[Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

Petr Baudis pasky at ucw.cz
Mon May 9 14:31:10 PDT 2016


  Another matter is that, in case of MCTS programs, encouraging them
to play well in handicap games was a troublesome point.  This cuts both
ways (may discourage participation, or encourage implementation of
better handling of handicap games).

  A possible strategy would be:

  - Require ranked programs (with at least 30 rated games played in last
    30 days using the tournament version)

  - Use McMahon scheduling

  - Use handicaps reduced by 2, topped at 4 stones.  (More liberally,
    topped at 6 stones.)

  - Apply these rules only every other month to test it out; this should
    be out of phase with the other variations?

  This might be a lot more fun to watch. :)  Handicap reduction is
important to still give the stronger programs a good edge.

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 11:16:58PM +0200, Erik van der Werf wrote:
> Why not McMahon? (possibly with reduced handicap).  It works fine in human
> Go tournaments.
> 
> IMO KGS Swiss is pretty boring for most of the time, and the scheduler
> often seems to have a lot of undesired influence on the final ranking. Also
> at this point I'm really not that interested any more to see some top
> engine win yet another bot tournament without serious competition; I'd be
> more interested to see how many stones they could give to the rest.
> Wouldn't it be fun to see how many stones AlphaGo could give to CS?
> 
> E.
> 
> 
> On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 10:29 PM, "Ingo Althöfer" <3-Hirn-Verlag at gmx.de>
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi Gian-Carlo,
> >
> > I have thought carefully about your question on
> > determinning handicaps properly.
> > It seems you are very right with your doubts
> >
> > > The first obvious question is then: how will you determine the handicaps?
> >
> > A naive approach would be to take the KGS ranks of the bots.
> > But even for those who really have this may be a problem. Namely,
> > the program may use other/stronger hardware in the tournament,
> > or may have made a jump in performance without playing openly
> > on KGS.
> >
> > > As to the "large gaps in strength": the actual rating of Zen is
> > > 1 stone above abakus, which is 1 stone above HiraBot. That seems
> > > to conflict with your classification.
> >
> > Yes, but only according to KGS ranks. My impression yesterday was
> > that Zen has made another jump in performance and is now more
> > an 8-dan than a 7-dan. But this is indeed only a personal opinion
> > and can not be taken for "serious" handicapping.
> >
> > Concerning abakus and Hirabot, it is indeed my opinion that they
> > are at most 1 stone apart of each other.
> >
> > In total: my handicap idea seems not to be practicable.
> >
> > Ingo.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Computer-go mailing list
> > Computer-go at computer-go.org
> > http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >

> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go


-- 
				Petr Baudis
	If you have good ideas, good data and fast computers,
	you can do almost anything. -- Geoffrey Hinton



More information about the Computer-go mailing list