Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Don, Just to say thank you, even though I don't currently have an entry on the list (hopefully sometime in the future!), I'm interested in looking at the ratings of existing programs; this is a very nice Christmas present, definitely appreciated. ___ com

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Thank you very much Don. I was very surprised as I couldn't expect such kindful message. Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >Hideki, > >It was not my intention to disrespect you.I think the word you are >looking for is "condescending" which is when you talk down to someone as >a child. > >If it

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

For what it's worth, "Hall of Fame" can mean anything from the Baseball Hall of Fame (serious business) to the Mullet Hall of Fame (a total joke). To me this looks like a pretty clear misunderstanding. Don and Hideki have both contributed usefully to the mailing list, and it would be too bad if thi

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Hideki, It was not my intention to disrespect you.I think the word you are looking for is "condescending" which is when you talk down to someone as a child. If it came across this way I'm sorry.I tried to make it easy to understand because it seems to me that English is not your first lan

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Chris, I consider to post my previous mail or not. Can you imagine my mind? I know it's so disrespective but I, still, respect Don. Yes, I was not angry, rather, very sad. I've posted because to, 1) to stop this discussion, 2) Don's last post was too disirespective (at least I though so) as,

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

On Dec 15, 2007 1:49 AM, Hideki Kato <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has "Hall of fame" with incorrect ratings any sense? Rather, it may > wrongly leads pepole, isn't it? No disrespect intended, but just to let you know... this is incomprehensible. You may wish to rephrase the questions. > I won't

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

I, first, noticed that I might have readers especially Don misleading with my previous mail. I used "we" for the participants of cgos not "I and Don". I'm sorry if any. Has "Hall of fame" with incorrect ratings any sense? Rather, it may wrongly leads pepole, isn't it? I won't discuss farther a

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Gunnar Farnebäck wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: >> Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless >> they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it >> reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning >> algorithm which improves itself

RE: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

: Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS > > Don Dailey wrote: > > Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program > unless > > they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it > > reasonable to try. I might have a program with

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Don Dailey wrote: Also, even though we can ask people to never change their program unless they give it a new login name, we can't enforce that, nor is it reasonable to try. I might have a program with an on-line learning algorithm which improves itself over time - it would be unreasonable t

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Don't worry Hideki, Nothing has changed on CGOS, only something has been added and it has no affect on what is already there. The standard current standings page also stays the same. No change I promise. Different versions of a program running on CGOS has never been an issue before, and n

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Your sentences make me strongly believe it's too early. I won't be against your idea. Again, just claiming it's too early. Following your analogy to sports, there should be some gurantee of fairness and agreement of participants. Our presupposition was that only recent results were important. An

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Hideki Kato wrote: > Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name > problem? > I don't consider it a major problem. The theory is that a big improvement against versions of the same program might not translate to equivalent improvements vs other programs.I want to see tha

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Why don't you mention the several versions on one login name problem? And, I considered CGOS is not the Nascar type commercial races but a field to help developers to improve their progrms, say, in some academic sense. What is your reason to name it as 'Hall of fame'? I'm not Western and can jus

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Many strong programs have 100% scores against many opponents and many games. They cannot be hanging up very often. When the server hangs, the current game you are playing is not scored. I don't think there is a major problem here. As far as network problems CGOS considers that part of the

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Hi Don, Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >I want to clarify this: > >The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the >players - it does not use CGOS ratings. Hm, now I remembered that there were not so few games wrongly ended and scored by server's hang-up. In addition, r

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

> Maybe this was clear to Don already, but his message sounds a little like it would be possible to estimate > rating from winning rate and average opponent. It is not. No, I didn't mean to imply this. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: > Don Dailey wrote: >> Another example I found is the impressive

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Don Dailey wrote: Another example I found is the impressive Valkyria program. Version 2.7 won 92% of it's games, more than even the top rated greenpeep0.5.1. However, the average rating of Valkyria's opponents was only 1722. This is quite a difference. So Valkyria is rated only comp

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Another example I found is the impressive Valkyria program. Version 2.7 won 92% of it's games, more than even the top rated greenpeep0.5.1. However, the average rating of Valkyria's opponents was only 1722. This is quite a difference. So Valkyria is rated only compared to greenpeep 26

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Let me refer you to the bayeselo web site, this is not my work but due to Rémi Coulom .I am simply using his software to build the table: http://remi.coulom.free.fr/Bayesian-Elo/ The score is simply how well the program scored against it's totally oppositi

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

What is the proper way to interpret the score and opponent columns? On Dec 9, 2007 7:30 PM, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just put up the improved hall of fame page. > > I'm using the values Rémi suggests and the values look more in line with > CGOS. > > Also, FatMan-1 is fixed at 18

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

I just put up the improved hall of fame page. I'm using the values Rémi suggests and the values look more in line with CGOS. Also, FatMan-1 is fixed at 1800 instead of FatMan and there are links to the crosstable pages. * http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html* I'm not sure how often

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

To answer several emails in one: Hideki: One question, why the rating of FatMan-1 is not 1800? They are probably not identical - if one plays much faster than another, it will slightly cripple programs that think on the opponents time.That's the only explanation I can think of. Also, I fi

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Don Dailey wrote: I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not tha

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Don Dailey wrote: I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statistics. If anyone is interested in the settings I used I can provide that. Hi, The only subtlety here, is that bayeselo is tuned for chess, and assumes that draws are possibl

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Hi Don, Thank you for giving us such an excellent Xmas present. One question, why the rating of FatMan-1 is not 1800? And, I'll be happier if there are links to programs on HOF so that I can see their rating pages. Hideki Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >I want to clarify this: > >The new CGO

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

This only shows games played on the new server which changed over in the middle of April 2007. I don't plan to include those games as it would be a bit of pain to incorporate them. As it is, I may restrict this to 1 or 2 years depending on how long it take to process the data.I'm hoping I w

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

Since what date? SlugGo played for several months on COGS and is not shown. Perhaps I am wrong, but I would have thought that it played more than 200 games. Maybe it was not as many as 200 games of any particular version ... Cheers, David On 8, Dec 2007, at 6:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote: I put

Re: [computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

I want to clarify this: The new CGOS chart uses bayeselo to recalculate all the ratings for the players - it does not use CGOS ratings. I may update this list each month. I wanted to make it a top 100 list but FatMan does not even make the top 100. - Don Don Dailey wrote: > I put up a we

[computer-go] Hall of fame for CGOS

I put up a web page that displays EVERY player who has played at least 200 games on CGOS. It uses the bayeselo program that Rémi authored. http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/hof.html I'm not sure I used the program correctly - it's rather complicated and I'm not that great with statisti