[computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
David Fotland
fotland at smart-games.com
Thu Oct 25 13:32:34 PDT 2007
most computer-computer tournaments have used 1 hour per side, and did 5 or 6
rounds over 1 1/2 days.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of
> David Fotland
> Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 1:04 PM
> To: 'computer-go'
> Subject: RE: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
>
>
> I have no problem with longer time controls. Many Faces 11
> was tuned to play in about 45 minutes on hardware available
> in 2000. It won't take advantage of any extra time given.
> The global search is 1 ply with quiescence, and always will
> always complete, and the local search sizes are fixed at
> something like 200 nodes per search.
>
> David
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org
> > [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 11:53 AM
> > To: computer-go
> > Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
> >
> >
> > Hi David,
> >
> > I argue that the matches should be longer, perhaps 30 minutes per
> > side. They should more closely resemble time controls used in a
> > serious competition.
> >
> > Here is the reason I say that. One could argue that with
> > computers it
> > doesn't matter, they do not need to be constrained as much
> > by our sense of time - they do not feel pressure or get
> > rattled if they play too fast
> > and they don't get bored or lose focus if they play too
> slow. I've
> > argued that way myself many times.
> >
> > However, the choice of time control, in my estimation, has a
> > good chance of influencing the outcome, especially if we view
> > this as a test of a strong commercial program versus a new
> > experimental technology, which I think it is. Mogo is a
> > program that clearly performs better
> > with more time. I suspect that MFGO is a program that is close to
> > optimal at 10 or 15 minutes. I can't say that for sure,
> > perhaps you
> > can give us your insights on that.
> >
> > In such a case what is "fair" depends on the point of view of the
> > observer. If someone wanted to see Mogo dominate such a match he
> > would consider short time controls "unfair" and the
> opposite would be
> > true if one wanted to see Many Faces win. Of course I could be
> > wrong, perhaps Many Faces is the one that would benefit more
> > from extra time - but I'm working from the assumption that
> > Mogo would benefit the most based on my own knowledge of how
> > UCT works.
> >
> > Regardless of the time control used another issue is the
> > selection of hardware. Doubling the computer power
> > effectively doubles the programs
> > thinking time.
> >
> > Having considered all of these issues, and also taking into
> > consideration that this is a contest of sorts, it makes
> > sense that we should testing at a level that simulates or at
> > least approaches serious
> > computer chess time-controls. Certainly no faster than
> 30 minutes
> > per side. These are levels at which most humans will take
> > the results
> > seriously.
> >
> > In addition to this, it makes sense to know what hardware and what
> > time-setting is being used. Many programs on CGOS were set to play
> > very fast, often indicated their level in the name of the
> > program something like "mogo4k" or something similar.
> >
> > So if we set a liberal time control on CGOS 19x19 we could
> > publish the
> > identify of the players and draw conclusion based on that. Mogo
> > could be tested at several levels and/or hardware
> > configurations and so could Many Faces. It's not difficult
> > to set up a rotating script for
> > logging off one bot and starting up another. (By the way,
> > the right
> > way to do this is to select the bot RANDOMLY, not to
> rotate back and
> > forth.)
> >
> > The server does report the time each side spent calculating
> > in the SGF files, although it's not reported on the web
> > sites, so this is useful
> > information if we are considering the scalability of
> programs. My
> > feeling is that there is likely to be a crossover point -
> > that MFGO will win at time-controls faster than this and Mogo
> > will win at time-controls
> > slower than this. That point may be beyond what we can
> test, or it
> > may be testable on the CGOS server soon.
> >
> > By the way, I would probably argue for longer than 30
> > minutes per side, but for a server like CGOS that would
> > involve a long wait between
> > matches.
> >
> > Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > David Fotland wrote:
> > > 10 minutes per side should be enough for Many Faces 11.
> Version 11
> > > has fixed search limits, and only does time management if
> > it runs low
> > > on time. It can usually play a game in 10 minutes on the
> > computer I'll
> > > use. It will be slower against Mogo since the games are
> longer and
> > > there might me more unsettled situations to read. If you
> > do add more
> > > time, 15 or 20 minutes per side should be enough.
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> > >> -----Original Message-----
> > >> From: computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org
> > >> [mailto:computer-go-bounces at computer-go.org] On Behalf Of
> > Chris Fant
> > >> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:27 PM
> > >> To: computer-go
> > >> Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I oppose more time per side.
> > >>
> > >> On 10/23/07, Christoph Birk <birk at ociw.edu> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If someone wants to test it, the port is 6919 on machine
> > >>>> pc5-120.lri.fr. 10 minutes per side. But only try it if
> > >>>>
> > >> you want to
> > >>
> > >>>> take risks, it is almost surely not stable yet, and the
> > >>>>
> > >> connection
> > >>
> > >>>> might be refused for an unknown reason :-)
> > >>>>
> > >>> Am really curious to see MFGO, Crazystone and Mogo play at
> > >>>
> > >> 19x19. But
> > >>
> > >>> I suggest allowing more time, at least 20 minutes per side.
> > >>>
> > >>> Christoph
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> computer-go mailing list
> > >>> computer-go at computer-go.org
> > >>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> computer-go mailing list
> > >> computer-go at computer-go.org
> > >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > computer-go mailing list
> > > computer-go at computer-go.org
> > > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> > >
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go at computer-go.org
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
More information about the computer-go
mailing list