Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Chris LaRose]

>
> And I'm now excited about possibly reusing the baduk.io's
> Docker infrastructure for the EGC2015 Computer Go tournament I'm
> planning, where bots will run on equal hardware too - it'd make the
> logistics quite easier for many competitors.


That's great to hear! If you need any help, let me know!


> Note that while this is fine for GNUGo, it may not be for some of the
> more advanced bots:
> * Initialization time may be non-trivial.  If you use Pachi with the
> patterns database (which is extremely recommended), it takes a few
> seconds to load.
> * You lose not just pondering (which might be unreasonable to do with
> a web service), but also previous game tree state that the engine might
> want to reuse across moves.
> If I was stopping engines mid-game to conserve resources, I'd do this
> only about some period of inactivity (be it 15s or 120s).


Thanks for this, Petr Baudis. These are great points which would warrant
not terminating engines mid-game.  I was under the impression previously
that engines would only perform the calculations they need to when asked to
"genmove", but I can see that it would be possible (and maybe preferable)
to do some thinking while the opponent is playing.

Folkert van Heusden,

- a networked protocol so that you can also run them from your own
>   computer
> - with clients that talk the usual gtp protocol


This is good feedback that sort of makes a compromise between CGOS and
Baduk.io, where if you want to run the engines on your own hardware, you
can. Definitely an interesting idea.

- make a simple json emitting page that one can poll to collect
>   statistics, e.g. { "stop" : "1300" } where stop is the name of my
>   program and 1300 a not very realistic (it plays very bad) elo-rating


Good suggestion! Baduk.io's web frontend is a single-page web app that just
consumes information from a JSON API already, so I'd just have to document
how that information is exposed so engine developers can consume it. Thanks!

On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 12:27 AM, folkert  wrote:

> Very cool!
> What I would like:
> - a networked protocol so that you can also run them from your own
>   computer
> - with clients that talk the usual gtp protocol
> - the program interfacing between the server and the client-engine in
>   something like c/c++/python and open source so that one can more
>   easily run it everywhere. also please not difficult to setup, eg no
>   oauth and other stuff requiring gui's (I usually run my chess/go
>   engines on systems that do not even have a video card)
> - elo is my current preferred rating as I "know it" but I could "learn"
>   kyu/dan as well
> - make a simple json emitting page that one can poll to collect
>   statistics, e.g. { "stop" : "1300" } where stop is the name of my
>   program and 1300 a not very realistic (it plays very bad) elo-rating
>
> On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 05:34:44PM -0800, Chris LaRose wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I'm actually working on something similar at http://baduk.io. Right now,
> > you can log in an play against a handful of bots over the web, but one
> day
> > I'd love to make it so you can add your own bots to let them compete
> > against the others. It's not quite ready for the public, but I'm working
> to
> > get something small working quickly. Unlike CGOS, the bots are all
> > hosted--they all run inside Docker (http://docker.io/) containers. The
> > Dockerfiles I've written for a few public bots are available at my github
> > repository https://github.com/baduk-io/ai-dockerfiles.
> >
> > What sorts of things would you expect from such a service? I was planning
> > on modeling baduk.io after CGOS in a lot of ways as far as the rules
> that
> > are used (area scoring, no dead stones removed, etc), and distinct
> ratings
> > for 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 boards. What sorts of improvements do you think
> > could be made in a new service? Do you have a preference for ELO ratings
> > over kyu/dan ratings?
> >
> > Chris LaRose
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
> > > so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
> > > E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
> > > and then determines an elo rating for them.
> > >
> > >
> > > Folkert van Heusden
> > >
> > > --
> > > Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
> > > In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
> > > even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
> > > ---
> > > Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> > > ___
> > > Computer-go mailing list
> > > Computer-go@computer-go.org
> > > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
> > ___
> > Computer-go mailing list
> > Compute

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[folkert]

Very cool!
What I would like:
- a networked protocol so that you can also run them from your own
  computer
- with clients that talk the usual gtp protocol
- the program interfacing between the server and the client-engine in
  something like c/c++/python and open source so that one can more
  easily run it everywhere. also please not difficult to setup, eg no
  oauth and other stuff requiring gui's (I usually run my chess/go
  engines on systems that do not even have a video card)
- elo is my current preferred rating as I "know it" but I could "learn"
  kyu/dan as well
- make a simple json emitting page that one can poll to collect
  statistics, e.g. { "stop" : "1300" } where stop is the name of my
  program and 1300 a not very realistic (it plays very bad) elo-rating

On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 05:34:44PM -0800, Chris LaRose wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm actually working on something similar at http://baduk.io. Right now,
> you can log in an play against a handful of bots over the web, but one day
> I'd love to make it so you can add your own bots to let them compete
> against the others. It's not quite ready for the public, but I'm working to
> get something small working quickly. Unlike CGOS, the bots are all
> hosted--they all run inside Docker (http://docker.io/) containers. The
> Dockerfiles I've written for a few public bots are available at my github
> repository https://github.com/baduk-io/ai-dockerfiles.
> 
> What sorts of things would you expect from such a service? I was planning
> on modeling baduk.io after CGOS in a lot of ways as far as the rules that
> are used (area scoring, no dead stones removed, etc), and distinct ratings
> for 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 boards. What sorts of improvements do you think
> could be made in a new service? Do you have a preference for ELO ratings
> over kyu/dan ratings?
> 
> Chris LaRose
> 
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
> > so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
> > E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
> > and then determines an elo rating for them.
> >
> >
> > Folkert van Heusden
> >
> > --
> > Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
> > In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
> > even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
> > ---
> > Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> > ___
> > Computer-go mailing list
> > Computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go



Folkert van Heusden

-- 
MultiTail is een flexibele tool voor het volgen van logfiles en
uitvoer van commando's. Filteren, van kleur voorzien, mergen,
'diff-view', etc. http://www.vanheusden.com/multitail/
--
Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Petr Baudis]

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 09:25:28AM +0100, Marc Landgraf wrote:
> I'm not convinced about that concept, tbh.
> People put a lot of work to optimize their bots, include GPU usage and
> figure out, how to use Pondering the best way. And then you want those
> programmers to remove those features and put work into making their bots
> run on your system, just to "level the playing field".

I don't think you're being that fair to Chris.  He has his own goals
for a service he wants to provide, which isn't primarly a CGOS
replacement, and is perfectly fine for the purposes he wants.  And it's
fine to suggest that maybe something like this could work as a CGOS
substitute, even though in the discussion it's turning out that probably
that's not the case.

(Still, I'd love to read about the results in a mini-tournament between
the bots, if possible multiple tounrmanets with different resource
limits.  And I'm now excited about possibly reusing the baduk.io's
Docker infrastructure for the EGC2015 Computer Go tournament I'm
planning, where bots will run on equal hardware too - it'd make the
logistics quite easier for many competitors.)

> 2015-01-14 3:04 GMT+01:00 Chris LaRose :
> > Also, bots that aren't currently playing a game can be
> > terminated and won't consume resources. Starting and stopping containers is
> > so fast that I can afford to only start bots immediately after its opponent
> > plays, request a single move, and terminate it.

Note that while this is fine for GNUGo, it may not be for some of the
more advanced bots:

* Initialization time may be non-trivial.  If you use Pachi with the
patterns database (which is extremely recommended), it takes a few
seconds to load.

* You lose not just pondering (which might be unreasonable to do with
a web service), but also previous game tree state that the engine might
want to reuse across moves.

If I was stopping engines mid-game to conserve resources, I'd do this
only about some period of inactivity (be it 15s or 120s).

-- 
Petr Baudis
If you do not work on an important problem, it's unlikely
you'll do important work.  -- R. Hamming
http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~robins/YouAndYourResearch.html
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Marc Landgraf]

I'm not convinced about that concept, tbh.
People put a lot of work to optimize their bots, include GPU usage and
figure out, how to use Pondering the best way. And then you want those
programmers to remove those features and put work into making their bots
run on your system, just to "level the playing field".

2015-01-14 3:04 GMT+01:00 Chris LaRose :

> Thanks everyone for all the feedback! Sorry I hijacked the thread!
>
> There are definitely some big pros and cons to a hosted, containerized
> environment for Go bots. I've replied to some comments below:
>
> Won’t hosting limit your usability?  With cgos I can build and immediately
>> test on cgos on my development machine.  With your service, how do I get my
>> new executable to run?
>
>
> You're absolutely right. The workflow for developers will have some
> additional overhead. The nice thing, though, is that Docker is very good at
> providing a way for an application to run virtually anywhere in a
> consistent fashion. That is, if you can get your bot running in a Docker
> container on your own machine, then it's pretty likely that it'll run on
> Baduk.io's Docker host without a hitch.
>
>  If my engine uses a GPU or is a multinode cluster, how does that run on
>> your docker service?
>
>
> Right now, I don't have plans for supporting such bots. But as Urban
> Hafner replied, it puts everyone on a level playing field--all bots have
> access to the same exact resources. As some have noted, maybe that means
> Baduk.io wouldn't serve the same purpose as CGOS. That's fine by me.
>
> At first, I want Baduk.io to be a place where players, especially
> beginners can get a few games in against bots. Because the bots are hosted,
> I'm not limited in the number of simultaneous games I can play against one
> bot. As far as I understand it, it GNU Go is playing against five different
> people on KGS, that means that there are five different instances of GNU Go
> running on people's machines someone in the world. If someone else wants to
> play, they can't. Also, bots that aren't currently playing a game can be
> terminated and won't consume resources. Starting and stopping containers is
> so fast that I can afford to only start bots immediately after its opponent
> plays, request a single move, and terminate it.
>
> Anyway, Baduk.io is largely only a proof-of-concept right now--I'll have
> to post a message to the list when I get a little further working on it.
>
> On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joshua Shriver 
> wrote:
>
>> If you can send me a binary that would be greatly appreciated.  Trying
>> to build some anchors now.
>>
>> -Josh
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Hideki Kato 
>> wrote:
>> > Shilver,
>> >
>> > I'll be able to run FatMan1, the anchor for 9x9, on my site, if
>> > necessary.  Or, it's also possible to send you its binary and password
>> > so that you can run it on your site.
>> >
>> > Hideki
>> >
>> > Joshua Shriver: > xwb5...@mail.gmail.com>:
>> >>I'll try and get CGOS back online before this weekend.  Technically it
>> >>should be running now, but there were several issues.  In order to use
>> >>it now  you take the cgos  client for your architecture and you have
>> >>to specify cgos.computergo.org  manually since the binaries are
>> >>hardcoded to the old boardspace address.  I've had some troubles
>> >>unbundling the binaries and rebuilding the executables with TCL.
>> >>
>> >>Rankings are also an issue as well which is something I'll have to
>> >>change in the code to make sure anchors and their predefined ELO
>> >>ratings are used.
>> >>
>> >>Will try and make a better write-up on how to connect.  Hopefully this
>> >>weekend I should have the anchors running 24/7 and some people can try
>> >>connecting.
>> >>
>> >>I'll flush the old data and in terms of games and we'll start with a
>> >>fresh slate.  Though all the data even from years past are still
>> >>available though for historic reasons and for anyone who wants the
>> >>SGF's.
>> >>
>> >>-Josh
>> >>
>> >>On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant
>> future
>> >>> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
>> >>> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
>> >>> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> Folkert van Heusden
>> >>>
>> >>> --
>> >>> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
>> >>> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
>> >>> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
>> >>>
>> ---
>> >>> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
>> >>> ___
>> >>> Computer-go mailing list
>> >>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> >>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>> >>_

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[hughperkins2]

> Starting and stopping containers is so fast that I can afford to only start 
> bots immediately after its opponent plays, request a single move, and 
> terminate it.

Thats interesting. And impressive. 

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Brian Sheppard]

Alas, the limitations of a hosted environment would make participating in 
Baduk.io a non-starter for me. It is much better to build a selection of 
standard bots and run tests on my own hardware. Which is what I have done in 
the absence of CGOS.

 

IMO, running using one’s own hardware/OS/language is a requirement.

 

From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Chris LaRose
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 9:05 PM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

 

Thanks everyone for all the feedback! Sorry I hijacked the thread!

 

There are definitely some big pros and cons to a hosted, containerized 
environment for Go bots. I've replied to some comments below:

 

Won’t hosting limit your usability?  With cgos I can build and immediately test 
on cgos on my development machine.  With your service, how do I get my new 
executable to run?

 

You're absolutely right. The workflow for developers will have some additional 
overhead. The nice thing, though, is that Docker is very good at providing a 
way for an application to run virtually anywhere in a consistent fashion. That 
is, if you can get your bot running in a Docker container on your own machine, 
then it's pretty likely that it'll run on Baduk.io's Docker host without a 
hitch.

 

 If my engine uses a GPU or is a multinode cluster, how does that run on your 
docker service?

 

Right now, I don't have plans for supporting such bots. But as Urban Hafner 
replied, it puts everyone on a level playing field--all bots have access to the 
same exact resources. As some have noted, maybe that means Baduk.io wouldn't 
serve the same purpose as CGOS. That's fine by me.

 

At first, I want Baduk.io to be a place where players, especially beginners can 
get a few games in against bots. Because the bots are hosted, I'm not limited 
in the number of simultaneous games I can play against one bot. As far as I 
understand it, it GNU Go is playing against five different people on KGS, that 
means that there are five different instances of GNU Go running on people's 
machines someone in the world. If someone else wants to play, they can't. Also, 
bots that aren't currently playing a game can be terminated and won't consume 
resources. Starting and stopping containers is so fast that I can afford to 
only start bots immediately after its opponent plays, request a single move, 
and terminate it.

 

Anyway, Baduk.io is largely only a proof-of-concept right now--I'll have to 
post a message to the list when I get a little further working on it.

 

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joshua Shriver mailto:jshri...@gmail.com> > wrote:

If you can send me a binary that would be greatly appreciated.  Trying
to build some anchors now.

-Josh


On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Hideki Kato mailto:hideki_ka...@ybb.ne.jp> > wrote:
> Shilver,
>
> I'll be able to run FatMan1, the anchor for 9x9, on my site, if
> necessary.  Or, it's also possible to send you its binary and password
> so that you can run it on your site.
>
> Hideki
>
> Joshua Shriver: 
>  <mailto:xwb5...@mail.gmail.com> >:
>>I'll try and get CGOS back online before this weekend.  Technically it
>>should be running now, but there were several issues.  In order to use
>>it now  you take the cgos  client for your architecture and you have
>>to specify cgos.computergo.org <http://cgos.computergo.org>   manually since 
>>the binaries are
>>hardcoded to the old boardspace address.  I've had some troubles
>>unbundling the binaries and rebuilding the executables with TCL.
>>
>>Rankings are also an issue as well which is something I'll have to
>>change in the code to make sure anchors and their predefined ELO
>>ratings are used.
>>
>>Will try and make a better write-up on how to connect.  Hopefully this
>>weekend I should have the anchors running 24/7 and some people can try
>>connecting.
>>
>>I'll flush the old data and in terms of games and we'll start with a
>>fresh slate.  Though all the data even from years past are still
>>available though for historic reasons and for anyone who wants the
>>SGF's.
>>
>>-Josh
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, folkert ><mailto:folk...@vanheusden.com> > wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
>>> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
>>> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
>>> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Folkert van Heusden
>>>
>>> --
>>> Afraid of irssi? Sca

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Chris LaRose]

Thanks everyone for all the feedback! Sorry I hijacked the thread!

There are definitely some big pros and cons to a hosted, containerized
environment for Go bots. I've replied to some comments below:

Won’t hosting limit your usability?  With cgos I can build and immediately
> test on cgos on my development machine.  With your service, how do I get my
> new executable to run?


You're absolutely right. The workflow for developers will have some
additional overhead. The nice thing, though, is that Docker is very good at
providing a way for an application to run virtually anywhere in a
consistent fashion. That is, if you can get your bot running in a Docker
container on your own machine, then it's pretty likely that it'll run on
Baduk.io's Docker host without a hitch.

 If my engine uses a GPU or is a multinode cluster, how does that run on
> your docker service?


Right now, I don't have plans for supporting such bots. But as Urban Hafner
replied, it puts everyone on a level playing field--all bots have access to
the same exact resources. As some have noted, maybe that means Baduk.io
wouldn't serve the same purpose as CGOS. That's fine by me.

At first, I want Baduk.io to be a place where players, especially beginners
can get a few games in against bots. Because the bots are hosted, I'm not
limited in the number of simultaneous games I can play against one bot. As
far as I understand it, it GNU Go is playing against five different people
on KGS, that means that there are five different instances of GNU Go
running on people's machines someone in the world. If someone else wants to
play, they can't. Also, bots that aren't currently playing a game can be
terminated and won't consume resources. Starting and stopping containers is
so fast that I can afford to only start bots immediately after its opponent
plays, request a single move, and terminate it.

Anyway, Baduk.io is largely only a proof-of-concept right now--I'll have to
post a message to the list when I get a little further working on it.

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:33 AM, Joshua Shriver  wrote:

> If you can send me a binary that would be greatly appreciated.  Trying
> to build some anchors now.
>
> -Josh
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Hideki Kato 
> wrote:
> > Shilver,
> >
> > I'll be able to run FatMan1, the anchor for 9x9, on my site, if
> > necessary.  Or, it's also possible to send you its binary and password
> > so that you can run it on your site.
> >
> > Hideki
> >
> > Joshua Shriver:  xwb5...@mail.gmail.com>:
> >>I'll try and get CGOS back online before this weekend.  Technically it
> >>should be running now, but there were several issues.  In order to use
> >>it now  you take the cgos  client for your architecture and you have
> >>to specify cgos.computergo.org  manually since the binaries are
> >>hardcoded to the old boardspace address.  I've had some troubles
> >>unbundling the binaries and rebuilding the executables with TCL.
> >>
> >>Rankings are also an issue as well which is something I'll have to
> >>change in the code to make sure anchors and their predefined ELO
> >>ratings are used.
> >>
> >>Will try and make a better write-up on how to connect.  Hopefully this
> >>weekend I should have the anchors running 24/7 and some people can try
> >>connecting.
> >>
> >>I'll flush the old data and in terms of games and we'll start with a
> >>fresh slate.  Though all the data even from years past are still
> >>available though for historic reasons and for anyone who wants the
> >>SGF's.
> >>
> >>-Josh
> >>
> >>On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
> >>> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
> >>> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
> >>> and then determines an elo rating for them.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Folkert van Heusden
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
> >>> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
> >>> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
> >>> ---
> >>> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> >>> ___
> >>> Computer-go mailing list
> >>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> >>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >>___
> >>Computer-go mailing list
> >>Computer-go@computer-go.org
> >>http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> > --
> > Hideki Kato 
> > ___
> > Computer-go mailing list
> > Computer-go@computer-go.org
> > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/lis

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Joshua Shriver]

If you can send me a binary that would be greatly appreciated.  Trying
to build some anchors now.

-Josh

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Hideki Kato  wrote:
> Shilver,
>
> I'll be able to run FatMan1, the anchor for 9x9, on my site, if
> necessary.  Or, it's also possible to send you its binary and password
> so that you can run it on your site.
>
> Hideki
>
> Joshua Shriver: 
> :
>>I'll try and get CGOS back online before this weekend.  Technically it
>>should be running now, but there were several issues.  In order to use
>>it now  you take the cgos  client for your architecture and you have
>>to specify cgos.computergo.org  manually since the binaries are
>>hardcoded to the old boardspace address.  I've had some troubles
>>unbundling the binaries and rebuilding the executables with TCL.
>>
>>Rankings are also an issue as well which is something I'll have to
>>change in the code to make sure anchors and their predefined ELO
>>ratings are used.
>>
>>Will try and make a better write-up on how to connect.  Hopefully this
>>weekend I should have the anchors running 24/7 and some people can try
>>connecting.
>>
>>I'll flush the old data and in terms of games and we'll start with a
>>fresh slate.  Though all the data even from years past are still
>>available though for historic reasons and for anyone who wants the
>>SGF's.
>>
>>-Josh
>>
>>On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
>>> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
>>> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
>>> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>>>
>>>
>>> Folkert van Heusden
>>>
>>> --
>>> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
>>> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
>>> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
>>> ---
>>> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
>>> ___
>>> Computer-go mailing list
>>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>___
>>Computer-go mailing list
>>Computer-go@computer-go.org
>>http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> --
> Hideki Kato 
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Hideki Kato]

Shilver,

I'll be able to run FatMan1, the anchor for 9x9, on my site, if 
necessary.  Or, it's also possible to send you its binary and password 
so that you can run it on your site.

Hideki

Joshua Shriver: 
:
>I'll try and get CGOS back online before this weekend.  Technically it
>should be running now, but there were several issues.  In order to use
>it now  you take the cgos  client for your architecture and you have
>to specify cgos.computergo.org  manually since the binaries are
>hardcoded to the old boardspace address.  I've had some troubles
>unbundling the binaries and rebuilding the executables with TCL.
>
>Rankings are also an issue as well which is something I'll have to
>change in the code to make sure anchors and their predefined ELO
>ratings are used.
>
>Will try and make a better write-up on how to connect.  Hopefully this
>weekend I should have the anchors running 24/7 and some people can try
>connecting.
>
>I'll flush the old data and in terms of games and we'll start with a
>fresh slate.  Though all the data even from years past are still
>available though for historic reasons and for anyone who wants the
>SGF's.
>
>-Josh
>
>On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
>> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
>> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
>> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>>
>>
>> Folkert van Heusden
>>
>> --
>> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
>> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
>> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
>> ---
>> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>___
>Computer-go mailing list
>Computer-go@computer-go.org
>http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
-- 
Hideki Kato 
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Joshua Shriver]

I'll try and get CGOS back online before this weekend.  Technically it
should be running now, but there were several issues.  In order to use
it now  you take the cgos  client for your architecture and you have
to specify cgos.computergo.org  manually since the binaries are
hardcoded to the old boardspace address.  I've had some troubles
unbundling the binaries and rebuilding the executables with TCL.

Rankings are also an issue as well which is something I'll have to
change in the code to make sure anchors and their predefined ELO
ratings are used.

Will try and make a better write-up on how to connect.  Hopefully this
weekend I should have the anchors running 24/7 and some people can try
connecting.

I'll flush the old data and in terms of games and we'll start with a
fresh slate.  Though all the data even from years past are still
available though for historic reasons and for anyone who wants the
SGF's.

-Josh

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 5:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>
>
> Folkert van Heusden
>
> --
> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
> ---
> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Dave Dyer]

I think hosted is a bad idea - anyone developing a bot has a computer
and a development environment, and it may not be linux, and the extra
step of updating and installing on the host is just sand in the gears.
And of course, hosting is not free.

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Christoph Birk]

On Jan 13, 2015, at 4:52 AM, Woody Folsom  wrote:
> I would be interested in participating, particularly as a containerized 
> environment puts me on a more even footing with projects which have a lot 
> more hardware to throw at the problem.

That’s an interesting setting for a tournament but not really a replacement
for CGOS, which was mostly used for testing.

Christoph





___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Woody Folsom]

I would be interested in participating, particularly as a containerized
environment puts me on a more even footing with projects which have a lot
more hardware to throw at the problem.  Plus, I am in the process of
porting my engine from Java to C# and will need to rewrite the interface to
the KGS go server anyway, so I might as well add another.  Hopefully the
additional work to port the Windows C# version of ScratchGo to Mono would
be minimal.

Woody

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 7:07 AM, Urban Hafner 
wrote:

> I can see both advantages and disadvantages to this system. The advantages
> are that I don't need to have a computer to run the system, and that
> (presumably) all bots have the same resources at their disposal, so that
> would level the playing field. The downsides are of course that the bot
> needs to run on Linux, and that it probably takes a while to get a new bot
> added and/or updated. The advantage of CGOS was that you could add a new
> bot to the mix within seconds.
>
> Urban
>
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:18 AM, David Fotland 
> wrote:
>
>> Won’t hosting limit your usability?  With cgos I can build and
>> immediately test on cgos on my development machine.  With your service, how
>> do I get my new executable to run?  If my engine uses a GPU or is a
>> multinode cluster, how does that run on your docker service?
>>
>>
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] *On
>> Behalf Of *Chris LaRose
>> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2015 5:35 PM
>> *To:* computer-go@computer-go.org
>> *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'm actually working on something similar at http://baduk.io. Right now,
>> you can log in an play against a handful of bots over the web, but one day
>> I'd love to make it so you can add your own bots to let them compete
>> against the others. It's not quite ready for the public, but I'm working to
>> get something small working quickly. Unlike CGOS, the bots are all
>> hosted--they all run inside Docker (http://docker.io/) containers. The
>> Dockerfiles I've written for a few public bots are available at my github
>> repository https://github.com/baduk-io/ai-dockerfiles.
>>
>>
>>
>> What sorts of things would you expect from such a service? I was planning
>> on modeling baduk.io after CGOS in a lot of ways as far as the rules
>> that are used (area scoring, no dead stones removed, etc), and distinct
>> ratings for 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 boards. What sorts of improvements do you
>> think could be made in a new service? Do you have a preference for ELO
>> ratings over kyu/dan ratings?
>>
>>
>>
>> Chris LaRose
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
>> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
>> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
>> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>>
>>
>> Folkert van Heusden
>>
>> --
>> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
>> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
>> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
>> ---
>> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Computer-go mailing list
>> Computer-go@computer-go.org
>> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Urban Hafner]

I can see both advantages and disadvantages to this system. The advantages
are that I don't need to have a computer to run the system, and that
(presumably) all bots have the same resources at their disposal, so that
would level the playing field. The downsides are of course that the bot
needs to run on Linux, and that it probably takes a while to get a new bot
added and/or updated. The advantage of CGOS was that you could add a new
bot to the mix within seconds.

Urban

On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 8:18 AM, David Fotland 
wrote:

> Won’t hosting limit your usability?  With cgos I can build and immediately
> test on cgos on my development machine.  With your service, how do I get my
> new executable to run?  If my engine uses a GPU or is a multinode cluster,
> how does that run on your docker service?
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> *From:* Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Chris LaRose
> *Sent:* Monday, January 12, 2015 5:35 PM
> *To:* computer-go@computer-go.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos
>
>
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> I'm actually working on something similar at http://baduk.io. Right now,
> you can log in an play against a handful of bots over the web, but one day
> I'd love to make it so you can add your own bots to let them compete
> against the others. It's not quite ready for the public, but I'm working to
> get something small working quickly. Unlike CGOS, the bots are all
> hosted--they all run inside Docker (http://docker.io/) containers. The
> Dockerfiles I've written for a few public bots are available at my github
> repository https://github.com/baduk-io/ai-dockerfiles.
>
>
>
> What sorts of things would you expect from such a service? I was planning
> on modeling baduk.io after CGOS in a lot of ways as far as the rules that
> are used (area scoring, no dead stones removed, etc), and distinct ratings
> for 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 boards. What sorts of improvements do you think
> could be made in a new service? Do you have a preference for ELO ratings
> over kyu/dan ratings?
>
>
>
> Chris LaRose
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:47 AM, folkert  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>
>
> Folkert van Heusden
>
> --
> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
> ---
> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
>
>
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[David Fotland]

Won’t hosting limit your usability?  With cgos I can build and immediately test 
on cgos on my development machine.  With your service, how do I get my new 
executable to run?  If my engine uses a GPU or is a multinode cluster, how does 
that run on your docker service?

 

David

 

From: Computer-go [mailto:computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of 
Chris LaRose
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2015 5:35 PM
To: computer-go@computer-go.org
Subject: Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

 

Hi,

 

I'm actually working on something similar at http://baduk.io. Right now, you 
can log in an play against a handful of bots over the web, but one day I'd love 
to make it so you can add your own bots to let them compete against the others. 
It's not quite ready for the public, but I'm working to get something small 
working quickly. Unlike CGOS, the bots are all hosted--they all run inside 
Docker (http://docker.io/) containers. The Dockerfiles I've written for a few 
public bots are available at my github repository 
https://github.com/baduk-io/ai-dockerfiles.

 

What sorts of things would you expect from such a service? I was planning on 
modeling baduk.io after CGOS in a lot of ways as far as the rules that are used 
(area scoring, no dead stones removed, etc), and distinct ratings for 9x9, 
13x13, and 19x19 boards. What sorts of improvements do you think could be made 
in a new service? Do you have a preference for ELO ratings over kyu/dan ratings?

 

Chris LaRose

 

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:47 AM, folkert  wrote:

Hi,

I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
and then determines an elo rating for them.


Folkert van Heusden

--
Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
---
Phone: +31-6-41278122  , PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, 
www.vanheusden.com
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

 

___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Re: [Computer-go] alternative for cgos

[Chris LaRose]

Hi,

I'm actually working on something similar at http://baduk.io. Right now,
you can log in an play against a handful of bots over the web, but one day
I'd love to make it so you can add your own bots to let them compete
against the others. It's not quite ready for the public, but I'm working to
get something small working quickly. Unlike CGOS, the bots are all
hosted--they all run inside Docker (http://docker.io/) containers. The
Dockerfiles I've written for a few public bots are available at my github
repository https://github.com/baduk-io/ai-dockerfiles.

What sorts of things would you expect from such a service? I was planning
on modeling baduk.io after CGOS in a lot of ways as far as the rules that
are used (area scoring, no dead stones removed, etc), and distinct ratings
for 9x9, 13x13, and 19x19 boards. What sorts of improvements do you think
could be made in a new service? Do you have a preference for ELO ratings
over kyu/dan ratings?

Chris LaRose

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 2:47 AM, folkert  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I have the feeling that cgos won't come back in even the distant future
> so I was wondering if there are any alternatives?
> E.g. a server that constantly lets go engines play against each other
> and then determines an elo rating for them.
>
>
> Folkert van Heusden
>
> --
> Afraid of irssi? Scared of bitchx? Does xchat gives you bad shivers?
> In all these cases take a look at http://www.vanheusden.com/fi/ maybe
> even try it or use it for all your day-to-day IRC conversations!
> ---
> Phone: +31-6-41278122, PGP-key: 1F28D8AE, www.vanheusden.com
> ___
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go@computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go