i like don's idea about using fischer time. byo-yomi seems to be
the obvious solution to the problem (just make it a small byo-yomi time,
something like 5 seconds), but fischer time has some pretty magical
features that computers can easily take advantage of. time management
should be quite a bit easier under fisher time, for instance, than with
something as complicated as byo-yomi, or something as delta-function as
absolute time. even canadian time management is more complicated.
just a few nits...
> imagine 1 second per move, plus 2 seconds of net lag, in which case the
> programs have 1 second per move to think, plus 2+1+2 seconds between
> moves to ponder.
although it doesn't matter much, i doubt that anyone connecting their bot
to CGOS has 2 seconds of net lag per move, every move. so it's kind've
a straw-man argument. 500-750ms is a reasonable upper-bound on the
average delay between two arbitrary machines when one is well-connected and
the other isn't in a third-world country.
> Also, if programs prolong the game as much as possible, it means that
> the next round of ALL programs will be delayed, and the more programs
> you have that deliberately refuse to resign, the greater the probability that
> you
> will get two that, because of a failure on the part of the leader to
> correctly bring the game to a close, play a match that goes on
> basically forever. In that case, only a double-forfeit is sufficient
> -- switching to true absolute time limits would not be good enough,
by "basically forever" are you imagining a situation where legal moves are
played one after the other that both:
i) don't violate superko
ii) don't create a massive disadvantage for the person playing the move.
i guess i'm not imaginative enough today, but i am having trouble envisioning
a board where you would have both of these conditions hold *for both players*
for "basically forever" (where basically forever can be defined to be some huge
number of moves).
also, i don't think that it should delay anything for anyone else on CGOS,
would it?
is this even a practical/pragmatic concern in tournaments? have there been KGS
tournaments (or otherwise) that were held up "basically forever" because of
extremely
unfortunate play between two opponents?
> because two players in a "Who can play stupid moves fastest?" battle
> could swamp the network and cause lag for programs playing real games.
this sounds wrong to me. if the server can dequeue the packets at roughly
the same rate that they're coming in (and keep in mind that player B won't send
a new move packet until the server has already dealt with player A's move
packet), the
packet sizes and bitrates involved should never swamp any reasonably
well-connected
machine on a modern network. you would need very many people doing this
simultaneously for it to be a real problem. either that, or a very, very
stupid protocol.
s.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
