I'd also prefer to use gnugo as an anchor. Since fuego is under development, new versions will be playing with an odler version of itself. Fuego will win more often against its old version. I don't care about it distorting Fuego's rating, but it will distort the rating system. If new fuego is on with few other programs it will gain rating points, then when other programs come new fuego will give them the other program as its rating drops. The effect will be to make the rating system less stable, so it's hard to use cgos to evaluate new versions of programs to see if they are stronger.
I think it's best to use an anchor that's not under active development. I like gnugo since there is lots of published results against it, and it is not changing rapidly. Also it has a different style than the monte carlo programs, so it's more likely to expose bugs in the monte carlo programs. David > -----Original Message----- > From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go- > boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Hideki Kato > Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:15 PM > To: computer-go > Subject: [computer-go] Re: fuego strength > > I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version for 9x9 and two > instances of GNU Go for 13x13, five programs in total, on a dual-core > Athlon at home. > > I strongly believe current anchors are resource friendly enough for > older pentium 3, 4 or even Celeron processors and not necessary being > changed. > > Changing anchors is a big problem, similar to changing the > International prototypes. Also, GNU Go is used as a reference in > almost every computer-go research these days. > > I'm against that idea, especially for 19x19. > > Hideki > > Don Dailey: <5212e61a0906231524k4f068be1q50a2f2806b678...@mail.gmail.com>: > >I'm trying now to get a rough idea about the strength of fuego and it's > >suitablity as the anchor player. > > > >Right now the numbers are very rough as I need more samples. I'm > currently > >looking at: > > > > 1. 9x9 fuego at 1000 simulations > > > > 2. 19x19 fuego at 3000 simulations. > > > > > >I'm testing against the current CGOS anchors, so FatMan vs fuego at 9x9 > and > >gnugo-3.7.10 at 19x19. > > > > > >At 9x9 fuego appears to be substantially stronger than FatMan, perhaps > >100-200 ELO. It also is far faster at 1000 simulation than fatman which > >requires many more simulations to reach anchor strength. So there is no > >questions about fuego being a capable anchor for small boards. At this > >level on 9x9 FatMan is also stronger than gnugo, so fuego is far stronger > >than gnugo on 9x9 and is very resource friendly too. > > > >At 19x19 the story is a bit different. gnugo appears to be significantly > >stronger, but about twice as slow. There is not enough data to narrow > this > >down much, but it appears to be over 200 ELO weaker at this level. > > > >Since fuego is using only about half the CPU resources of gnugo, I can > >increase the level. I've only played 30 games at 19x19, so this > >conclusion is subject to signficant error, but it's enough to conclude > that > >it's almost certainly weaker at this level but perhaps not when run at the > >same CPU intensity as gnugo. > > > >Of course at higher levels yet, fuego would be far stronger than > >gnugo-3.7.10 as seen in the 19x19 cgos tables. But I'm hoping not to > push > >the anchors too hard - hopefully they can be run on someones older spare > >computer or set unobtrusively in the background on someones desktop > >machine. > > > > > >- Don > >---- inline file > >_______________________________________________ > >computer-go mailing list > >computer-go@computer-go.org > >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ > -- > g...@nue.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Kato) > _______________________________________________ > 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/
