On May 12, 2008, at 4:33 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots
or the programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 22:33 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> Do you claim it's possible to avoid time losses by better coding? If so,
> I'm very interested in what you have in mind. Measuring lag isn't the
> answer: if your opponent is willing to play 2500 moves and you can make
> at most 2
> Do you claim it's possible to avoid time losses by better coding? If so,
> I'm very interested in what you have in mind. Measuring lag isn't the
> answer: if your opponent is willing to play 2500 moves and you can make at
> most 2 per second because of lag, then you will lose no matter what you
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot always
Jeff Nowakowski wrote:
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot a
On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:14 +0200, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> But I still categorically object to the stance that it's the bots or the
> programmers fault that it forfeits on time. As log as lag is not
> compensated there is no way to avoid time losses, even if the bot always
> moves instantly
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If it is indeed a KGS flaw I may add a workaround to Leela as simple
as doing time = time / 10 as soon as winrate >95% or so. There is
still a possibility of losing on time then but it should happen less.
That is a
Don Dailey wrote:
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If it is indeed a KGS flaw I may add a workaround to Leela as simple
as doing time = time / 10 as soon as winrate >95% or so. There is
still a possibility of losing on time then but it should happen less.
That is almost the identical heuristic
It's great to see incidents like this being handled with maturity.
Also, a nod to Nick for having the humility to apologize, and Jason for
not losing it. My respect to both has increased although it was
already high.
- Don
Jason House wrote:
My personal preferences would be to see t
Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
If it is indeed a KGS flaw I may add a workaround to Leela as simple
as doing time = time / 10 as soon as winrate >95% or so. There is
still a possibility of losing on time then but it should happen less.
That is almost the identical heuristic that Lazarus uses.
My personal preferences would be to see the final section change its
title from "Probation" to "Losses in Cleanup" or some other title
addressing undesirable issue uncovered in this past tournament.
I have renamed this section to "Losses after Game Stop". Is this
reasonable?
As tournament
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
You have a typo "deasd" should be "dead".
Thank you, fixed.
My personal preferences would be to see the final section change its
title from "Probation" to "Losses in Cleanup" or some other title
addressing undesirable issu
You have a typo "deasd" should be "dead".
My personal preferences would be to see the final section change its title
from "Probation" to "Losses in Cleanup" or some other title addressing
undesirable issue uncovered in this past tournament.
I'd also appreciate it if the old versions of the report
Thank you again Nick for running the tournament, and writing the report.
I am disappointed though about your reaction towards housebot. I don't
think it is fair to critisize the behaiviour of a bot that is not
breaking any rules or guidlines. If you don't like the bots behaiviour,
it seems to me
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Michael Williams
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
I agree with Evan 100%.
I probably would have gone berserk if I were Jason. Instead he handled
it with relative grace, considering what was in that report.
Ok. I am persuaded that I have acted wrongly here. I withd
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Gian-Carlo Pascutto
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Evan Daniel wrote:
It is entirely within the power of the other bots to not lose on time.
I am not sure that is true.
LeelaBot should be perfectly capable of playing about 12 moves per
second in the default confi
I agree with Evan 100%.
I probably would have gone berserk if I were Jason. Instead he handled it with
relative grace, considering what was in that report.
Evan Daniel wrote:
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason House <[
On May 7, 2008, at 4:54 PM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Evan Daniel wrote:
It is entirely within the power of the other bots to not lose on
time.
I am not sure that is true.
LeelaBot should be perfectly capable of playing about 12 moves per
second in the default config
Evan Daniel wrote:
It is entirely within the power of the other bots to not lose on time.
I am not sure that is true.
LeelaBot should be perfectly capable of playing about 12 moves per
second in the default configuration.
However, it seems either KGS or kgsGtp do not (correctly) account fo
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 18:36 +0100, Nick Wedd wrote:
> If I had the ability to change the way the game-end protocol is
> implemented, I would do so. I do not know what I would implement, but
> it might well include Fisher time. However, the implementation is not
> under my control. My problem
On May 7, 2008, at 3:15 PM, Aloril <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:59 -0400, Jason House wrote:
Did you know that weakbot50k and idiotbot don't actually handle the
game end at all? Once both players pass, they switch to using gnu
go.
Source code for weakbot50k and idi
On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 09:59 -0400, Jason House wrote:
> Did you know that weakbot50k and idiotbot don't actually handle the
> game end at all? Once both players pass, they switch to using gnu go.
Source code for weakbot50k and idiotbot is at
http://londerings.sourceforge.net/go/kgs/ .
This was
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
> > Correction: HBotSVN was not reconfigured for speed in round 3. It was
> > set to use two search threads in round 4, and was compiled in debug
> >
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Evan Daniel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
> Correction: HBotSVN was not reconfigured for speed in round 3. It was
> set to
On Wed, May 7, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Nick Wedd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>
>
> > Correction: HBotSVN was not reconfigured for speed in round 3. It was
> > set to use two search threads in round 4, and was compiled in debug
> >
In message
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jason
House <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
Correction: HBotSVN was not reconfigured for speed in round 3. It was
set to use two search threads in round 4, and was compiled in debug
mode for the whole tournament. I apologize for the confusing PM's
during the tourname
Correction: HBotSVN was not reconfigured for speed in round 3. It was set
to use two search threads in round 4, and was compiled in debug mode for the
whole tournament. I apologize for the confusing PM's during the tournament
about this.
What is "HBotSVN's technique"? The game end protocol sa
the winners of last Sunday's KGS bot tournament.
My report is at http://www.weddslist.com/kgs/past/38/index.html
Nick
--
Nick Wedd[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo
28 matches
Mail list logo
