Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
For 19x19 I find it a little too fast.
I would prefer
fastest: 4 sec/move (x240 moves) = 16 min
slowest: 30 sec/move (x240 moves) = 2 hours
I would like to try both. Usually fast because,
as you pointed, you get useful res
Hi,
regarding time controls and the impossibility to please everyone, I'd
like to make a suggestion:
Let the engines specify a preferred time control and use a scheduler
that takes that into account (as a strong recommendation). For example
if there are two engines wanting to play at 10 minutes,
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 12:25 +0200, Edward de Grijs wrote:
> >From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> >I am considering to change the time control when I change
> >over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
> >more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
> >quite
From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I am considering to change the time control when I change
over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game.
Hello all,
I prefer very short t
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 08:43:23PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
> > On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> > > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
> > > free?
> >
> > That introduces a bias towards p
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 19:36 -0700, David Doshay wrote:
> Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods
> in your scheduling algorithm.
Do you mean play one time control, then on the next round play
a different time control?
- Don
__
My vote is that if you want to trim 9x9 down to 5 minutes then I
would like to keep 19x19 longer, more like 30 minutes than 15.
Another thought would be to alternate longer and shorter periods
in your scheduling algorithm.
Cheers,
David
On 27, Mar 2007, at 2:41 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
We will
On 3/27/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference
> toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broad
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference
> toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke,
> don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by
> hand to John Tromp so he can com
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 20:49 -0400, Álvaro Begué wrote:
> I don't like the idea of giving extra time every move. The effect is
> very similar to adding a fixed amount of time, since go games have
> fairly constant lengths. Lags are probably tiny these days for most
> people anyway. And you do get an
Either 5 or 10 minutes per side is fine by me, with a mild preference
toward 10 minutes for two reasons: hysteresis (if it ain't broke,
don't fix it) and it gives me enough time to broadcast the moves by
hand to John Tromp so he can comment on the game; I couldn't do this
twice as fast. :) I also
On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 08:05 +0900, Darren Cook wrote:
> > I am considering to change the time control when I change
> > over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10.
>
> I'd prefer the longer time control, though I guess my vote has to be
> weak as my program wouldn't be there until Summer at the ea
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 16:02 -0700, Christoph Birk wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
> > P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
> > free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the
> > rounds would still be with most of the playe
I vote for 5 minutes per side in the name of faster ratings, faster
testing and faster games for casual observers to observe. Plus,
computers are getting faster every day and 9x9 Go algorithms are
getting better every day so it seems reasonable to speed-up the time
controls from what it was when
> I am considering to change the time control when I change
> over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10.
I'd prefer the longer time control, though I guess my vote has to be
weak as my program wouldn't be there until Summer at the earliest.
> the Monte Carlo programs which play quite strongly ev
On Wed, 28 Mar 2007, Heikki Levanto wrote:
P.S. How about starting a new round when (say) 75% of the players are
free? That way, the last slow ones could skip a round, and most of the
rounds would still be with most of the players.
That introduces a bias towards pairing faster programs against
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 06:15:49PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> Actually, I only slightly prefer 5 minutes - it seems like it would
> be a benefit all things considered. But as I said, I'm willing to
> concede - I will do what the group as a whole prefers. So
> far nobody has spoken out in favor
On Tue, Mar 27, 2007 at 12:33:36PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> I am considering to change the time control when I change
> over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
> more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
> quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game.
>
> Wh
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:52 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> > But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
> > is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
> I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example.
>
> > At any rate, I will probably go with
> > 5 minutes unless I get a lot of
But what are real conditions? Is 10 minutes a standard and if so it
is standard for 19x19 or 9x9?
I meant for 9x9 and games against humans for example.
At any rate, I will probably go with
5 minutes unless I get a lot of protests, in which case I will stay
with 10 minutes. I have considered
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 23:10 +0200, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
> Hi Don,
>
> > I am considering to change the time control when I change
> > over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
> > more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
> > quite strongly even at 2 minutes p
On Tue, 2007-03-27 at 13:26 -0700, Ken Friedenbach wrote:
> 1 second is probably too much when network lag is not an issue,
> and not enough when it is...
>
> Is there some way to use ping every N moves, to get
> a better setting on a per connection basis?
Probably, but I don't want to trust clie
Hi Don,
I am considering to change the time control when I change
over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which play
quite strongly even at 2 minutes per game.
What does everything think about that?
I guess you mean everyon
1 second is probably too much when network lag is not an issue,
and not enough when it is...
Is there some way to use ping every N moves, to get
a better setting on a per connection basis?
Ken Friedenbach
On Mar 27, 2007, at 9:33 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
The 2 minute server is interesting, the
The 2 minute server is interesting, the short time control
has still allowed for very strong programs including Mogo.
I am considering to change the time control when I change
over officially to 5 minutes instead of 10. 5 minutes seems
more than adequate for the Monte Carlo programs which pla
25 matches
Mail list logo
