On 1/25/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 2007-01-25 at 20:16 -0600, Matt Gokey wrote:
> Don Dailey wrote:
> > You are still missing the point.
> I can say the same of you.
>
> I merely am raising a question about the assertion that doubling of
> _human_ thinking time results in
Am I the only one who got tired of this rather pointless discussion a
hundred messages ago? I also can't help feeling that the tone of the
discussion tends to get such that it can easily be mistaken for lack
of respect for each other. Can we get back to more mundane issues,
like how MC scal
here's my attempt to talk about how a 9x9 algorithm should be expected
to scale on a bigger board, and what limits we can expect to have on
perfect algorithms. i'm kind've trying to bridge the divide here. maybe
it's silly. hopefully the experts can correct me.
saying that doubling computer tim
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 02:41 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> I am not trying to say that you don't know what you are talking about,
> but how are you so sure that we must be on the linear part of the
> curve? Based on what you said, I estimate your ideal (non empirical)
> formula to be something like
Hello.
Just my grain of salt :
I think it is relevant to consider strength as a a function of time AND board
size.
I have the feeling that, for humans, board size doesnt matter very much,
whereas for computers, depending on the algorithm they use, it can be an
extremely important factor. The re
I second Mark Boon's comment.
On 1/26/07, Mark Boon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am I the only one who got tired of this rather pointless discussion a
hundred messages ago? I also can't help feeling that the tone of the
discussion tends to get such that it can easily be mistaken for lack
of respec
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 13:38 +, ivan dubois wrote:
> However, if you take for example a computer programm that does
> straight UCT (global UCT, with no sub-areas), then i believe it can
> not scale well when board size increases. Because the branching would
> factor increase proportinaly to the
- Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>This can be tested directly. In my own experiments 19x19
> improves very rapidly in UCT with each doubling of the
> number of play-outs.
May I ask the range of "number of playouts" tested?
Have you considered taking up Da
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 10:22 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
>
> - Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> >This can be tested directly. In my own experiments 19x19
> > improves very rapidly in UCT with each doubling of the
> > number of play-outs.
>
> May I ask the
You missunderstood my point. However, I admit it was not clear. What i wanted
to say is this :
Given a fixed amount of time, strength of monte-carlo algorithm will decrease
exponentialy when boardsize increases.
It does not mean that monte-carlo does not scale well with time on 19*19.
Of course,
Does anyone here have experience with the GTK user interface
library for Windows or for OSX ?
- Don
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
I see what you are saying. Yes, I agree with you that the
strength of these programs will decrease exponentially as
board sizes increase.
By the way, I haven't been offended by any of these messages
and I hope I haven't offended anyone either. This is a very
interesting conversation to me a
- Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> May I ask the range of "number of playouts" tested?
I'm still curious about this question?
> Part of my procrastination [ about using 72 processors ] is that
> I'm not sure how to make UCT scale to a large number of CPU's.
>
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:32 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
>
> - Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > May I ask the range of "number of playouts" tested?
>
> I'm still curious about this question?
I think I started at 64 play-outs, and kept doubling the number
of
I personally would love to see more experimental results and less
feelings and intuitions on this list.
On 1/26/07, Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 11:32 -0800, terry mcintyre wrote:
>
> - Original Message From: Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > May I a
Isn't UCT equivalent to Alpha-beta with some cleaver pruning rules ?
- Message d'origine
De : Don Dailey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
À : computer-go
Envoyé le : Vendredi, 26 Janvier 2007, 19h51mn 10s
Objet : Re: Re : [computer-go] an idea... computer go program's rank vs time
>Part of my procr
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 14:43 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
> I don't currently have the data, but I am willing to reproduce
> the experiment. Other MC guys can verify it. I'll set it up
> on a slow computer I have free and I'll start at 64 simulations
> on a 19x19 board.I'll play 200 games in pair
Hey all,
don't know if any of you are intereseted, but I am giveing out my GTP
wrappers written in C++. I hope to improve them and add more features with
time.
http://www.nicholasapperson.com/go/computer
Any feedback is always welcome.
- Nick
___
co
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 14:47 -0500, Chris Fant wrote:
> I personally would love to see more experimental results and less
> feelings and intuitions on this list.
I agree. I will post my data as I go. Just for reference, this
is the the Lazarus program that is currently rated at 1807 on CGOS
but
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 19:54 +, ivan dubois wrote:
> Isn't UCT equivalent to Alpha-beta with some cleaver pruning rules ?
Both UCT and Alpha-beta are mini-max searches, but UCT is a best first
style search and they are substantially different. UCT doesn't prune
any branches, it just visits so
Arend Bayer wrote:
> . . without ever believing anything that some of the strong go players
> (some a lot stronger than me) have to say.
Please, don't think that. I am sure there is more people in this list who,
like myself, do not think computer go will "do it" through global search
only. The
So I was thinking. I wonder if anyone has written a go engine that can play
using only the time that it takes their opponent to think. It seems some of
your monte carlo programs would be able to do this decently well. Has
anyone tried to see how much it hurts the ranking of a program? I would
On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 15:57 -0600, Nick Apperson wrote:
> So I was thinking. I wonder if anyone has written a go engine that
> can play using only the time that it takes their opponent to think.
> It seems some of your monte carlo programs would be able to do this
> decently well. Has anyone trie
Here are some early results on the scalability study.
Basically, level 2 beats level 1 83.6 percent of the time.
level 4 beats level 2 90.0 percent of the time.
Where a level is number of play-outs divided by 1024
Approximately 300 ELO between levels. I fixed level 1 to have
an ELO o
I would highly recommend that you do your testing against
a different Go engine. Self-play is a weak indicator.
Cheers,
David
On 26, Jan 2007, at 5:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
Here are some early results on the scalability study.
Basically, level 2 beats level 1 83.6 percent of the time.
25 matches
Mail list logo
