On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Jason House <jason.james.ho...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Given all the negative reaction to nested time control, I have to say I > like it. The pool won't be diluted as long as there's an obvious main venue. A good compromise might be to have only 2 venues, one such as David suggested and another one that is quite a bit faster. Another possibility is to make BOTH venues mandatory - but my fear is that some programs may not be able to play fast enough and would always time out. Or they may not implement a proper time control algorithm and thus would not be able to adapt to 2 different time controls without being reinitialized with different parameters. > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Jun 15, 2009, at 7:20 PM, Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I've been working on the new server and I'm almost at the point where >> I can think about time controls - and since this is primarily for >> developers, I would like to get your thoughts. >> >> First, a brief explanation of how the time control works. When the >> client starts up it will inform the server of which venues it is >> willing to play in. It must choose an available boardsize and then >> any of N different time controls. Initially, N will probably be >> 2 or 3. For each board size, a time control is called a "venue." >> >> Let's assume there are 3 venues for boardsize 9x9. The time control >> for each venue will be significantly different from the others. >> One will be very fast, one will be very slow and there will be one in >> between. >> >> Each time control will be in sync with the others and the process will >> be recursive. So the basic scheduling algorithm is to NOT start a new >> round for a given venue until any players who have registered to play >> in this venue and are currently playing in FASTER venues are available >> for scheduling. >> >> In addition to this, new rounds are not scheduled for any particular >> venue as long as the next slower venue is stalled waiting for these faster >> venues to complete. >> >> I hope this idea allows more choice and keeps players busy a greater >> percentage of the time by allowing them to fill dead space with fast >> games. >> >> Each bot can choose which venues to play in. If you only want to play >> fast games, then you can. >> >> Now the questions I pose to you are these: >> >> How many venues for each boardsize? (two, three, more?) >> >> What time controls should they be? >> >> It's almost certainly the case that certain combinations of time >> control venues will work together better than others. There will >> always be the issue of waiting for games to complete and in fact this >> may make the problem a bit worse for those programs that only want to >> play in the longest venue. I suggest that each venue is spaced at >> least a factor of 2 apart in time. For instance 1 minute, 2 minutes, >> 4 minutes, etc. >> >> My own suggestion for 9x9 is to have 3 venues of 1 minute, 5 minutes >> and 15 minutes per game per player. >> >> It's also not too late to change our minds and not have venues if we >> think the disadvantages outweigh the advantages. >> >> - 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/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
