Hi Peter,
CGOS doesn't count the first 1/4 second of thinking time and this could
help a little.
This isn't the same as Fischer time however because you are not given
the time if it adds to your surplus. It is designed so that if you
play fast enough (less than 1/4 second per move) you will
Of course it's also possible to implement the Fischer clock on CGOS.
Fischer clock is where you have a fixed time component (such as 5
minutes) but you also are given an increment - another fixed time
component that is added to your clock EACH MOVE.
So it might be expressed as 2 minutes +
If your bot has enough points to win under Tromp Taylor scoring, why
capture dead stones? Passing is the fastest way to end the game in your
favor. That trick should limit your game length to something manageable.
I've been thinking that I should add that feature to my bot.
I've also
I'd propose something simpler:
No time is deducted for pass.
With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely
has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning
program can simply play until it has a sufficient number of
unconditionally alive stones on the board
On Jan 2, 2008 4:18 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've also considered the exact opposite strategy... When losing a game, aim
to stress the opponent's time management (since it's the highest probability
of victory). That would include underhanded tricks like filling my own
eyes.
One of my bots will pass if the opponent passes first - if it's a win.
Even if the opponent has dead stones still on the board.But of
course it won't pass if the Tromp Taylor score is not enough for the win.
- Don
Jason House wrote:
If your bot has enough points to win under Tromp
On Jan 2, 2008 10:27 AM, Erik van der Werf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'd propose something simpler:
No time is deducted for pass.
That may be a bit too lax. A bot that thinks for 5 seconds before passing
could delay all bots on the server. I'd favor something in the same spirit
that limits
In chess, playing the game out to the bitter end can be defensible,
but in go, it isn't. The meaning of the end of the game in go is
fluid, but it's not when it's no longer possible to play a move. In
absolute time limit games, when significant per-move lag exists (which
is true in all human
Erik van der Werf wrote:
I'd propose something simpler:
No time is deducted for pass.
With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely
has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning
program can simply play until it has a sufficient number of
On Jan 2, 2008 5:54 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Erik van der Werf wrote:
I'd propose something simpler:
No time is deducted for pass.
With this rule your program will only loose time when it absolutely
has to respond to the opponents move. In most games the winning
i like don's idea about using fischer time. byo-yomi seems to be
the obvious solution to the problem (just make it a small byo-yomi time,
something like 5 seconds), but fischer time has some pretty magical
features that computers can easily take advantage of. time management
should be quite a
Better would be some kind of victory declaration.The program claims
victory - which means that it agrees that every move from now on (for
itself) is a pass move. It would be the counterpart to resignation -
with the provision that you give up all rights to defend yourself if you
are
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Eric Boesch wrote:
I was going to suggest copying KGS's no time cost for a pass within a
reasonable number of seconds rule, but I see Erik just did that.
Well, I'll just second the suggestion. Unfortunately, the reasonable
number of seconds would probably have to be low, just
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
Better would be some kind of victory declaration.The program claims
victory - which means that it agrees that every move from now on (for
itself) is a pass move.
I disagree. Increasing the time-allowance for a PASS move is simpler
and more elegant
Hi Eric,
I think there are rules and there is etiquette. Rules you can control,
but etiquette you cannot. You can never stop bad behavior and have the
additional problem that you must judge it. You have to decide in
which case a player exercised bad manners and so on. It's a tough
On Wed, 2008-01-02 at 15:29 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
I am considering to implement Fischer time on CGOS
How are you going to deal with keeping the games on a fixed schedule?
-Jeff
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
On Jan 2, 2008 3:29 PM, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am considering to implement Fischer time on CGOS, but I would like it
to be painless. I don't believe GTP has a provision to handle it -
but I will check to see what it does have. (I have no intentions of
doing the byo-yomi
Maybe some day computer go will reach the same level of maturity as computer
chess and we will need safeguards against all sorts of churlishness. But so
far, CGOS is very civilized.
I favor encouraging people to make their bots resign, but not penalizing those
who don't. The MC programs are
They are not on a fixed schedule. I currently just start a round
whenever the previous round is finished.
I will probably add another time-control too. There will one long time
control, and short time controls games in between. When a long game
is complete, you will start a short time
On Wed, 2 Jan 2008, Don Dailey wrote:
If we don't like the rules, we can talk about changing them in order to
get behavior that fits our sensibilities better.But we have been
over this ground many times before. It seems like the only reasonable
way to properly score games is to play
True, there is no other game quite like Go in the western world, so
it takes a few games to figure these things out. I help this
problem in the learning curve along by starting on 5x5 boards and
then moving up to 7x7 boards. It lets beginners see the end quickly
and lessens the time
About my net lag,
Don asked, What do you do when you play on KGS?
When playing against humans, there is hardly ever a problem because
humans either resign quickly, pass normally, or quit the game (ugh!) -
humans don't notice the net lag. In the kgs computer tournaments,
it's still my bot that
Surely China don't block the cgos server/port, in fact as far as I
know, there is a test bot(BUPT) of BUPT(developed by other team of
same lab of Yu Ping) which had played on cgos.
On 1/3/08, Peter Christopher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
About my net lag,
Don asked, What do you do when you play
23 matches
Mail list logo
