[Computer-go] Congratulations to Zen!

Erik van der Werf erikvanderwerf at gmail.com
Mon May 9 15:01:45 PDT 2016


Well then why not make that a criterion for entering the tournament? For
any half-decent bot it shouldn't be hard to get a rating.

Any idea what happens for unrated bots? Do they end up somewhere at the
bottom, or are they rejected?

Erik

On Mon, May 9, 2016 at 11:40 PM, Nick Wedd <maproom at gmail.com> wrote:

> A problem with McMahon is that the bots would all need KGS ratings.  I
> can't assign ratings myself, the scheduler uses the ratings assigned by
> KGS.  In the five tournaments held so far this year, there are sixteen bots
> that have competed at least once: eight have been rated, eight not.
>
> Nick
>
> On 9 May 2016 at 22:16, Erik van der Werf <erikvanderwerf at gmail.com>
> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Nick Wedd      maproom at gmail.com
>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20160510/aeb180ed/attachment.html>


More information about the Computer-go mailing list