role in your solution, but you need
more than just that to win.
Dave
Van: computer-go-boun...@computer-go.org namens Ryan Grant
Verzonden: vr 16-1-2009 3:55
Aan: computer-go
Onderwerp: Re: [computer-go] Re: Hardware limits
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:47 AM
On Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 8:47 AM, steve uurtamo wrote:
> this isn't an asymptotic problem requiring an algorithmic
> solution. this is a fixed-size board requiring a "best of show"
> answer. whoever gets there, however they get there, deserves
> to win, as long as the machines are choosing their
my biased $0.02:
i don't think that the point is to call it even.
someone's got to win, and everyone else has
to come in <= 2nd place. moreover, pretending
as if this is the kind of contest that can be won
with money (or hardware) alone is just sour grapes.
one way to make this a contest about a
The thing about computer chess is that "the swift do not always win the
race." Many times in the past modest hardware has beaten powerful
hardware. Even Deep Blue didn't always win the tournaments it played
in.
They came to one competition and Campbell told me that they had
estimated their win
Hi Joshua,
Yes, I think it was implicitly understood that these chess competitions
were about creating the best chess playing (non-human) entity. However
human nature being what it is we attach the author to the program and
judge the author through his program.
However, if you create a really
Lets look at it another way - no one would care what hardware
you choose to use, unless you win. So at the very least, you
ought to be able to use arbitrary hardware until it becomes
established that only that class of hardware can win.
___
computer-
I must be out of touch, didnt know Rybka could run on a cluster :) last I
checked he was about to release a smp version.
Lots to catch up on.
-Josh
> In chess, one team is firmly dominating (Rybka), and they have since
> last year also managed to acquire the best hardware (40 core cluster).
> Th
When I was big into Chess programming this was a sore topic for me as well.
I felt it was unfair for people competing in the WCCC to win if they had a
cluster of of 100 PCs, a Cray, etc, when another person was using a
P200mhz.
I believe it was Dr. Hyatt that said this and it made a lot of sense
On Jan 14, 2009, at 8:39 PM, David Doshay wrote:
Saving energy is a fine thing. Lets leave that to various hardware
engineers in the semiconductor industry. Or, if you think this is
such a grand idea then you should offer up the prize money and
then we can all see who comes to compete for it.
I think the whole concept of taking on performance per watt in
the restricted domain of Go playing programs is silly. Are we to
spend our time searching for the Transmeta cores and porting
to those?
Saving energy is a fine thing. Lets leave that to various hardware
engineers in the semiconductor
also, it's quite surprising how few watts the human
brain uses.
s.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
The proposed performance-per-watt metric would probably give Sicortex a leg up.
Imagine the headline: Ten MIT cyclists power supercomputer which defeats pro Go
Player :D
Subsequently, a fierce battle rages over whether to require cyclists to be
selected randomly from the geek population, inst
On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 9:22 AM, David Doshay wrote:
> if the competitions are all on the same hardware you are running a
> *Go -playing-programs-developed-on-that-platform* competition.
> And that sounds silly to me.
it would be worthwhile for this community to reward authors of
efficient algori
- Original Message
> From: David Doshay
> Programmers work on all kinds of hardware. Making them port their
> code to some arbitrary "standard" platform is not a great idea. Just
> as one voice, I will not bother to port my code to a different box. So,
> if the competitions are all on t
Programmers work on all kinds of hardware. Making them port their
code to some arbitrary "standard" platform is not a great idea. Just
as one voice, I will not bother to port my code to a different box. So,
if the competitions are all on the same hardware you are running a
*Go -playing-programs-de
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 02:21:17PM +0100, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
> Mark Boon wrote:
> > So it seems arbitrary to put limitations on the hardware. However, if
> > two programs are essentially the same, but one side manages to bring
> > a more powerful computer than the other, is it fair to award
Mark Boon wrote:
> Please, don't sneer.
???
I have seen a lot of discussion, but no good reasons that make sense for
the decision that was made.
What Davy Dyer said IS a good reason, and most likely the real one. But
the people in favor of the decision will not like to admit this. So it's
good
On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:16 AM, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote:
Dave Dyer wrote:
I think general hardware limits are good, because they will permit
more teams to be competitive without altering the nature of the
competition.
So in effect, it's an admission that the strength of some teams should
be
Dave Dyer wrote:
> I think general hardware limits are good, because they will permit
> more teams to be competitive without altering the nature of the
> competition.
So in effect, it's an admission that the strength of some teams should
be crippled in a completely arbitrary way, because they
I think general hardware limits are good, because they will permit
more teams to be competitive without altering the nature of the
competition.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/comp
20 matches
Mail list logo
