I suggest to make the bots play on kgs but on 9x9 versus human, so we could known approximatively the level of theses bots against human. We can also know the relative strenght of these bots against other bots on cgos in the same conditions (i.e. board size, timing, rules...) so we could estimate the level of all the bots against human. I don't want to mix 19x19 and 9x9.
This is far from perfect because human ranks was not fixed on 9x9 but on 19x19, but I think for humans ranks on both size are corelated. As preivously said by me and others humans ranks on 9x9 are not fully corelated on 9x9 and 19x19, I known some people whom I can give 4 or 5 stones on 19x19 but beat me on 9x9 on even games because they practised a lot more than me at this size, but on kgs theses ranks are roughly corelated. Tom On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 02:05:39PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > Lavergne Thomas wrote: > > If some bot can be setup to play on kgs for enough time to get a solid > > rank and then put on cgos to get an elo rating with the same > > configuration we could find a formula to convert elo to kgs ranks. > > For sure, this is not perfect but I think is good enought. > > > Here are the issues. You want to know how good a 19x19 HUMAN 1 dan > player would do on CGOS playing 9x9. This is because there is no > real ranking system for 9x9 and yet you would like to be able to say > that program xyz plays 2 dan strength, even though the ranking system > wasn't really designed for 9x9 Go. We just need a "point of > reference" so that we can say in general terms that a program like Mogo > on CGOS is playing 2 dan strength (or whatever it really is.) > > But most of us feel that you cannot do this with GO programs - you need > humans. For instance you could take GnuGo, get a 19x19 rating and > then play on 9x9 CGOS and use it as a reference point. However GnuGo > was not designed to play 9x9 go. My own program Lazarus is terrible at > 19x19 but pretty good at 9x9. It could probably give a low kyu player > a really good game on 9x9 but it would be easily beat at 19x19 - so it's > not a good way to standardize. I believe GnuGo is more balanced in > this way - but it's probably a bad idea in general to figure it this way. > > Your idea is fine for 19x19 CGOS. > > - Don > > > > > Tom > > > > On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 05:30:15PM -0500, Don Dailey wrote: > > > >> The only issue is that I don't know if GnuGo is representative of 19x19 > >> to 9x9 go strength. I am interested in knowing how a human 19x19 > >> scales down to 9x9 play. It's well known that programs scale up > >> poorly. > >> > >> However, this data should still be quite useful. > >> > >> - Don > >> > >> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Thomas Lavergne "Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem." (Guillaume d'Ockham) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://oniros.org _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
