On anecdotal evidence:
Manyfaces on ""medium" time settings KGS = 2k (accounts manyfaces and
manyfaces2)
Manyfaces1 playing round 10 sec/move is able maintain 1d rank.
So by reducing oppponents thinking time bot gets relative advantage of
3stones.
Also in chess it is uusually considered that hu
I use thread safe SMP within a node. The tree expansion and playouts have
no locks, but Many Faces' engine is not thread safe, so there is a lock
around it, so only one thread can be biasing moves at a time.
For multinode I use MPI. Even though the model is different, the MPI code
is not very la
It depends upon the scaling you want. Some of what you write seems to
imply that you are thinking about MCTS programs, while your questions
are also more general.
When we wrote SlugGo (one of the top programs a few years ago but
in hibernation now) we went with MPI. MPI lets you simulate as many
dhillism...@netscape.net:
<8cc26e08cfc0f77-5fd0-a...@webmail-m052.sysops.aol.com>:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Hideki Kato
>> To: computer-go
>> Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 1:41 am
>> Subject: Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as
>> black (game of
>Go, 9x9)
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40:26PM -0600, Brian Sheppard wrote:
> And now my question: what do you actually do: MPI, thread-safe, both, or
> something else?
Have you read the Parallel Monte-Carlo Tree Search paper? It sums up the
possibilities nicely. I personally just use root parallelization
(si
What is interesting is not the fact that intrasitivity exists, that is not
in doubt. But it quite interesting that this much intransitivity can be
created with non-trivial and strong programs.
I would like to see the data though, specifically the number of games
between each player at each level
>
> BTW, recently I've measured the strength (win rate) vs time for a move
> curves with Zen vs GNU Go and Zen vs Zen (self-play) on 19 x 19 board.
> Without opening book, it saturates between +400 and +500 Elo against
> GNU but doesn't upto +800 Elo in self-play. That's somewhat
> interesting (de
2009/10/29 terry mcintyre :
> That sounds to me like "a dumb human with a smart algorithm can beat a fast
> computer with a dumb algorithm" -- which speaks more to Penrose's reluctance
> to improve algorithms in his dumbed-down computer models than it does to any
> quantum-physical effects.
>
> Sti
> -Original Message-
> From: Hideki Kato
> To: computer-go
> Sent: Wed, Oct 28, 2009 1:41 am
> Subject: Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as
> black (game of Go, 9x9).
> ...
> BTW, recently I've measured the strength (win rate) vs time for a move
> curves
I have a question for those who have parallelized programs.
It seems like MPI is the obvious architecture when scaling a program to
multiple machines. Let's assume that we implement a program that has that
capability.
Now, it is possible to use MPI for scaling *within* a compute node. For
example
Hi everyone,
I've been following the list for about a week and a half, and thought I
ought to introduce myself. I don't know if this much activity is normal on
the list, but I'm glad to see there is so much to read :)
My name is Aldric - just in case you hadn't guessed. I am 27 years old,
and
Yes, I agree with you on most of this. However, I believe that Go is a
very simple domain in some sense and that we romanticize it too much. I am
not saying there is not amazing depth to it, but it's represented very
compactly and it's a game of perfect information with very limited choice
That sounds to me like "a dumb human with a smart algorithm can beat a fast
computer with a dumb algorithm" -- which speaks more to Penrose's reluctance to
improve algorithms in his dumbed-down computer models than it does to any
quantum-physical effects.
Stir in some theorem-proving ability
Roger Penrose thinks the human brain can do things a Turing machine
cannot. (Note: I don't say 'computer'.) He claims it's due to some
quantum-physical effects used by the brain. I doubt his ideas are
correct, but he did have a few interesting chess-positions to support
his theory. Typicall
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:40 PM, Petr Baudis wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:00:32PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> > That is exactly as it should be and is not a barrier. I don't think you
> > know the difference between a wall and a point that is just far away.
>
> I'd phrase this positively
On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 12:00:32PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
> That is exactly as it should be and is not a barrier. I don't think you
> know the difference between a wall and a point that is just far away.
I'd phrase this positively - the point is extremely far away with the
current way MCTS wil
Thanks a lot, Olivier.
I now, however, stay at a hotel in Taichu, Taiwan and have not enough
time to read the articles precisely (since we Japanese share Kanji
charaters with Chinese, I can understand partly) and postpone after
back to Japan.
Hideki
Olivier Teytaud: :
>Dear all (in particular
2009/10/29 Olivier Teytaud
>
>
>>
>> Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on?
>>
>>
> I don't know who claimed it first, and who agreed for it,
> but I agree with it :-)
>
But you always seek the most hardware when you play against a human it
seems.
I think you realize
2009/10/29 Olivier Teytaud
>
>
>> Yes, this group does not have a consensus at all on this. On the one
>> hand we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no benefit from
>> extra CPU power, and on the other hand we have these developers hustling
>> around for the biggest machines th
>
>
> Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on?
>
>
I don't know who claimed it first, and who agreed for it,
but I agree with it :-)
More precisely, I think that increasing time and computational power
makes computers stronger, but not for some particular things like
long-
2009/10/26 Don Dailey :
> ... On the one hand we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no
> benefit from extra CPU power...
Just curious, who actually claimed that and what was it based on?
Erik
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@comp
There is no question that computers play better at longer time controls even
though this has been disputed on this group. Is there any issues with
parallelism at short searches?In the "old days" when I competed in
computer chess with many processors, the program could out-search the
single
>
> Yes, this group does not have a consensus at all on this. On the one
> hand we hear that MCTS has reached a dead end and there is no benefit from
> extra CPU power, and on the other hand we have these developers hustling
> around for the biggest machines they can muster in order to play matc
Some elements around blitz:
- My feeling that blitz games are harder for computers is based on our games
against humans: we always lost games with short time settings. Even in
9x9,
Motoki Noguchi or Pierre Audouard could win plenty of fast games, whilst
playing strange openings for f
24 matches
Mail list logo
