Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-17 Thread Markus Enzenberger
terry mcintyre wrote: Does Fuego make use of multiple cores? Does it require some switch setting to do so? The number of threads is controlled by the GTP command "uct_param_search number_threads". On Intel and AMD CPUs, you should also set ""uct_param_search lock_free 1", see http://www

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-16 Thread terry mcintyre
Does Fuego make use of multiple cores? Does it require some switch setting to do so? How do I control the time used by Fuego? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-16 Thread Markus Enzenberger
Jason House wrote: I went back to take another look and here are some of the things I'm noticing immediately: * There's both a go and gouct directory. They share many of the same file names (after removing the path-dependent name mangling such as GoBoard.cpp and GoUctBoard.cpp)

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-16 Thread Jason House
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Jason House wrote: > > I took a serious look at Fuego a few months back. The code appeared to use > modern C++ libraries, but also showed its age/lineage. If I remember right, > the Fuego source comes with 3 projects that all depend on each other. I > didn't check

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-16 Thread Jason House
On Feb 16, 2009, at 12:03 AM, Markus Enzenberger > wrote: Unfortunately, I am leaving the team in a few weeks, and it is unclear how much I can contribute after that. Martin is usually too busy for doing maintainer work and at the moment there is only funding for a few months for a new pr

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-15 Thread Darren Cook
> So Fuego is still about 200-250 ELO below the strongest programs on > 19x19. However, it is by far the strongest open source program existing > on both 19x19 and 9x9, and one of the strongest programs overall on 9x9. > ... > had hoped that making Fuego available under an open source license > wou

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-15 Thread Markus Enzenberger
Petr Baudis wrote: Just FYI, someone might find interesting that latest SVN of Fuego still does not seem to be on par with Mogo public release 1 (not that it would claim to be - I was just curious where do they stand against each other). Fuego is weaker than MoGo on 19x19. With 15 min game

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-15 Thread Yamato
>Oops, good point. I used just: > > ../gogui-1.1.4/bin/gogui-twogtp -black './mogo' -white './fuego' >-auto -size 19 -komi 7.5 -alternate -games 100 -sgffile "mogo-vs-fuego" >-verbose -time 20 > >But apparently MoGo doesn't honor the time settings completely this way. >I will rerun it with --

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-15 Thread Petr Baudis
On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 10:27:51AM +0900, Yamato wrote: > > I ran 86 19x19 games with both on the same hardware (single core of > >A64 X2 6000+, 2G RAM) with 20 minutes S.D. each, the rate is MoGo win > >83.3% (+-4.1). > > How did you set the time to 20 minutes S.D.? MoGo doesn't update the > cl

Re: [computer-go] Fuego performance

2009-02-15 Thread Yamato
> I ran 86 19x19 games with both on the same hardware (single core of >A64 X2 6000+, 2G RAM) with 20 minutes S.D. each, the rate is MoGo win >83.3% (+-4.1). How did you set the time to 20 minutes S.D.? MoGo doesn't update the clock if you don't send time_left, and Fuego does. -- Yamato