Re: [computer-go] Merging libego and fuego

2009-05-14 Thread ☢ ☠
I think this would be cool and very interesting, and I am definitely interested in helping. ~ Chase Albert On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 06:43, Łukasz Lew wrote: > Libego has similar goal as fuego - to become universal platform for > experimenting with MC GO. > For a few days there has been talk abo

Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS

2009-05-14 Thread Matthew Woodcraft
David Fotland wrote: > Are you not using rave? If you keep rave counters for each legal move in > the node it should be much bigger than this. If you don't start keeping RAVE stats until the node is expanded, it need only cost two more integers per node (or perhaps a bit more if there is some con

Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS

2009-05-14 Thread Michael Williams
I am not using rave yet. Also on list. David Fotland wrote: Are you not using rave? If you keep rave counters for each legal move in the node it should be much bigger than this. David -Original Message- From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go- boun...@computer-

RE: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS

2009-05-14 Thread David Fotland
Are you not using rave? If you keep rave counters for each legal move in the node it should be much bigger than this. David > -Original Message- > From: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org [mailto:computer-go- > boun...@computer-go.org] On Behalf Of Michael Williams > Sent: Thursday, May

Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS

2009-05-14 Thread Michael Williams
It's on my list of things to improve. Michael Williams wrote: C# does. It should only take 30 bytes per node to store the information I need to have. But somehow that turns into 50 bytes. Byte alignment plus class overhead, I guess. Matthew Woodcraft wrote: Michael Williams wrote: I wan

Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS

2009-05-14 Thread Michael Williams
C# does. It should only take 30 bytes per node to store the information I need to have. But somehow that turns into 50 bytes. Byte alignment plus class overhead, I guess. Matthew Woodcraft wrote: Michael Williams wrote: I want to correct that last statement. With about 350M nodes currentl

Re: [computer-go] Implications of a CPU vs Memory trend on MCTS

2009-05-14 Thread Matthew Woodcraft
Michael Williams wrote: > I want to correct that last statement. With about 350M nodes currently > in the tree (~30M of which fit into memory), I am averaging 0.06 disk > reads per tree traversal. What makes the nodes so big? -M- ___ computer-go mailin

[computer-go] Merging libego and fuego

2009-05-14 Thread Łukasz Lew
Libego has similar goal as fuego - to become universal platform for experimenting with MC GO. For a few days there has been talk about merging libego (mostly fast board implementation) with fuego. But I can't do it on my own. Is there anybody interested in helping? Lukasz Lew _

Re: [computer-go] Congratulations to Fuego, the new champion!

2009-05-14 Thread Hideki Kato
David Fotland: <0acc01c9d454$addcf450$0996dc...@com>: >Congratulations to Fuego, Mogo, and Yogo. It's a tremendous accomplishment >for an open source program to win the championship. Oh, also an open source program developed by a group at U of Tokyo, GPS shogi, won the 19th World Computer Shogi C