Hi,
just my 2 cents:
1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the
last 9x9 tournament.
1) 18 Cores
2) 80 Cores
3) 12 Cores
4) 288 Cores
5) 8 Cores
Moreover, using the 18 cores of place number one is affordable to
everyone as Remi outlined.
Still, i would compete in a few desktop-hardware-tournaments. It should
just have reasonable limits, there is no point to make a tournament on
raspberry pi's ;-) Maybe one of the slow-tournaments can be changed into
a desktop-hardware tournament.
2) stefan kaitschick proposed to "force a minimum time consumption on
the first moves of 9*9 games. It's annoying as a spectator to have the
first 8 moves or so just spit out on the board, forcing you to go back
to see what happened there."
I don't like forcing too many things. But it is a very good idea, so i
just added a one second book-delay to abakus. Maybe other authors find
this useful, too.
Best,
Tobias
On 10/07/2015 12:27 PM, Nick Wedd wrote:
I am thinking of making some small changes to the way I run bot
tournaments on KGS. If you have ever taken part in a KGS bot
tournament, I would like to hear your opinions on three things.
1. Limit on processor power?
This is the main point on which I want your opinions. The other two
are trivial.
Several people have suggested to me that these events would be fairer
if there were a limit on the computing power of the entrants. I would
like to do this, but I don't know how. I have little understanding of
the terminology, I don't know how /e.g./ multiple cores in one
computer compare with multiple computers on one network, and I don't
know how to count a graphics card. /If/ someone can find a way to
specify an upper limit to permitted power which is clear and easy to
understand, and /if/ most entrants would favor imposing such a limit,
I will discuss what it should be, and apply it. I am not able to
check what entrants are really running on, but I will trust people.
2. Zeroes in the "Annual Championship" table.
The table at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/annual/index.html has a 0 in
a cell where a program competed but did not score, and a blank where
it did not compete (at least it should do, I sometimes get it wrong).
I would prefer to omit these zeroes, they seem a bit rude. Also there
is no clear distinction between competing and not competing - how
should I treat a program which crashes and disappears after two
rounds, or one (like AyaMC last Sunday) which plays in every round but
is broken and has no chance of winning? I realise that the zeroes
some convey information that may be of interest. Should I continue to
use them, or just leave those cells blank?
3. Live crosstable
When I write up my reports, I include a crosstable, like the one near
the top of http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/116/index.html . This is
easy for me, I run a script which reads the data from the KGS page
(http://www.gokgs.com/tournEntrants.jsp?sort=s&id=990 in this case)
and builds the crosstable in html, which I copy into the tournament
report. It only works for Swiss (and maybe Round Robin) tournaments.
It works while the tournament is still running, though only between
rounds.I could build a current crosstable each round during a
tournament if there is any demand for it.
--
Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com <mailto:mapr...@gmail.com>
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
_______________________________________________
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
