There seems to be something special about 9x9 go for computers, it's very popular, perhaps because it's so much more approachable.
However I personally think it's time to start looking at bigger board sizes seriously. If it were up to me, we would move to 11x11 on CGOS but I fear that would be especially unpopular because it's not one of the 3 "standard" sizes. If we were to look at 13x13 I don't think I would want to continue supporting the 9x9 server, I would want to replace it with 13x13. There is also the issue of space and performance. I think we are pushing the limits of what boardspace can handle, especially in terms of space. I can't complain too much because it's a gift that we can use it at all but I'm constantly fighting a small storage limit. I'm not sure what the performance issues are but the 19x19 server seems fast and responsive in comparison to the 9x9 server. I do not have any idea why this is. But what I'm trying to say is that we can't have BOTH a 9x9 and 13x13 due to resource limitations and if we move to 13x13 I think we would need a bit more capable server to be happy and comfortable. I have some contacts at universities that I could approach with regard to this, that I have never considered before. But I would first like to see if changing from 9x9 to 13x13 would create a lot of anxiety with people. 9x9 does seem amazingly popular and I would hate to "kill" CGOS by moving to 13x13 if nobody is interested or would support it. - Don On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 11:48 -0700, Peter Drake wrote: > More hardware would help, of course. > > More data would be good. Particularly useful would be game records > (for training) and sets of whole-board positions (9x9 and 19x19). > Pattern libraries and opening libraries would be good, too, but > incorporating them into existing programs may be difficult. > > I think the interesting algorithmic area is somehow localizing the > search. My team is working on it... > > The community is quite good. I wonder if a 13x13 CGOS would help, > because many of us are doing well at 9x9, but 19x19 is MUCH harder. > > Peter Drake > http://www.lclark.edu/~drake/ > > > On Jul 27, 2008, at 6:23 PM, Darren Cook wrote: > > > I have a strong interest in seeing a 19x19 computer go program that is > > at least 3-dan by 2010. The recent jump in strength on the 9x9 board > > has > > given me new hope and I want to ask people here, especially the > > authors > > of strong programs, what you now need to make the next jump in > > strength. > > There seem to be four broad categories: > > > > * More hardware (CPU cycles? Memory? Faster networking? Do you just > > need that hardware for offline tuning, or for playing too?) > > > > * More data > > > > * New algorithms (if so, to solve exactly what? evaluation? search? > > other?) > > > > * More community > > > > By community I mean things like this mailing list, CGOS, open source > > projects, etc. > > > > By data I mean things like: game records, or board positions, marked > > up > > with correct/incorrect moves; game records generally; pattern > > libraries; > > test suites; opening libraries. > > > > Darren > > > > -- > > Darren Cook, Software Researcher/Developer > > http://dcook.org/mlsn/ (English-Japanese-German-Chinese-Arabic > > open source dictionary/semantic network) > > http://dcook.org/work/ (About me and my work) > > http://darrendev.blogspot.com/ (blog on php, flash, i18n, linux, ...) > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
