It often gets interrupted by me so that I can change some code, etc. And I often break backwards compatibility, so I have to delete the file and start from
scratch. In the past it has run for up to around 24 hours, but that was an older, slower version. I just kicked-off a 7x7 run. I expect it will reach it's
current capacity of around 2B nodes in about 12 hours.
terry mcintyre wrote:
How long has it been pondering?
Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com>
On general principles, when we are looking for a solution of a social
problem, we must expect to reach conclusions quite opposed to the usual
opinions on the subject; otherwise it would be no problem. We must
expect to have to attack, not what is commonly regarded as
objectionable, but what is commonly regarded as entirely proper and normal.
– John Beverley Robinson, 1897
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Michael Williams <michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>
*To:* computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org>
*Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2009 1:09:41 PM
*Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS
That's basically what I'm doing. Except that there is no depth limit
and only the parts of the tree that you need get loaded back into
memory. It's not a playing engine yet so it can't build the tree as it
plays games. Currently it just ponders the empty board.
terry mcintyre wrote:
> Are we approaching a point where it would be practical to precompute
the opening tree to some depth, cache the results on SSD, and
incrementally improve that knowledge based upon subsequent games?
> Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com
<mailto:terrymcint...@yahoo.com>>
>
> On general principles, when we are looking for a solution of a social
problem, we must expect to reach conclusions quite opposed to the usual
opinions on the subject; otherwise it would be no problem. We must
expect to have to attack, not what is commonly regarded as
objectionable, but what is commonly regarded as entirely proper and normal.
>
>
> – John Beverley Robinson, 1897
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Michael Williams <michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>
> *To:* computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 12, 2009 10:18:28 AM
> *Subject:* Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on
MCTS
>
> In my system, I can retrieve the children of any node at a rate of
about 100k nodes/sec.
>
> And I can save nodes at a rate of over 1M nodes/sec (this is much
faster because in my implementation, the operation is sequential on disk).
>
> Those numbers are from 6x6 testing.
>
>
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > This is probably a good solution. I don't believe the memory has
to be very fast at all because even with light playouts you are doing a
LOT of computation between memory accesses. > All of this must be
tested of course. In fact I was considering if disk memory could not
be utilized as a kind of cache. The secret would be to store complete
trees in disk memory, trees that are not likely to be utilized but can
be utilized in a pinch. The tree store and retrieved must outweigh by a
large factor the amount of time spent creating the tree in the first
place in order for this to pay off.
> > My guess is that this is impractical, but it's fun to think about
how it might be done. I'm not sure how to do it without having a
caching nightmare.
> >
> >
> > - Don
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:41 PM, Michael Williams
<michaelwilliam...@gmail.com <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>>> wrote:
> >
> > Don Dailey wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 12:16 PM, Michael Williams
> > <michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>>
> > <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>
> > <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com> <mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com
<mailto:michaelwilliam...@gmail.com>>>>> wrote:
> >
> > I have a trick ;)
> >
> > I am currently creating MCTS trees of over a billion
nodes on
> > my 4GB
> > machine.
> >
> >
> > Ok, I'll bite. What is your solution?
> >
> >
> > I use an SSD. There are many details, of course. But it's
still in
> > the works and I'm still making lots of changes and adjustments. I
> > seem to be able to "solve" (there are lots of definitions) 6x6
Go in
> > that when I use a komi of 3.5, it is unable to find a winning line
> > for white and when I use 4.5, it is unable to find a winning line
> > for black.
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go@computer-go.org
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org> <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>>
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>>>
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > computer-go mailing list
> > computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>>
> > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>
<mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>>
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> computer-go mailing list
> computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto:computer-go@computer-go.org>
> http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org <mailto: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/
