Some thinking out loud here on the topic of languages and efficiency: I'd like to know how well MoGo would have played if you let it think for a week for every move. Only it seems to me that is not possible, because I don't think MoGo will run for a week without crashing. Crazystone also crashes quite a lot, if I understand the comments in KGS logs correctly.
You got to wonder. One thing is move quality reduced by traditional bugs, but when the program periodically is forced to restart and throw away its calculations because of a crash, it seems to me there's a lot to gain from using a more reliable programming language. Also, do we really know all we need to know about algorithmic approaches? If yes, then it's about implementing them as efficiently as possible, to maximise the number of playouts per second... C or C++ is probably a good choice. But if not, it probably matters a lot more about how flexible it is, how easy it is to try out different approaches. If it runs ten times as slow as the C version, why not just let it think for ten times as long? That is affordable when experimenting, right? But I have to admit, I don't know exactly how I'd go about implementing a transposition table in Haskell :-/ Perhaps I'll try for a libEGO binding, then at least if there are stability problems, I can blame someone else ;-) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
