(BTW I am quite of sad to see how often is (mis)used this kind of excuse for some results here)
I probably didn’t described problem clearly. It is perfectly fine to have draft WIP project at that level of immaturity on github. (every project needs to start at basic level)
Problem is here (publishing/advertising it at flux page) and here (publishing/advertising it at conference).
From my point of view - using project with this level of immaturity as example of using flux is damaging flux’s (and very probably JuliaComputing’s too) reputation.
Well first one is easy to answer, there is probably everything wrong
How to fix some things:
GO and GUI:
- solve deadlock or livelock bug. (I played 3 games yesterday and 2 ended in this kind so it has to be not difficult to simulate problem)
- find end game criteria. Bot is still playing in hopeless position, for example with less 5 legal position where to play (and without any chance to make living group). Without this I am not sure how could MCTS work!
- if MCTS starts to work properly it has to give some number of lost and some number of won possible games. Define some threshold (for example 90% of lost games) as resign threshold. It is pity to play against stubborn machine. (show this winning expectation percentage on screen)
- give possibility to save game (in sgf format for example) - this has to be very easy.
- create some versioning system and show version of bot (I propose something like 0.0.1 in this moment) it could help people to forgive bugs and weaknesses and give them some hope in the future!
- add undo possibility (this one probably in the future where one would like to analyze game)
- This one is probably hardest. Try to show that flux could do some job here!
- fight trained version vs untrained and show results.
- try bot against other bots offline and online on go servers (for example on KGS or OGS) and show results.
- beat best bots on specialized competition
- give best human players 5 stones handicap and crush them
- you don’t need to hire European champion of go (Fan Hui) like Deepmind, at least just consult some go player about product before you sell it. (I mean show it at conference)
- remove it from flux web page or describe it properly as something very very very draft…
- try to create or help to create team where people could work on partial tasks (some of them I wrote above)
- try to motivate teachers and students to participate on partial works (there are people who like to work on something like this)
Some of proposals is easy to fulfill (if there is understanding of problem and will to solve it) some of them are harder and some of them really hard (some maybe impossible).
There is still possibility to resign and start to do something different. Sometimes this is the best option
- mark last put stone differently
- add resign button for human player (although it is not needed now maybe in future it would be useful )
- there are plenty of topics how to negotiate result (it is useful in human games too) for example status of living groups could be resolved by reopening playing in disputable position, etc, etc. This is probably more advanced topic which I am not sure it is here any will to analyze.
But maybe I have to emphasize that I don’t see biggest problem in technical weaknesses of that particular project!!
I see it (and sorry I don’t know how to say it more mildly) in level of professionalism which choose this project as public example of flux’s usability.