[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments - two sections?
You should be able to make a progrma that beats Many Faces with much, much
less effort that I put into Many Faces, because computers are so much
faster, and tools so much better. I spent a huge amount of effort on
incremental evaluation when I had 1 MIPS, and even more on tight data
structures when it all had to fit in 450 KB on a 16 MHz 286 running DOS 3 :(
Regards,
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Don Dailey
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 5:30 AM
> To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments
> - two sections?
>
>
>
> > If someone applies some new technology to write a bot, and thereby
> > achieves something which can beat MFoG, while putting in
> less than 1% of
> > the effort that David has invested, that'll be great!
>
> It would be great, but not if they took David Fotlands 99%
> effort to do it. If they did this on their own, I would agree.
>
> - Don
>
>
>
>
> X-Original-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 10:39:33 +0100
> From: Nick Wedd <nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: computer-go <computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sender: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> X-Spam-Score: -4.9
> X-Spam-Flag: NO
> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.42
>
> In message <BAY9-DAV16C2F18C63F2E517D67B6A9C100@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Vlad
> Dumitrescu <vlad_dumitrescu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >Hi all,
> >
> >I hope I may throw in my 2 cents on the issue. Probably
> nothing new, but
> >hopefully in a different light.
>
> I broadly agree with Vlad - but it seems I differ from him
> on several
> relatively unimportant points ...
>
> >I think that there is one question one would like to
> answer before diving
> >deeper: what is the purpose of computer-game tournaments?
> >
> >If the answer is "to crown the best playing program", my
> feeling is that any
> >program should be allowed to enter, in any amount. I assume an
> >"all-play-all" tournament, so that no competitor is
> pushed down in a lesser
> >league just because there are many entrants.
>
> If the object is "to crown the best playing program", and
> we allow any
> programs to enter in any amount, the leading contenders will enter
> dozens of copies. This will make the numbers too high for
> Round Robin,
> so we will be using Swiss. And the results table will be
> absurd, with
> some programs doing nothing but play copies of themselves.
>
> Also, this will tend to reward programmers who can borrow
> a commercial
> network for the weekend, to run all their copies on.
>
> >If the answer is "to crown the programmer/team that
> produced the best
> >playing program", then it is of course unfair to allow a
> lucky newbie to
> >stumble onto a combination of tuning parameters and get
> credited without any
> >nights lost and sweat and tears.
>
> I have nothing against rewarding lucky newbies.
>
> If someone applies some new technology to write a bot, and thereby
> achieves something which can beat MFoG, while putting in
> less than 1% of
> the effort that David has invested, that'll be great!
>
> >It is in the latter case that we have the main grey zone
> and the most
> >difficult choices. And in my opinion, the two leagues
> proposed by Nick are
> >nicely reflecting these two ways to look at things. Maybe
> the "best program"
> >league entrants could run anonymously, only TD and
> respective authors
> >knowing who is behind a handle?
>
> I think I am going to go with the two leagues.
>
> >best regards,
> >Vlad
> >
> >p.s. There is a grey zone in the former case too: what if
> a rich person buys
> >a supercomputer and runs GnuGo out of the box on it?
> Maybe right now the
> >programs aren't very scalable, but in the near future
> they might. Then
> >hardware might matter more than algorithms... But I feel
> this one is much
> >less of a problem.
>
> I don't think it is a big problem, and I am not planning
> to do anything
> about it.
>
> It's not just that the programs aren't scalable, it's that
> the whole
> task isn't scalable. Give a program more time and it
> doesn't really
> know how to use it. This is what makes SlugGo
> interesting. The SlugGo
> team are doing their best to see how much improvement they
> can get by
> applying extra computing power. I hope they will forgive
> me if I say
> that despite their efforts, the increase in strength is not
> proportionate to the computing power applied.
>
> Nick
> --
> Nick Wedd nick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> 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/
>
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/