Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Peter Drake]

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/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Don Dailey]

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/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Jason House]

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/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Mark Boon]

Here I'm fantasizing what you could do with a million bucks and Don  
can't host an extra CGOS server due to resource constraints. Do you  
need full access to a server or would a VPS do? I can't believe it  
would take more than a mediocre PC with a DSL connection to host a  
server like that.


Mark

Moving a step up to 13x13 would certainly be interesting. But I think  
it's too early to kill off the 9x9 server.


On 30-jul-08, at 16:16, Don Dailey 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


___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[John Fan]

Between 9x9 server and 13x13 server, I would go for a 13x13 server if we can
only keep one. On 9x9, there are gnugo, mogo and fuego to test against on
home pcs.

On Wed, 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/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Don Dailey]

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:41 -0300, Mark Boon wrote:
> Here I'm fantasizing what you could do with a million bucks and Don  
> can't host an extra CGOS server due to resource constraints. Do you  
> need full access to a server or would a VPS do? I can't believe it  
> would take more than a mediocre PC with a DSL connection to host a  
> server like that.

The main limitation is the 1 gig limit we are allowed.   That's not much
these days but more importantly I cannot store all the games so I have
to constantly compress and archive them to a totally different server
somewhere.   Hence the links on the main page.   There is a file stored
for each SGF game and it's also carried in a sql database and sql
databases are probably not particular efficient for storage.   

A few years ago I would have killed for 1 Gig of disk space!

When you use the viewing client, there is a very long delay getting the
games.  Try this on the 19x19 server when it's up and running.   Very
fast and snappy.   I don't have any idea what the reason is for this and
I'm not saying it's a low performance server,  cpuinfo reports 4 Xeon
2.80 GHz processors.   Maybe the bandwidth is throttled or disk quota's
are set up and that takes it's toll.  I'm just guessing.   Maybe there
is no problem whatsoever.   The system seems to have a modest load on it
most of the time too.

I'm not that concerned about the performance,  it seems to serve the
games at full speed other than the initial latency issue that I don't
understand.

- Don




> 
> Mark
> 
> Moving a step up to 13x13 would certainly be interesting. But I think  
> it's too early to kill off the 9x9 server.
> 
> On 30-jul-08, at 16:16, Don Dailey 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
> >

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Don Dailey]

By the way,  I hosted it on my own machine at home for a few weeks when
it first came up and it seems extremely fast then,  but this is probably
not something I can judge fairly.   Home connections like this have low
outgoing bandwidth compared to incoming bandwidth,  but I doubt this is
any kind of issue,  the server should consume very little network
bandwidth.  

- Don



On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 16:41 -0300, Mark Boon wrote:
> Here I'm fantasizing what you could do with a million bucks and Don  
> can't host an extra CGOS server due to resource constraints. Do you  
> need full access to a server or would a VPS do? I can't believe it  
> would take more than a mediocre PC with a DSL connection to host a  
> server like that.
> 
> Mark
> 
> Moving a step up to 13x13 would certainly be interesting. But I think  
> it's too early to kill off the 9x9 server.
> 
> On 30-jul-08, at 16:16, Don Dailey 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
> >
> ___
> 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] Re: IMPORTANT: US Go Congress Computer Go Tournament

[Peter Drake]

There are a number of important updates regarding the Computer Go  
tournament next week at the US Go Congress in Portland, OR.


First, timing: due to unforeseen circumstances, we won't be able to  
start the tournament (or get into the lab) until Monday, August 4. I  
plan to open the lab at 9:00 AM, allow an hour for setup, fitting  
SlugGo through the door, etc., then start the first round at 10:00.  
There MAY also be some media present to talk with all of you; the  
match later in the week pitting MoGo on a supercomputer vs an 8-dan  
professional looks like it might draw some attention.


Second, participants. Here's my current list:

Program Primary Author  Notes

SlugGo		David Doshay		As the author is involved in organizing the  
tournament,

this program will not be eligible for 
prize money

Orego   Peter Drake Same as above
Operated by Andrew Hubbard, will borrow 
hardware

FirstGo		Edward de Grijs		Operated by Seth Pellegrino, will borrow  
hardware


ManyFaces   David Fotland

Argus   Sam Gross

HouseBotJason House Operated by Terry McIntyre

Leela		Gian-Carlo Pascutto	Operated by Kevin Imber, will borrow  
hardware (Windows)


ButterBot	Metascopic, Inc		Operated by Jason Galbraith, will borrow  
hardware


IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY to contact your operator in advance of the  
tournament. Operators' email addresses are CCed above. Make sure they  
have your software and know how to run it!


Please let me know immediately if there are any changes to the list of  
participating programs.


Finally, I need to know the KGS USERNAME each of your programs will be  
using.


Here's hoping for a good tournament!

Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/



___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Don Dailey]

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.co

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Łukasz Lew]

It would be nice to have a workshop from time to time where we could
share our skills.
Lukasz

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:23, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Peter Drake]

Indeed! That's part of the motivation of organizing the tournament at  
the US Go Congress.


Perhaps we (or the subset of us within a given country) could just  
pick an existing conference (something on machine learning or games)  
and all go there...


Peter Drake
http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/


On Jul 30, 2008, at 2:36 PM, Łukasz Lew wrote:


It would be nice to have a workshop from time to time where we could
share our skills.
Lukasz

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 03:23, Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Nick Wedd]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Peter 
Drake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Indeed! That's part of the motivation of organizing the tournament at 
the US Go Congress.


and at the European Go Congress.

An event in which each bot plays each other bot twice or less tells us 
little about their relative strengths, CGOS does a much better job of 
that.  Rather, these "official" tournaments serve two main purposes: 
they draw the attention of ordinary Go players, and, we hope, of the 
media;  and they provide opportunities for programmers to meet 
face-to-face, discuss ideas, and exchange gossip.


Perhaps we (or the subset of us within a given country) could just pick 
an existing conference (something on machine learning or games) and all 
go there...


My impression is that in Japan, there are conferences like that.

Nick
--
Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Jason House]

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:/

Re: [computer-go] What Do You Need Most?

[Don Dailey]

I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to rank
bots based on KGS games.If you can figure out how to make it
schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it.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 19x

[computer-go] Reports on UEC Cup and Japanese Computer-Games Workshop

[Rémi Coulom]

Nick Wedd wrote:


My impression is that in Japan, there are conferences like that.

Nick


Your message reminds me that I had not told the list yet about those 
reports I wrote for the ICGA Journal:

http://remi.coulom.free.fr/reports/ICGAJ-GPW.pdf
http://remi.coulom.free.fr/reports/ICGAJ-UECCup.pdf

Rémi
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

[computer-go] re: What Do You Need Most?

[Dave Dyer]

Boardspace is a VPS, so CGOS is currently running as a subaccount of a 
VPS.  Boardspace is going to be upgraded sometime in the next few
months, which will allow me to add another 1GB to CGOS allocation.

Or, if computer Go gets a rich sugar daddy, spending $400/yr
for your own VPS would be an excellent first investment.

--

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] re: What Do You Need Most?

[steve uurtamo]

i'm sure that we have 20 people here willing to kick
in $20/year.

s.


On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Dave Dyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Boardspace is a VPS, so CGOS is currently running as a subaccount of a
> VPS.  Boardspace is going to be upgraded sometime in the next few
> months, which will allow me to add another 1GB to CGOS allocation.
>
> Or, if computer Go gets a rich sugar daddy, spending $400/yr
> for your own VPS would be an excellent first investment.
>
> --
>
> ___
> 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] re: What Do You Need Most?

[Don Dailey]

2 GB would make is much more comfortable.  But I do like that it's
hosted on boardspace as boardspace already specializes in games, so I am
not particularly eager to move away from it.

It's a gift that Dave Dyer allows us to use it and it's appreciated.

Maybe some of us who use it could consider a small donation to Dave,
even if only a few bucks?


- Don
  

On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:47 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote:
> Boardspace is a VPS, so CGOS is currently running as a subaccount of a 
> VPS.  Boardspace is going to be upgraded sometime in the next few
> months, which will allow me to add another 1GB to CGOS allocation.
> 
> Or, if computer Go gets a rich sugar daddy, spending $400/yr
> for your own VPS would be an excellent first investment.
> 
> --
> 

___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

RE: [computer-go] re: What Do You Need Most?

[David Fotland]

If Dave takes PayPal, you can add "Donate $1" and "Donate $5" buttons to the
cgos web page.  I would donate if it's easy.

David

> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:computer-go-
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 7:47 PM
> To: Dave Dyer
> Cc: computer-go
> Subject: [computer-go] re: What Do You Need Most?
> 
> 2 GB would make is much more comfortable.  But I do like that it's
> hosted on boardspace as boardspace already specializes in games, so I
> am
> not particularly eager to move away from it.
> 
> It's a gift that Dave Dyer allows us to use it and it's appreciated.
> 
> Maybe some of us who use it could consider a small donation to Dave,
> even if only a few bucks?
> 
> 
> - Don
> 
> 
> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:47 -0700, Dave Dyer wrote:
> > Boardspace is a VPS, so CGOS is currently running as a subaccount of
> a
> > VPS.  Boardspace is going to be upgraded sometime in the next few
> > months, which will allow me to add another 1GB to CGOS allocation.
> >
> > Or, if computer Go gets a rich sugar daddy, spending $400/yr
> > for your own VPS would be an excellent first investment.
> >
> > --
> >
> 
> ___
> 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/