Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
Heikki Levanto wrote: I think it is better to stick to 9x9 as the beginners tournament, where it is easy to test new ideas in quick games, and 19x19 as the serious tournament where we can see how good computers are at playing the game like we humans do. I agree 100%. Other board sizes are unnecessary, and if 19x19 makes the 9x9 server decrease in interest, that's the natural evolution of the game. The 19x19 will be the one people will use as a reference of the state of the art in computer go. I am not ready yet, but have worked a lot in computer go this year even if not full time. In July, I will work at least 3 months full time in my engine. The board system is done although not debugged. Debugging it is a software project by itself because it has over 90.000 lines of automatically generated assembly language source code. ( Not kidding. Of course, the board does more that just checking if a move is legal ;-) ) I am eager to join the 19x19 server a soon as I am ready! Jacques. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
There has been much talk of a 19x19 CGOS and I have had people offer systems to run it on. I think Dave Dyer also would let us run a 19x19 version. David Doshay has offered some space for it too - which is what I am leaning towards right now. I haven't implemented any of the handicap stuff, but CGOS would work otherwise without any change. Maybe that is good way to start. I still have this horrible fear that 9x9 would suffer if several programs moved over to 19x19. Or perhaps BOTH would suffer from a lack of a variety of competition. What might be useful is if there was an organized system of volunteers who might be willing to run an instance of your program on request for a few days? CGOS has not been particularly stable until just recently. I fixed a bug about 10 days ago and it has been running without a problem since then, so I think it's reasonably stable now.I was not willing to think about another server until I can be sure that it's possible to run for weeks in a row without bugs. But maybe the time is just about right. - Don On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 19:58 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 10:46:24AM -0600, David Silver wrote: But... in practice, I haven't got good results on larger boards. But to be honest, I've focused much more on 9x9, so perhaps I've missed some simple tricks. I think there has been a marked change of interest since the introduction of UCT, and - around the same time - the cgos 9x9 tournament page. I understand that most people do their experiments on 9x9, the results are available so much faster. Still, I think it might be time to loosen the focus on 9x9, and have some more things happening on other sizes. Would there be interest in a tournament system for 19x19 programs? Something like 30 mins / player sounds like a reasonable extrapolation. -H ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
There has been much talk of a 19x19 CGOS and I have had people offer systems to run it on. I think Dave Dyer also would let us run a 19x19 version. ... I still have this horrible fear that 9x9 would suffer if several programs moved over to 19x19. Or perhaps BOTH would suffer from a lack of a variety of competition. Why not 13x13 before 19x19? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
I have a dual-core AMD64 which is unused and connected to the internet for a most of the day, and would be delighted to volunteer it for running an instance of a 19x19 go program for cgos. Terry McIntyre UNIX for hire software development / systems administration / security [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 12:13:43 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest) On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 02:58:25PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote: I still have this horrible fear that 9x9 would suffer if several programs moved over to 19x19. Or perhaps BOTH would suffer from a lack of a variety of competition. I see your point. What might be useful is if there was an organized system of volunteers who might be willing to run an instance of your program on request for a few days? Let me be the first one to volunteer for that. I have a dual-core AMD-64 as my workstation, and as long as I have to be at the office every day, it has lots of unused cpu power... The next few days I may be running my Halgo on it, but I'm sure it can handle another program without me noticing any ill effects. CGOS has not been particularly stable until just recently. I fixed a bug about 10 days ago and it has been running without a problem since then, so I think it's reasonably stable now.I was not willing to think about another server until I can be sure that it's possible to run for weeks in a row without bugs. I know the feeling - I am as much a sysadmin as a programmer by profession, and have great understanding about not putting code into production settings before it is ready for it. But maybe the time is just about right. Maybe - your decision! -Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Get the free Yahoo! toolbar and rest assured with the added security of spyware protection. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/norton/index.php___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 15:13 -0400, Chris Fant wrote: There has been much talk of a 19x19 CGOS and I have had people offer systems to run it on. I think Dave Dyer also would let us run a 19x19 version. ... I still have this horrible fear that 9x9 would suffer if several programs moved over to 19x19. Or perhaps BOTH would suffer from a lack of a variety of competition. Why not 13x13 before 19x19? Whatever is done should be permanent. Do you think 13x13 would be as popular as 19x19? I'm leaning towards 19x19 since it is the standard board and would optionally consider doing 13x13 in addition. - Don ___ 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] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:13:09PM -0400, Chris Fant wrote: Why not 13x13 before 19x19? Because the next step would be 15x15, and then 17x17, and when (if) we get to 19x19, there are so few competitors around that the whole tournament won't make any sense. I think it is better to stick to 9x9 as the beginners tournament, where it is easy to test new ideas in quick games, and 19x19 as the serious tournament where we can see how good computers are at playing the game like we humans do. Just my humble opinion, of course. - Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
I agree 9x9 is wonderful, but a 19x19 for deep testing would be nice. To many variations and you risk the threat of diluting the engine pool. -Josh On 5/21/07, Heikki Levanto [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:13:09PM -0400, Chris Fant wrote: Why not 13x13 before 19x19? Because the next step would be 15x15, and then 17x17, and when (if) we get to 19x19, there are so few competitors around that the whole tournament won't make any sense. I think it is better to stick to 9x9 as the beginners tournament, where it is easy to test new ideas in quick games, and 19x19 as the serious tournament where we can see how good computers are at playing the game like we humans do. Just my humble opinion, of course. - Heikki -- Heikki Levanto In Murphy We Turst heikki (at) lsd (dot) dk ___ 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] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
You missed 11x11. I used to test a lot with 11x11. I think it's a great size, a big step up from 9x9 and more go-like than 9x9 but still easy to test. But I agree with Heikki - we probably don't want too many variants. Perhaps I set up 19x19 tomorrow on Dave Dyers server. I'm think 20 minutes per player - 30 minutes is better but there would be a lot of waiting around - up to 1 hour per game. Taking votes now. 15, 20 or 30? - Don On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 23:10 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:13:09PM -0400, Chris Fant wrote: Why not 13x13 before 19x19? Because the next step would be 15x15, and then 17x17, and when (if) we get to 19x19, there are so few competitors around that the whole tournament won't make any sense. I think it is better to stick to 9x9 as the beginners tournament, where it is easy to test new ideas in quick games, and 19x19 as the serious tournament where we can see how good computers are at playing the game like we humans do. Just my humble opinion, of course. - Heikki ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest)
Two variants will be difficult enough to support. If it's possible to build an infrastructure to permit volunteers to put their spare cycles to work for a various periods of time ( something like [EMAIL PROTECTED] ), perhaps there would be enough spare capacity to test a variety of programs. Terry McIntyre UNIX for hire software development / systems administration / security [EMAIL PROTECTED] - Original Message From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 3:58:18 PM Subject: Re: [computer-go] 9x9 vs 19x19 (was: computer-go Digest) You missed 11x11. I used to test a lot with 11x11. I think it's a great size, a big step up from 9x9 and more go-like than 9x9 but still easy to test. But I agree with Heikki - we probably don't want too many variants. Perhaps I set up 19x19 tomorrow on Dave Dyers server. I'm think 20 minutes per player - 30 minutes is better but there would be a lot of waiting around - up to 1 hour per game. Taking votes now. 15, 20 or 30? - Don On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 23:10 +0200, Heikki Levanto wrote: On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 03:13:09PM -0400, Chris Fant wrote: Why not 13x13 before 19x19? Because the next step would be 15x15, and then 17x17, and when (if) we get to 19x19, there are so few competitors around that the whole tournament won't make any sense. I think it is better to stick to 9x9 as the beginners tournament, where it is easy to test new ideas in quick games, and 19x19 as the serious tournament where we can see how good computers are at playing the game like we humans do. Just my humble opinion, of course. - Heikki ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, photos more. http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
