Don't worry Hideki, Nothing has changed on CGOS, only something has been added and it has no affect on what is already there.
The standard current standings page also stays the same. No change I promise. Different versions of a program running on CGOS has never been an issue before, and nothing has changed in that regard either. Right now if you have 2 programs running on CGOS they might occasionally play each other. They each get their own rating independent of the other. That's how it's always been and that has not changed nor is it broken. Bu that is the ONLY thing we might actually change later. But no matter how you look at it, you cannot ENFORCE that change. Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning algorithm which improves itself over time - it would be unreasonable to ask me not to put that on CGOS. Are you bothered by the fact that the "all time list" will have some programs suffer that have improved over time but will always have the prior bad results go against it? Don't worry about that. I will probably put a time-limit on the games - perhaps I will only include the games of the previous 12 months. This is going to be a list that is updated every month. Also, there is no "Hall of Fame." It's only a list to show ALL players over time and it uses bayeselo instead of the standard CGOS elo system (which doesn't change.) - Don Hideki Kato wrote: > Your sentences make me strongly believe it's too early. > > I won't be against your idea. Again, just claiming it's too early. > Following your analogy to sports, there should be some gurantee of > fairness and agreement of participants. > > Our presupposition was that only recent results were important. Any > temporal confusion of ratings would be fixed soon. So I could ignore > or didn't mind wrong scored games. You are, however, changing it > without any notification nor agreement. > > I think the problem of different versions are running with the same > login names cannot be ignored. We have to announce and make sure > almost all perticipants won't do it. > > Yes, network troubles are out of our control, some other troubles > and/or accidents will happen. That's why we have to have some > experiments before using the name of 'Hall of fame'. > > -Hideki > > Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> Hideki Kato wrote: >> >>> Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name >>> problem? >>> >>> >> I don't consider it a major problem. The theory is that a big >> improvement against versions of the same program might not translate to >> equivalent improvements vs other programs. I want to see that proven >> convincingly before I buy into it, it would take thousands of games to >> prove this unless the effect was quite large so I won't accept anecdotal >> evidence. I'm not saying this doesn't happen, but it's a >> superstition until proven otherwise. >> >> Still, I would prefer to not rate games between members of the same >> family just for the sake of appearance and accusations of nepotism. >> (Although you can't really prevent nepotism.) >> >> >>> And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a >>> field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some >>> academic sense. >>> >>> >> I think it is an appropriate analogy. It's part of your equipment. >> Every sport or field of endeavor has these variables beyond your control. >> >> But more to the point, if I could take this variable out of the >> equation I would gladly do so. But I cannot detect the difference >> between a network outage and cheating. >> >> >>> What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western >>> and can just estimate the value of the name but it's so heavy and >>> important, isn't it? >>> >>> >>> >> Hall of fame is not a good name and it's not really called that. It's >> the "9x9 all time ratings" but I almost called it hall of fame because >> originally I intended to only include the top 50 players. I chose not >> to for 3 reasons: >> >> 1. Many players are represented multiple times. >> 2. It's more useful to be able to see every program. >> 3. "Fame" doesn't imply you are the best. You might just be >> sentimental favorite like gnugo. >> >> - Don >> >> >> >>> -Hideki >>> >>> Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> >>> >>>> Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many >>>> games. They cannot be hanging up very often. >>>> >>>> When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. >>>> I don't think there is a major problem here. >>>> >>>> As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the computing >>>> system. If you provider is having glitches that affect your program I >>>> can't account for that. It's the same if you lose your connection and >>>> lose on time as a result. It's part of your "equipment", it's as if >>>> you had automobile failure at the Nascar races or your tennis racket >>>> breaks during an important point. >>>> >>>> - Don >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hideki Kato wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi Don, >>>>> >>>>> Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I want to clarify this: >>>>>> >>>>>> The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the >>>>>> players - it does not use CGOS ratings. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended >>>>> and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, recently my bot has >>>>> lost some games by, perhaps, network delay over one minute. >>>>> Moreover there might be many bots with different minor versions >>>>> under same login name. >>>>> >>>>> Such accidents and/or troubles were not so severe because we could see >>>>> and mind only current ratings but it's changing now. >>>>> >>>>> I think this excellent idea is too early to do unless we can exclude >>>>> wrongly scored games. Otherwise the ratings include some error that >>>>> we cannot estimate. It should not be suitable for the name of 'Hall >>>>> of fame'. >>>>> >>>>> -Hideki >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list >>>>>> but FatMan does not even make the top 100. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> - Don >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Don Dailey wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least >>>>>>> 200 games on CGOS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and >>>>>>> I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the >>>>>>> settings I used I can provide that. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> - 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/ >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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/ >> > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) > _______________________________________________ > 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/
