----- Original Message ----
> I still have this theory that when the level of the program is in the > high-dan reaches, it can take proper advantage of an opening book. Alas, it > may be a few years before enough processoring power is routinely available to > test this hypothesis. I know that we duffers can always ruin a perfectly good > joseki just as soon as we leave the memorized sequence. Steve: why would this be the case? and where would the book come from? my thinking is that unless mogo created the book itself, playing games like these, against opponents like these, at time controls like this one, then it couldn't possibly be helpful. and even then it might not be helpful. As far as we could see, Mogo was essentially re-creating book knowledge the hard way - using millions of playouts times many seconds to do so. The opening is the same in every game: you start with an empty board or a given number of handicap stones; why spend minutes figuring out the best first move, instead of precalculating that information? As for where it would come from, observation of thousands of pro games would reveal what they do in a variety of standard sequences. This information is not useful if the program cannot play at that level -- lower-level players often botch the followup to joseki, or choose the wrong joseki for the given whole-board situation. But a program which uses joseki to guide search could optimize search. You can reliably say that in certain situations, when you play move A, even the strongest pro is very likely to respond with one of a handful of plays; if this knowledge is part of the search strategy, the search is much more efficient. If you choose to play some other move, it needs to be demonstrably better than the standard replies. A more efficient opening would enable more time to be spent on the complex middle-game situations. > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Darren Cook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> I do have to ask -- if 1.7 million playouts per second and an hour of >> playing time are required to reach this level, ... > > Can Olivier give us more details. A few questions that come to mind: how > many playouts per *move* was it using in each of the opening, middle > game and endgame? Was it using a fuseki book, and how many moves did the > game stay in that book? And once it was out of the book was it all UCT > (*) search, or were there any joseki libraries, etc.? > > I'd also be interested to hear how inefficient the cluster was (e.g. > 1000 CPUs won't be doing 1000 times the number of playouts, there must > be some overhead). > > Darren > > *: Sorry, I've forgotten the new term we are supposed to use. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
