Did you have a specific size in mind? It seems like a 19x19 server would be the natural thing.
I could run the old server until I get the new one finished. - Don On Mon, 2006-12-11 at 20:29 -0800, David Doshay wrote: > A few months ago I suggested a number of stepwise increases > in board size to see how the algorithms scaled. It seems to me > having just 2 data points does not say enough about how the > MC (or any other) algorithm scales, so I wanted to be able to > graph some measure of strength against increasing board size. > > The responses showed some interest in the normal board sizes, > but not enough for me to think it was worth it to host the servers. > Several of the program authors indicated that they could only run > one size at a time, and I assumed that this meant that having > multiple CGOS servers would only detract from the usefulness of > the 9x9, so I did not start any other size of server. > > If things have changed, I have the resources to be a CGOS-N > host. > > Cheers, > David > > > > On 11, Dec 2006, at 7:53 PM, David Fotland wrote: > > > > > Hi Don, > > > > Clearly UCT and monte carlo is very well suited to 9x9 go. It > > works much > > better than the traditional computer go algorithms, and it is much, > > much > > simpler. > > > > Do you have any plans to set up a CGOS server for 19x19 go? I'd > > like to see > > how well UCT/MC scales to 19x19 go. I don't think it will work > > well at > > 19x19, but I'd like to see some experiments to see if I'm wrong. > > > > David > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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/
