiples of 5 minutes except that we humans seems to be offended if > >things are rounded nicely for us. > > > >So we could accept those values as is, or we could round it to what to > >our sensibilities seems somehow more "normal" and use 5 minutes 10 > >minutes and 20 minutes for 9x9, 13x13 and 19x19 respectively. > > > >If we want to speed things up a bit, we might consider going from 3.7 > >seconds per move to 2.5 seconds per move. This gives the following > >approximate table: > > > > 9x9 - 202.5 seconds or 3 minutes, 22 seconds > > 13x13 - 422.5 seconds or 7 minutes 2 seconds > > 19x19 - 902.5 seconds or 15 minutes 2 seconds > > > >These could be rounded to 3 minutes, 7 minutes and 15 minutes or kept as > >is. > > > >There is some argument for making the bigger boards play faster based on > >the notion that you SHOULD play faster since the game will have a lot > >more moves in it. > > > >In this case, the time control could be set the same for all board > >sizes, perhaps 15 minutes per game or even 10 minutes per game. There > >is some appeal to having this kind of consistency, but of course the > >quality of the games on the big boards would suffer accordingly. Of > >course we don't care about absolute quality since we are testing > >programs against each other and we accept that they play much better at > >longer time controls. > > > >But we could set the average time per move faster if we were not > >comfortable with just making them all the same. We could do something > >like 5, 10, 15 or something like that. > > > >In addition to the time control, there is currently a 0.75 second gift > >which is configurable. The gift makes it possible for some programs > >with high latency connection issues to finish ridiculously long games > >without defaulting on time despite the fact that they are playing > >instantly. So fast time controls shouldn't be dominated by network > >speed considerations. > > > >My current default choice is: > > > > 9x9 - 5 minutes. (to keep it the same as it is.) > > 13x13 - 10 minutes. > > 19x19 - 15 or 20 minutes. > > > >Feedback? > > > >- Don > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >- Don > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >computer-go mailing list > >computer-go@computer-go.org > >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
