Don Dailey: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 19:17 +0200, Michael Markefka wrote: >> So, when are we going to see distributed computing? [EMAIL PROTECTED], >> [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] With Go engines that scale well to >> increased >> processing capacity, imagine facilitating a few thousand PCs to do the >> computing. For good measure, [EMAIL PROTECTED] as about 800,000 nodes online >> as >> of now. > >This subject keeps coming up - but it's not a good application at all >for this type of thing. I think if you read the instructions on how to >do this you will see that it's extremely impractical for a go program. > >Imagine trying to build an interactive chess or go program on an >incredibly slow network and you will get the picture. Imagine the >network is something like using email to communicate. > >The [EMAIL PROTECTED] type of stuff is based on a bunch of machines being able >to go off and do a work unsupervised - and basically communicating with >a single centralized process somewhere - very infrequently. > >It might be possible to build a huge cooperating go program network but >I believe it would require building our own system - and it would be far >from trivial. It would have to be designed in an extremely fault >tolerant way too.
You and David is right in general. @home type systems are good for larger problems without realtimeness. However, I'd like to say it is possible to use such sysytem for computer-go tournament and it is not necessary to build my own system. I'm now at Beijing and using a quad-core pc with two Playstation 3 (PS3) consoles connected together via a Gigabit Ethernet lan. One PS3 increases simulations about 10% on 9x9 with current not-optimized-for-Cell implementatiion. The program running on PS3 Linux is just a simple and small application. The long communication time via Internet will really decrease performance of UCT but for larger boards and with much heavier playouts that I will use, thousands or more PS3s will be helpful. Hideki >- Don > > > >> >> What's the approximate increase in playing level per increase in >> processing power? Any rough law for that? >> >> Best regards, >> Mike >> >> >> Olivier Teytaud wrote: >> > Mogo was allowed to use 800 cores, not more, and only for games against >> > humans. >> > We have no acces to so many cores for computer-computer games (if there >> > were only three teams involved, >> > we could :-) ). >> > For some games Huygens was unaivalable at all, and mogo played with much >> > weaker hardware (some quad-cores, >> > however, it is not so bad :-) ). >> > >> > Best regards, >> > Olivier >> > >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > 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/ >---- inline file >_______________________________________________ >computer-go mailing list >computer-go@computer-go.org >http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kato) _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
