On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 11:18 PM, Zach Wegner <zweg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll express my opinion here, but keep in mind that my engine (cogito) > has only played 44 games as of now on CGOS. I have a few problems with > separate time controls. > > --It dilutes the rating pool. If there is only one time control, > everyone can play everyone. If there are separate time controls, then > there will probably be some players that only play in certain time > controls. Thus the rating pools must be kept separate to not introduce > bias. Separate rating pools reduce the amount of useful data > available. This would not dilute anything if everyone played in all venues, it would only increase the total amount of data. Of course if players opt out of certain levels it would dilute it somewhat. Separate ratings is something I definitely planned on doing. > > > --There are better ways to accomplish the same goals. As you > suggested, you could simply wait until half of all players are idle, > and then start another round. You could take this even further. I > suppose in the current CGOS you have some measurement on whether two > players would make an acceptable match in the next round? Whenever a > player becomes idle, and there is at least one other player idle, try > and match them if they are close enough. There wouldn't be any more > "rounds", but I think this would be a better solution. > Actually an early version of CGOS did this and it does not work so well. What happens is that when the first match is over, BOTH of those players are now available and they play each other again and this never ends. So I had this hack to prevent consecutive matches against the same players. It helped a little but the real problem is that you need a lot of players available to prevent lots of mismatches while still maintaining diversity. CGOS wants to give you many different players to play, while not giving you too many ridiculous mismatches. > --It introduces complexity. Some players (like mine) don't have any > time control code. Mine has to be recompiled to play at different > numbers of playouts. This is because it's an ultra minimal engine, > only 1937 characters of C at the moment (by IOCCC counting rules). It > plays on CGOS using an adapter shell script. I'd rather not have to > rewrite that! There are plenty of players that play at fixed playout > counts. Yes, I agree complexity is an issue. I can handle this in the server but I want it to be easy to make a simple bot that works. - Don > > > Zach > _______________________________________________ > 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/
