Re: [computer-go] Mogo: nakade
I used --19 --time 30 --nbThreads 2 DL -Original Message- From: Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 5:48 am Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo: nakade I set 30 second playing time, but often it takes up to couple minutes for a move. That is not normal, could you post the command line you use? Cheers, Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - http://mail.aol.com ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] So many MoGo run on cgos 9x9
Hi Don and all, There are many variants of MoGo run on CGOS 9x9 now # http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html I guess they force confuse the rating system because MoGo is the strongest, programs have a match more frequently against MoGo than anchors and get rating decrease in average. If we had many anchors running this would not happen. Someday, in theory, it will converge a balancing point but it may take so long time. As I'm not familiar with the match-making and rating system of cgos, I may be wrong. gg (Hideki) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Mogo: nakade
Hi, ok I understand. Unfortunately MoGo is not multithreaded on windows due to the bad performance of pthread. So it actually use only 1 thread. However a side effect of --nbThreads x is that the time per move is multiplied by x, because the time is computed as CPU time. In your setting that means that MoGo actually uses twice as much time, ie 60 s. Sorry for the confusion for you, and for other people who may have run into it. Cheers, Sylvain 2007/10/6, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I used --19 --time 30 --nbThreads 2 DL -Original Message- From: Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Fri, 5 Oct 2007 5:48 am Subject: Re: [computer-go] Mogo: nakade I set 30 second playing time, but often it takes up to couple minutes for a move. That is not normal, could you post the command line you use? Cheers, Sylvain ___ computer-go mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mailhttp://o.aolcdn.com/cdn.webmail.aol.com/mailtour/aol/en-us/index.htm?ncid=AOLAOF0002000970 ! ___ 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/
Re: [computer-go] So many MoGo run on cgos 9x9
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.The rating system is not based on how well you do against the anchor player, it's just a device to prevent long-term rating drift. If the pool of players were to inflate or deflate for any reason, the Anchor will not drift with them and so WHOEVER plays the anchor will get corrections which will propagate to all the players. I have long considered setting up a lower-end anchor. To do this, I would let some fixed weaker player play for several weeks and then average his rating over time to arrive at a good guess. It should be a substantial number of games to be accurate. I think it takes about 5 or more games to get within a couple of ELO points if we were doing straight performance ratings, but I would setting for less - it wouldn't be that critical for a low level player (and we could even adjust it later based on more games.) - - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Hi Don and all, There are many variants of MoGo run on CGOS 9x9 now # http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html I guess they force confuse the rating system because MoGo is the strongest, programs have a match more frequently against MoGo than anchors and get rating decrease in average. If we had many anchors running this would not happen. Someday, in theory, it will converge a balancing point but it may take so long time. As I'm not familiar with the match-making and rating system of cgos, I may be wrong. gg (Hideki) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHCBI1DsOllbwnSikRAgP6AJ0TCdF1/bWVTUT6lUhzpamRwvsc3wCfSZuc iD0x/AU9o8Zu+i1kiOYA8XY= =NWUA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] So many MoGo run on cgos 9x9
Thank you Don, Don Dailey: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.The rating system is not based on how well you do against the anchor player, it's just a device to prevent long-term rating drift. If the pool of players were to inflate or deflate for any reason, the Anchor will not drift with them and so WHOEVER plays the anchor will get corrections which will propagate to all the players. Conceptually, I agree. But apparently the ELO values of highly rated and longly playing programs such as MonteGNU are less these days than previous. Do you have day-by-day rating of a program? It may support my observation. Of course, as this onfusion is temporal and will converge in a few weeks I guess, it may not be a big problem. It, however, would be better to not throw so many new programs into cgos in the same time for everyone anyway. I have long considered setting up a lower-end anchor. To do this, I would let some fixed weaker player play for several weeks and then average his rating over time to arrive at a good guess. It should be a substantial number of games to be accurate. I think it takes about 5 or more games to get within a couple of ELO points if we were doing straight performance ratings, but I would setting for less - it wouldn't be that critical for a low level player (and we could even adjust it later based on more games.) Don't you try the same for high-end anchor using released version of MoGo? -gg - - Don Hideki Kato wrote: Hi Don and all, There are many variants of MoGo run on CGOS 9x9 now # http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html I guess they force confuse the rating system because MoGo is the strongest, programs have a match more frequently against MoGo than anchors and get rating decrease in average. If we had many anchors running this would not happen. Someday, in theory, it will converge a balancing point but it may take so long time. As I'm not familiar with the match-making and rating system of cgos, I may be wrong. gg (Hideki) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHCBI1DsOllbwnSikRAgP6AJ0TCdF1/bWVTUT6lUhzpamRwvsc3wCfSZuc iD0x/AU9o8Zu+i1kiOYA8XY= =NWUA -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
