Can you give us an idea of what types of games you are talking about? From that email I can't tell if you are looking at Connect Four, Texas Hold'em, Diplomacy, Puerto Rico or Imperium Romanum II. I am sure the your observations don't apply to all those games.
Álvaro. On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Dave Dyer <[email protected]> wrote: > > I've recently been upgrading my family of UCT robots for non-go games, > but thought I'd report a few things for "general knowledge and > expectations". > This UCT system is written in java, and runs on standard PC hardware with > multiple processor cores. > > The system typically uses a fairly small tree and a relatively long random > playout tail, and is not especially optimized for speed. Only the > tree-descent > and backtrack-update phases have thread synchronization issues. > > I found simple threading had a pretty sharp knee in performance at 4 > threads. In other words, 2 3 and 4 threads improved the overall amount > of work done more or less linearly to 3.5x, speed improvements fell off > rapidly for more threads. > > I've also been comparing "blitz" play which creates a copy of the > board at top level, and starts each descent with a copy of the board; > compared with "unwinding" play where every move is explicitly unwound. > Of course, the complexity of the unwinding varies a lot from game to > game, but I found that "unwind" is always faster, an average 1/3 faster > across several games. So if the complexity of unwinding your data > structures is not too great, it's worthwhile. > > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
