In one of my posts I'm pretty sure I published the raw data. Nevertheless, I will see if I can find the data. Whenever I upgrade my computer I tend to archive everything off onto an obscure drive in some obscure place I can never find - but I'm pretty sure I have this all somewhere.
- Don Nick Wedd wrote: > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > writes >> >> >> Michael Williams wrote: >>> It is a very nice graph. I wish we could see the next 11 doublings. >> >> You and me both! >> >> Just a couple of other comments: >> >> The graph was smoothed with gnuplot's smooth bezier function - but the >> raw graph looks very similar - just a little more jagged. > > And you erased the data points themselves. I would consider the raw > data points much more informative than a curve that has been fitted to > them. Can we please see the graph with the data points left in? > > Nick > >> If you straighten out the line - you get about 160 ELO per doubling, >> just looking at the graph. This is being a bit conservative and >> rounding down. I am pretty confident that you would continue to get >> well over 100 per doubling for many more doublings and that this curve >> would gradually taper off. >> >> I am also confident that if we could run this at 5 or 6 more doublings >> and play 9x9 matches and this could be done at a reasonable time >> control, the program would give high dan players a difficult >> time. This is one of those claims that sounds ludicrous to most >> players probably. But when chess programs were only 2000 ELO >> strength, projections were made about what it would take to play >> grandmaster strength. Those projections were laughed at because nobody >> believed such a silly thing could happen, but if anything the >> projections were conservative and by no means exaggerated. It >> actually happened very quickly due to Moores law. The programs >> responded dutifully to each new generation of computer with about 80 ELO >> per doubling or so. >> >> Computers are now our masters in chess - matches are only given now with >> handicaps so that the humans will have a chance. The big surprise is >> that a doubling is STILL worth about 60 ELO points, the curve seems to >> be tapering off but it's very gradual. I expect exactly the same in >> computer go. This assumes the laws of physics and our ingenuity can >> keep Moores law working for a few more doubling's! >> >> I also did enough of a study on 19x19 UCT GO programs to see that the >> improvement is substantial. It seems to be at least as much as in >> 9x9. I don't expect the 19x19 curve to taper off for a very long >> time and I am confident that if Moores law can hang on for just a few >> more years, we will also be seeing at least mid dan go programs >> playing 19x19 Go in a few years - assuming they are playing about 3 kyu >> now and don't improve. >> >> Of course a little ingenuity on our part could speed this up! >> >> - Don >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> Don Dailey wrote: >>>> I found the graph, but I can't find the data and the details, >>>> although >>>> it will be on one of the postings. I think this was at least a year >>>> ago, perhaps 2. >>>> Here is what I remember: >>>> >>>> I played 11 different levels, each a doubling of the previous. The >>>> weakest level I think was just 1024 play-outs. I ran the study for >>>> weeks in order to get substantial data points even from the highest >>>> levels. The highest level, took a significant time to play a >>>> single >>>> game, several times longer than the CGOS time control which was 10 >>>> minutes at the time. >>>> The conditions were CGOS 9x9 conditions - komi 7.5, and so on, just >>>> like CGOS 9x9. >>>> >>>> I actually tested 2 basic versions, one with heavy play-outs and one >>>> with light play-outs. The light play-out version basically plays >>>> random games. >>>> >>>> Both programs were reasonably strong UCT programs - versions of >>>> Lazarus >>>> which probably would play at least 2100 strength on my current >>>> computer >>>> on the current 5 minute server. >>>> See if this link works to see the graph: >>>> >>>> http://greencheeks.homelinux.org:8015/~drd/study.jpg >>>> The X axis represents the number of doublings and ELO ratings are >>>> on the >>>> Y axis. >>>> >>>> - Don >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Michael Williams wrote: >>>>> Don Dailey wrote: >>>>>> Mark, >>>>>> >>>>>> I wasn't stating a precise value for a doubling when I said 100 >>>>>> ELO. But it appears that it is actually worth a bit more than 100 >>>>>> ELO for a >>>>>> doubling. I did a massive study of this at one point a >>>>>> year or >>>>>> more ago with thousands of games with UCT based Lazarus program and >>>>>> the >>>>>> strength improvement per doubling was very clear and impressive. >>>>> Don, what komi did you use when you did that study? Looking in the >>>>> archives, all I can find is you saying that komi=9 is correct. So >>>>> does that mean 8.5 or 9.5? Or did you allow draws? >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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/ >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/
