Tobias and all,
Tobias Graf: <56164f25.8010...@gmx.de>:
>Hi,
>just my 2 cents:
>
>1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the
>last 9x9 tournament.
>1) 18 Cores
>2) 80 Cores
>3) 12 Cores
>4) 288 Cores
>5) 8 Cores
>
>Moreover, using the 18 cores of place number one is aff
t; > It works while the tournament is still running, though only between
> > rounds.I could build a current crosstable each round during a
> > tournament if there is any demand for it.
> >
> > --
> > Nick Wedd mapr...@gmail.com <mailto:mapr...@
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7JJDT4jcA0&list=PL4y5WtsvtduozO-9oG5nZZI8IPUD6EDif&index=12
___
Computer-go mailing list
Computer-go@computer-go.org
http://computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Tobias Graf wrote:
> 1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the last
> 9x9 tournament.
> 1) 18 Cores
> 2) 80 Cores
> 3) 12 Cores
> 4) 288 Cores
> 5) 8 Cores
Counting 'cores' is a bad idea; 'core' is mostly just a marketing term.
_
Hi,
just my 2 cents:
1. "Reducing computing power." Just let me quote the standings of the
last 9x9 tournament.
1) 18 Cores
2) 80 Cores
3) 12 Cores
4) 288 Cores
5) 8 Cores
Moreover, using the 18 cores of place number one is affordable to
everyone as Remi outlined.
Still, i would compete in
I have an opening for a post-doc (senior research officer)
to work on General Video Game AI. The aim is
to further develop hybrid approaches involving:
· Monte Carlo Tree Search
· Rolling Horizon Evolutionary Algorithms
· Deep Neural Networks
The methods will be tested
On Wed, Oct 7, 2015 at 7:21 PM, Dave Dyer wrote:
>
> How about handicapping the hardware based on time. Programs running
> on more powerful hardware would get less time.
>
>
I think that's a good idea. Programs could even aquire a time ranking,
depending on their success in previous tournaments