[computer-go] thoughts on 100,000 cgos games

[Don Dailey]

This is very easy to add to CGOS and has been on my own personal wish
list for a time.   

I would probably add an optional GTP command (if there is not already
something there) that let's the client inform the engine of the name of
the opponent and his rating.   In addition I would probably set the
client up to optionally record the games in SGF.

- Don
 

On Sun, 2006-05-07 at 19:51 -0700, David G Doshay wrote:
> Sorry for the lack of clarity on my part. I know that I can ask for  
> all of
> the sgf files for SlugGo's games, and that the files sent will include
> the opponent name. What is more accurate is that I need the info in
> the sgf file that we generate that has all of the branching information
> that SlugGo generates and considers. I have doubts that I can write
> a parser that finds our sgf file (with all of the branching info) that
> corresponds to the sgf file sent me with the opponent name. I don't
> doubt that it is possible, just my ability to do it. sgf is hard  
> enough to
> read when it describes a plain vanilla game. When all of SlugGo's
> moves have a dozen options, and in particularly when doing multiple
> levels of branching in the lookahead, the sgf is just full of nested
> brackets and references to comments that wind up all over the file.
> 
> What I can do is rerun every one of the games against a strong
> opponent and regenerate the SlugGo evaluation to within the
> variation in the random number seed. But that sure will take a
> long time. I would rather have that info the first time I do the
> calculations. Can I ask in the process of setting up the game
> for the name and/or rating of the opponent program?
> 
> With respect to learning, about the best idea so far is that if I  
> note that
> some evaluation of the board goes from SlugGo winning to SlugGo
> loosing, and SlugGo does eventually loose, then it is likely that the
> error was before that. I am not at all sure that this must be true. But
> that does narrow it down to "some move near here." In my opinion
> at this time, that is not enough to do automated learning.
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> David
> 
> 
> 
> On 7, May 2006, at 5:44 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
> 
> > But Davids original complaint was that he couldn't do training because
> > he didn't know who the opponent was (I don't understand why he thinks
> > this but he does - I can send him the games WITH opponent  
> > information in
> > the SGF files.)
> >
>