Re: [computer-go] MoGo/professional challenge
It was 2 cores 2.6GHz. (intel core2 duo). sorry, I believed it was the tipi. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas
Hi, I have got a lockless hash table to work, and I thought I'd share the results. [...] Great! For networks of 4-cores, it is not very useful, but for highly smp machines it could be great - with your grid5000 account, you might run crazystone on a 16-core machine and have a very impressive crazyStone. Olivier ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas
Don Dailey wrote: These are used in parallel chess programs, and it's very common. A pretty good article on this written by Hyatt (Crafty programmer and author of former world computer chess champion Cray Blitz) and it's called A lock-less transposition table implementation for parallel search chess engines, I see an on-line version of a similar article here: http://www.cis.uab.edu/hyatt/hashing.html - Don Hi Don, Yes, I knew Bob's paper. In his approach, an entry will be lost in case of a collision. In my Go program, I never replace hash entries of the current search, because I have enough memory to store them all. I only have to be careful when allocating a node for the first time, so that two threads do not allocate the same slot. This happens rarely enough that the cost of a Test-And-Swap is negligible, so I prefer to do it that way. What I do is essentially the beginning of the Google talk I indicated yesterday, without resizing. I believe it is a lot cleaner than Bob's idea, although atomic increments are costly. In fact, now that I think a little more about it, Bob's scheme would probably not work at all, because updating counters would mean updating the hash code, and any collision would cause a loss of the hash entry. It does not matter for alpha-beta, but losing an entry near the root in MC search would be very bad. Really ugly stuff would be necessary to repair the consequences of such a collision. So, I believe Bob's idea would not work. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas
I'll take a look at the references you posted - they look pretty interesting from an initial glance at them. - Don Rémi Coulom wrote: Don Dailey wrote: These are used in parallel chess programs, and it's very common. A pretty good article on this written by Hyatt (Crafty programmer and author of former world computer chess champion Cray Blitz) and it's called A lock-less transposition table implementation for parallel search chess engines, I see an on-line version of a similar article here: http://www.cis.uab.edu/hyatt/hashing.html - Don Hi Don, Yes, I knew Bob's paper. In his approach, an entry will be lost in case of a collision. In my Go program, I never replace hash entries of the current search, because I have enough memory to store them all. I only have to be careful when allocating a node for the first time, so that two threads do not allocate the same slot. This happens rarely enough that the cost of a Test-And-Swap is negligible, so I prefer to do it that way. What I do is essentially the beginning of the Google talk I indicated yesterday, without resizing. I believe it is a lot cleaner than Bob's idea, although atomic increments are costly. In fact, now that I think a little more about it, Bob's scheme would probably not work at all, because updating counters would mean updating the hash code, and any collision would cause a loss of the hash entry. It does not matter for alpha-beta, but losing an entry near the root in MC search would be very bad. Really ugly stuff would be necessary to repair the consequences of such a collision. So, I believe Bob's idea would not work. Rémi ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] 9x9 CGOS
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html is not updating. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
Re: [computer-go] 9x9 CGOS
I just gave it a kick - within about 15 minutes or so the server will restart and this should start updating. I won't be around to babysit it, but it should be ok. - Don Christoph Birk wrote: http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html is not updating. Christoph ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
[computer-go] 9x9
congratulations to mogo on its performance today! it was an excellent result (1-2) versus a professional, s. ___ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
