For what it's worth, "Hall of Fame" can mean anything from the Baseball Hall of Fame (serious business) to the Mullet Hall of Fame (a total joke). To me this looks like a pretty clear misunderstanding. Don and Hideki have both contributed usefully to the mailing list, and it would be too bad if this incident spoiled that from either end.
I think most people who even know what CGOS is, probably know the context in which it is used, so they're not going to take poor results too seriously. Nobody would deny that applying static ratings to a program that changes may not be representative, but if that is an issue, then people can create new IDs for their 100% debugged bots so that static ratings will give them all the credit they deserve. The new bot would not get established immediately, but I doubt there are that many people outside this mailing list who are even aware of the CGOS all-time 9x9 rating list yet. As for any lower-rated versions of the same bot, I think that as long as there exists a highly rated version of a given program that has an established rating, people will have enough sense to ignore lower-rated versions that may represent experiments, buggy prototypes, and the like. _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
