Is there a reason why we need to decide, in advance, which of these many
candidates should be the anchorman? If we set up a whole swathe of them,
surely a week of random even games answers many of these questions and gets
us well on our way to a stable basis for a 19x19 competition? Maybe after
On Fri, 2006-12-29 at 15:28 +0100, Łukasz Lew wrote:
The handicaps are set up in a way that white passes between Black's
moves.
Ie. he gives one point to the black N-1 times.
This isn't elegant. The stones work out nicely as you say, but after
a
pass move the opponent has a right to pass
From what I know about rulesets, I actually prefer AGA. I believe it
was designed to have the same result for both area and territory
scoring. It has the pass costs one point rule. There's something
special about if white passes first because then the number of stones
places on the board are
On 12/29/06, Łukasz Lew [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I did some research and I would like to change my vote.
My criterion for perfect rules are elegance, simplicity and consistency.
As You know I want unification of area and territory scoring.
So here is my proposal.
The unification needs that
This seems clean and reasonable to me. (Or you could just as easily have
the server do the adjustment and set Komi to 3.5; that would also be consistent
with TT rules). If my bot sees 2 black moves in a row, it can figure out it's
in a handicap game.
A bigger question to me is, how
However, I will probably maintain the current scheduling
algorithm which
will make the larger mismatches fairly rare though not impossible.
This
will be good because it means we will still prefer non-handicap games,
and
I'm guessing that the vast majority of games will not be be large
hendicap
My plan was to simply use the same scheduling algorithm I currently
use. I would take the weaker base player and see if handicap
versions of himself more closely matches the ELO rating needed to
give an even game.
I assume the same method of an updated engine connecting with a new
login still
Okay. Don's later post does indicate that he intends to compensate
for the stones. So, in the interest of being 100% clear: is this
compensation included in the komi value that is sent to the client?
Weston
On 12/29/06, Weston Markham [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Am I correct in inferring that
I'm considering this proposal to rate handicaps separately, still
haven't decided but it's appealing.
My plan was to simply use the same scheduling algorithm I currently
use. I would take the weaker base player and see if handicap
versions of himself more closely matches the ELO rating needed to
I agree with you. Weston's post convinced me that the program should
know
in advance what the handicap is to be and thus sending consecutive
genmove
commands is not really correct technically speaking.
I don't like implied compensation, but apparently it is popular and KGS
does it. However,
10 matches
Mail list logo
