RE: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments - two sections?

["David Fotland" <fotland@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Because it's minor in terms of effort expended.  If Gnugo was scalable, and
I could put it on a much faster machine it might also be four stones
stronger.  I think the term "minor derivative" must be defined in terms of
effort expended.

Also, to answer a different e-mail, it is possible to change Many Faces'
parameters to make it play different moves in quiet positions, without
having much effect on the playing strength. So it would be easy to make a
minor deriavative that would pass the test of making plays in many sample
positions.

David

> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Christoph Birk
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 12:12 PM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments 
> - two sections?
> 
> 
> David Fotland wrote:
> > Now let's suppose that instead of 10 copies of Gnugo, the 
> tournament 
> > has 10 programs that are minor derivatives of gnugo with similar 
> > playing strength. I think it's obvious that this is equally unfair.
> 
> But what if the derivative is 4 stones stronger? How can you 
> call that minor, even if only 1% of "time" was necessary? 
> 
> Christoph
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> 


_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/