[computer-go] test: ignore

sorry, but as i don´t receive anything, i don´t know is the list is not active or if i´m doing something wrong ...___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/

Re: [computer-go] test: ignore

2009/9/12 jorge > sorry, but as i don´t receive anything, i don´t know is the list is not > active or if i´m doing something wrong ... > It's fairly active, but you might not get a message every single day. - Don > ___ > computer-go mailing list >

[computer-go] some benchmarks

I have ported my go board engine from my laptop to a desktop, and I wanted to pass on these benchmarks. Laptop T2300@ 1.67G 533MHz memory - Cygwin/Windows Desktop 920-i7@ 2.67 G 1066 MHz memory - Ubuntu After factoring out cpu-speed, my go code runs about 1.25 times as fast on the new processor. S

Re: [computer-go] Other uses of dynamic komi

On Sun, Sep 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Benjamin Teuber wrote: >> is dynamic komi not also usefull for >> >> - early pass, (only play if a move is better than a pass) > > Maybe, as you can define "better move" by "there is a dynkomi x where > one loses while the other wins". But you'd need O(log(x_max)) ru

Re: [computer-go] CUDA and GPU Performance

Thanks for sharing this Christian, in my lines comments. On Sep 9, 2009, at 5:54 PM, Christian Nentwich wrote: I did quite a bit of testing earlier this year on running playout algorithms on GPUs. Unfortunately, I am too busy to write up a tech report on it, but I finally brought myself to

Re: [computer-go] CUDA and GPU Performance

On Sep 9, 2009, at 11:57 PM, Christian Nentwich wrote: Mark, let me try to add some more context to answer your questions. When I say in my conclusion that "it's not worth it", I mean it's not worth using the GPU to run playout algorithms of the sort that are in use today. There may be m

Re: [computer-go] CUDA and GPU Performance

On Sep 10, 2009, at 12:55 AM, Michael Williams wrote: Very interesting stuff. One glimmer of hope is that the memory situations should improve over time since memory grows but Go boards stay the same size. Well you first have to figure out how fast or slow shifting is on the nvidia's

[computer-go] pure 3x3 pattern playouts weaker than light playouts?

I now have playouts based on 3x3 pattern weights. When I tested it on CGOS it seemed to be weaker than my old engine which used light playouts only. I used a comparable setup, and the elo difference is about 100 after more than 150 games. I can also seem some weird RAVE value patterns (not

Re: [computer-go] pure 3x3 pattern playouts weaker than light playouts?

Same number of playouts? What are your pattern weights? Do they apply around the last move played or for all board areas? Sent from my iPhone On Sep 12, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Isaac Deutsch wrote: I now have playouts based on 3x3 pattern weights. When I tested it on CGOS it seemed to be weaker

Re: [computer-go] pure 3x3 pattern playouts weaker than light playouts?

50k playouts. they apply globally. Am 13.09.2009 um 01:22 schrieb Jason House: Same number of playouts? What are your pattern weights? Do they apply around the last move played or for all board areas? ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer

RE: [computer-go] pure 3x3 pattern playouts weaker than light playouts?

I think most engines that follow the mogo 3x3 pattern design only apply them locally. That's what I do. I never tried using them globally, so I can't say what might be wrong. Did you learn weight for every possible pattern using the crazystone algorithm, or are you just using the basic mogo patt

Re: [computer-go] pure 3x3 pattern playouts weaker than light playouts?

Did you learn weight for every possible pattern using the crazystone algorithm, or are you just using the basic mogo patterns? No, all 1000 and something weights are learned using the algorithm. Are you using global patterns as UCT priors, or to choose moves during playouts? During playout