Mark Boon: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Opposed to removing 9x9. > >In favor of adding 13x13 wthout removing 9x9.
Me too. If, however, limited two 9x9 and 13x13 might be better now as 19x19 is not so utilized, IMHO. It's just early this year many programs started being running on 9x9. I will donate too but no so much until I'll have a job :). -Hideki >I'd make a donation if it's easy as well. I doubt we're a big enough >crowd to pay for a VPS through $5 donations though... Better add an >option to enter a free amount as I'm not going to click a button >dozens of times. > > Mark > >On 31-jul-08, at 10:00, Don Dailey wrote: > >> Of course KGS is certainly more polished than CGOS. >> >> However, it looks like we can eventually solve the growing pains of >> CGOS, I am working on something now. >> >> My question to the group, especially those using CGOS, is whether you >> would be in favor, or opposed to replacing 9x9 with 13x13? >> >> - Don >> >> >> >> On Thu, 2008-07-31 at 08:05 -0400, Jason House wrote: >>> On Jul 30, 2008, at 6:55 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think someone already has a website somewhere where they try to >>>> rank >>>> bots based on KGS games. >>> >>> I'm pretty sure the site stopped doing rankings when KGS moved to >>> gokgs.com >>> >>> >>>> If you can figure out how to make it >>>> schedule games fairly and consistently then go for it. >>> >>> I doubt you'd get the CGOS style for either of these out of the box. >>> >>> Scheduling for automatch is likely a first-come, first-serve basis, >>> probably with some kind of anti-repeat feature. Having engines >>> reconnect at the start of a round could help fairness issues. >>> Randomized connection times could be helpful too. >>> >>> KGS would limit games to within 9 stones and would automatically give >>> handicap, but I consider that a good thing. >>> >>> Obviously, the more wms helps (or lets us provide code, the better >>> things will be. I doubt we'd get anywhere without Nick Wedd backing >>> the idea, and he probably wouldn't if you don't. A KGS alternative >>> may >>> never be as good as a custom computer go server, but if it's >>> close, it >>> has other side benefits... Game caches, wider human audiences, >>> potential integration with human play, etc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> I want to be >>>> able to put my bot on line, leave it alone for a day or more, and >>>> know >>>> it will play only other computers under a consistent rule set and >>>> get a >>>> ranking. Also I want to know that you can't just disconnect and to >>>> abort lost games. I don't want the same player playing it 20 games >>>> in a >>>> row and so on. If you can get all that to happen without WMS >>>> support, >>>> then I'm definitely interested. >>>> >>>> >>>> - Don >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 18:20 -0400, Jason House wrote: >>>>> Where there's a will, there's a way. It may not be hard to use auto >>>>> match with the self-proclamed bot ranks as a first step >>>>> approximation. >>>>> All that's needed for that is to allow bots to be paired against >>>>> each >>>>> other. Ratings could be computed offline and used by a kgsGtp >>>>> wrapper >>>>> to update the self-proclaimed ratings between games. >>>>> >>>>> Everything else could be incremental tweaks as issues are >>>>> identified. >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>> >>>>> On Jul 30, 2008, at 5:07 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I like KGS and the maturity of it compared to CGOS. However, >>>>>> it's a >>>>>> different problem. KGS doesn't schedule games for you. >>>>>> >>>>>> I also tried to persuade WMS to rate 9x9 bot games, but he was >>>>>> unwilling >>>>>> to add more indexes and overhead to the database. And even if he >>>>>> agreed, sometimes I want to play other bots, although I like the >>>>>> idea of >>>>>> being able to play humans when I want that. Still, it's a >>>>>> scheduling >>>>>> issue that KGS just doesn't support. >>>>>> >>>>>> If WMS had made a computer go server that looks like KGS but does >>>>>> the >>>>>> scheduling and rating for bots only (or given a choice with humans >>>>>> too) >>>>>> and such, I would have never written CGOS. If he does it >>>>>> later, I >>>>>> would probably prefer it to CGOS and would use it instead. >>>>>> >>>>>> - Don >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, 2008-07-30 at 15:35 -0400, Jason House wrote: >>>>>>> Maybe we should approach wms about using KGS. Rank and pairings >>>>>>> could >>>>>>> be computed separately. Once upon a time, there was a page that >>>>>>> computed 9x9 bot ratings >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Jul 30, 2008, at 3:16 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> computer-go mailing list >>>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>>> computer-go mailing list >>>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> computer-go mailing list >>>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> computer-go mailing list >>>>>> [email protected] >>>>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> computer-go mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> computer-go mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> computer-go mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > >_______________________________________________ >computer-go mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
