[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments - two sections?
Nick, your hypothetical is not far from the truth, except that I don't
depend on Go income to live on
(see http://www.ubicom.com/company/management.htm ).
I think your two tier tournament is very sensible, and if/when I get around
to implementing GTP, I'll certainly enter it.
Regards,
David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:computer-go-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nick Wedd
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2005 3:24 AM
> To: computer-go
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] future KGS Computer Go Tournaments
> - two sections?
>
>
> In message <Pine.LNX.4.61.0505111121150.26140@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Michal
> Bazynski <bazik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes
> >
> >On Wed, 11 May 2005, Vlad Dumitrescu wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >hmm i do not understand where the problem understanding why
> it's wrong
> >to have two same/similar programs comes from... to continue David's
> >example:
> >
> >assume MFoG and GNU can beat every other program out there
> 100% of the
> >time.
> >assume MFoG can beat each GNU version 70% of the time.
> >let's have 2 GNU's and one MFoG play in a tournament.
> >
> >what is MFoG's chance of winning? 70? nope, it has come down
> to 50%. 3
> >copies of GNU's and its down to 35%. and all that time MFoG
> is clearly
> >best - 70% winning chance or better against every other opponent.
>
> Yes, it's clearly best to you, and to all readers of this
> mailing list.
> But it is no longer clearly best to the marketing guy in the Japanese
> company that David Fotland is negotiating with.
>
> Ok, I don't even know if David is negotiating with any
> Japanese company.
> Let's consider a hypothetical, but entirely plausible, case.
>
> <hypothetical>
> Suppose I have written a good Go-playing engine. I started
> doing this
> for fun, but my engine is good enough that I sell it
> commercially, I and
> my family now depend on it for our living. Using the
> published results
> of past computer Go Tournament results, I have persuaded a Japanese
> company to pay me for it, put their own Japanese-language UI
> on it, and
> sell it in Japan. The marketing guys in this company can't
> program and
> can't play Go, but they can read results tables; and if they
> see that
> my program has lost to a rival they will start thinking,
> particularly if
> they can get that rival for free.
>
> Now, I believe that my program is a couple of stones stronger
> than GNU
> Go. I am happy to enter it for a tournament where it will be playing
> against GNU Go. I am even happy to risk the occasional loss.
> But if I
> am going to have to play multiple copies of GNU Go, it will
> be more than
> an occasional loss, and it is my livelihood that is threatened. I am
> not going to enter a tournament under those conditions.
> </hypothetical>
>
> If a company executive, or indeed an ordinary member of the
> public who
> is deciding what program to acquire, reads a results table that begins
> 1st GNU Go version 3.8
> 2nd Many Faces of Go
> they may not read any further. Irrational of them, perhaps;
> but this
> is what is likely to happen.
>
> I would like commercial programs to enter these KGS tournaments. But
> they are unlikely to do so unless they have their fair chance of
> winning. This is what I am trying to arrange.
>
> I am planning on having a "formal" division and a "casual"
> division. The
> formal division will only allow one copy of any one program, and will
> require entrants to state their real names, so that we know who to
> revile if they are found cheating. The casual division will have few
> restrictions, it is entirely for fun.
>
> Programs that qualify for the formal division will be
> permitted to enter
> both divisions (though as they will be played simultaneously,
> this may
> present problems for them). I expect that commercial
> programs will only
> enter the formal division. I hope that people deciding what
> program to
> buy will look at the results of the formal division, and
> ignore those of
> the casual division.
>
> >what would make it fair is if MFoG could enter as many copies as
> >GNU-based folks can.
>
> This is what I am proposing. What do you think that number
> should be? I
> think the obvious answer is "1".
>
> Nick
>
> >(i am assuming with those calculations that the GNU version that gets
> >lucky against MFoG beats other GNU-s, so the real numbers are not as
> >bad (assuming different GNU's can't arrange the wins between
> them, but
> >that is a totally different topic))
> --
> 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/