[Computer-go] KGS bot tournaments: structure

Nick Wedd maproom at gmail.com
Wed May 11 03:00:10 PDT 2016

LeelaBot now has "Ranked Robot" status. It will still need to play some
rated games to achieve a rank.

I propose to run the June KGS bot tournament (9x9) in two divisions. One
division will be McMahon, with entry restricted to programs that have
"Ranked Robot" status *and* are able to beat GNU Go; the other division
will be Swiss, without either restriction.  If there are fewer than four
entrants to either division, I shall merge them into one, Swiss, tournament.

If anyone objects to any of this, please let me know soon, before I rewrite


On 10 May 2016 at 17:07, Hideki Kato <hideki_katoh at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:

> Gian-Carlo Pascutto: <5731DC19.2020100 at sjeng.org>:
> >On 10-05-16 11:23, Hideki Kato wrote:
> >
> >> CGOS is better place for those lower programs, isn't it?
> >
> >Not really, the pool of opponents is smaller and contains no humans. It
> >sort of depends on what the goal of the author is. Even if she's only
> >interested in measuring vs other computer opponents, a KGS tournament
> >*may* offer a bigger pool because there's more incentive to connect at a
> >given time.
> The number of games is the most important point to get correct
> ratings.  It takes several weeks or more on KGS to have enough
> (at least several handreds) games.  Also, there are several
> hardles to get ranked on KGS.  Programs have to be stable and no
> serious bugs, for examples.
> >> I'm not against creating lower division, just wonder if it's really
> >>  necessary.  Recently it's easier to implement "large patterns" which
> >> is necessary to beat GNU Go on 19x19 using DCNN than Remi's B-T model
> >> and so most programs could quickly reach GNU Go level.
> >
> >I think it's up to the author to decide which approach he or she wants
> >to pursue. It's not because everyone is making hand-crafted pattern
> >databases with elaborate rules for local tactical search, that you can't
> >try just playing out games randomly, for example, even if that approach
> >seems weak right now. Maybe it turns out to scale better in the long run.
> >
> >> If this is correct, creating two divisions might be a bad idea.
> >
> >Not necessarily disagreeing there.
> >
> >--
> >GCP
> >_______________________________________________
> >Computer-go mailing list
> >Computer-go at computer-go.org
> >http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> --
> Hideki Kato <mailto:hideki_katoh at ybb.ne.jp>
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at computer-go.org
> http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go

Nick Wedd      maproom at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20160511/6aa06289/attachment.html>

More information about the Computer-go mailing list