It would please me to have all the gaps filled like this, but it's a matter of getting them to play on the server.
In a related issue, I plan to build a weak player into the server. This would be a player who's only function would be to provide an opponent so that no players has to wait out a round. It would much stronger than random, but not strong. It would be nice if standard players over the whole spectrum could be built into the server, but the server is a very low powered virtual box and I don't want to stress it. Another alternative is to get a serious machine, such as a quad or octal capable of supporting several standard players to be run on the side. Many programs are scalable, so it would really be cool if the server itself could have a small set of "ready to go" players available which it could pick and choose as needed to fill gaps when the appropriately rated players are not playing. It would be ideal if such a dedicated machine and the CGOS server itself were sitting in a data center somewhere performing these functions. But that is too expensive to consider. >From time to time we get volunteers to run the anchor player, and indeed we depend on this. But since people do this on a voluntary basis we cannot expect complete reliability and we cannot enforce the existence 24/7 of an anchor player. So that's another issue. - Don On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Brian Sheppard <sheppar...@aol.com> wrote: > While working Pebbles up the ladder, there are times when Pebbles > was squarely in the middle of a huge gap. For example, there was a > time when the opponents were Aya (~2300) and AverageLib (~700). That > is pretty extreme. But even now the next higher rated opponent is > +200 and the next lower rated opponent is -300. (Lingo, come back! > We need you!) > > The problem caused by large gaps is that all games have a predictable > result, so it is hard to evaluate differences. > > Can the new CGOS has a more scalable set of standard opponents? E.g., > every 200 rating points from 800 through 2400 should be feasible > (technically) using available versions of Mogo or Fuego. I understand > that expense is an issue, but only the highest of these would be expensive. > And perhaps the community can share. > > Technical details: you can only have one fixed point, which is FatMan at > 1800 by definition. The other standard players hit their targets by > adapting effort levels. For example, if a player has a current rating > > 2000, > then reduce effort by a few percent, and otherwise increase effort by a > few percent. > > Best, > Brian > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
