On 10-05-16 11:23, Hideki Kato wrote: > CGOS is better place for those lower programs, isn't it?
Not really, the pool of opponents is smaller and contains no humans. It sort of depends on what the goal of the author is. Even if she's only interested in measuring vs other computer opponents, a KGS tournament *may* offer a bigger pool because there's more incentive to connect at a given time. > I'm not against creating lower division, just wonder if it's really > necessary. Recently it's easier to implement "large patterns" which > is necessary to beat GNU Go on 19x19 using DCNN than Remi's B-T model > and so most programs could quickly reach GNU Go level. I think it's up to the author to decide which approach he or she wants to pursue. It's not because everyone is making hand-crafted pattern databases with elaborate rules for local tactical search, that you can't try just playing out games randomly, for example, even if that approach seems weak right now. Maybe it turns out to scale better in the long run. > If this is correct, creating two divisions might be a bad idea. Not necessarily disagreeing there. -- GCP _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@computer-go.org http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
