If I were to change anchors I would of course carefully calibrate them. But I don't see that fuego is stronger than Gnugo at the low CPU levels I was hoping to run at. So there is no compelling reason right now to change anchors.
- Don On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Michael Williams < michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> wrote: > If it were me, I'd run all anchor candidates against the current CGOS to > determine the anchor value to use for that anchor candidate. > > > > Hideki Kato wrote: > >> I'm running Fatman1, GNU Go and GNU Go MC version for 9x9 and two >> instances of GNU Go for 13x13, five programs in total, on a dual-core Athlon >> at home. >> >> I strongly believe current anchors are resource friendly enough for older >> pentium 3, 4 or even Celeron processors and not necessary being changed. >> >> Changing anchors is a big problem, similar to changing the International >> prototypes. Also, GNU Go is used as a reference in almost every computer-go >> research these days. >> >> I'm against that idea, especially for 19x19. >> >> Hideki >> >> Don Dailey: <5212e61a0906231524k4f068be1q50a2f2806b678...@mail.gmail.com >> >: >> >>> I'm trying now to get a rough idea about the strength of fuego and it's >>> suitablity as the anchor player. >>> >>> Right now the numbers are very rough as I need more samples. I'm >>> currently >>> looking at: >>> >>> 1. 9x9 fuego at 1000 simulations >>> >>> 2. 19x19 fuego at 3000 simulations. >>> >>> >>> I'm testing against the current CGOS anchors, so FatMan vs fuego at 9x9 >>> and >>> gnugo-3.7.10 at 19x19. >>> >>> >>> At 9x9 fuego appears to be substantially stronger than FatMan, perhaps >>> 100-200 ELO. It also is far faster at 1000 simulation than fatman which >>> requires many more simulations to reach anchor strength. So there is no >>> questions about fuego being a capable anchor for small boards. At this >>> level on 9x9 FatMan is also stronger than gnugo, so fuego is far stronger >>> than gnugo on 9x9 and is very resource friendly too. >>> >>> At 19x19 the story is a bit different. gnugo appears to be significantly >>> stronger, but about twice as slow. There is not enough data to narrow >>> this >>> down much, but it appears to be over 200 ELO weaker at this level. >>> >>> Since fuego is using only about half the CPU resources of gnugo, I can >>> increase the level. I've only played 30 games at 19x19, so this >>> conclusion is subject to signficant error, but it's enough to conclude >>> that >>> it's almost certainly weaker at this level but perhaps not when run at >>> the >>> same CPU intensity as gnugo. >>> >>> Of course at higher levels yet, fuego would be far stronger than >>> gnugo-3.7.10 as seen in the 19x19 cgos tables. But I'm hoping not to >>> push >>> the anchors too hard - hopefully they can be run on someones older spare >>> computer or set unobtrusively in the background on someones desktop >>> machine. >>> >>> >>> - Don >>> ---- inline file >>> _______________________________________________ >>> computer-go mailing list >>> computer-go@computer-go.org >>> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >>> >> -- >> g...@nue.ci.i.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Kato) >> _______________________________________________ >> computer-go mailing list >> computer-go@computer-go.org >> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >> >> > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > computer-go@computer-go.org > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ >
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
