Hi Petr,
I missed this posting yours at feb 10.
On Feb 10, 2009, at 1:44 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
Hi!
There has been some talk about implementing monte-carlo playouts on
GPUs in the past, I have heard rumours about Polish bachelor student
doing libego - GPGPU conversion as a project, etc.
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 01:02:40AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
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
in document i see which hardware instructions the Nvidia
hardware supports.
Mind giving page number?
Vincent
On Sep 13, 2009, at 11:43 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 10:48:12AM +0200, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
On Sep 13, 2009, at 10:19 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
Just read the nVidia docs
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
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
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
cheating
in chess done by Ken Regan at the University at Buffalo. However,
this relies heavily upon the fact that computers dominate human
play by a wide margin. The same is not the case in go. s. On Sat,
Apr 4, 2009 at 1:56 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Vincent Diepeveen wrote
On Jan 14, 2009, at 1:42 PM, Mark Boon wrote:
It's difficult to get hard data about this. Go is only the most
popular game in Korea. In other countries like Japan and China it
comes second by far to a local chess variation.
Possibly Chess is more ingrained in Western culture than Go is in
hi,
You're miscounting here completely again.
Counting the number of federation members is a bad idea.
Count the number of people who know a game and regurarly play it.
Draughts (internatoinal 10x10 checkers, using polish rules) is really
tiny.
It is not culture to get a member of a club
Hi,
I see there has been some discussion in this list about cheating remote.
In computerchess this toleration has grown out of hand.
Setting the rules clear and sharp there in computer-go might avoid
for the future a lot of problems.
There is a very simple manner to avoid cheating in go.
But
Heh Don,
Paranoia attempts to keep hackers away hacking your software :)
On hacking: i found the fritz5 protection the most genius protection
ever.
You just had to modify 2 variables in an inifile to 'hack' it.
All hackers could do this, but the average user had no clue how to
edit an
On Oct 9, 2008, at 10:39 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
On Thu, 2008-10-09 at 15:20 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Computers + random = can of worms.
What if I get a fast benchmark by implementing the fastest, most
awful, random number generator imaginable? What if every one of my
random playouts
Sure,
A lot faster is ranrot in 64 bits, at K8 2.2ghz with old GCC it is
about 3.3 ns for each number,
so i assume it's quite a tad faster than that for core2. Note it's
quite slow at itanium,
about 9-10 nanoseconds a number, as it appeared later itanium has no
rotate hardware instructions
That chessbrain is a commercial attempt of a few guys looking for
money, not an attempt to really search parallel in a decent manner.
This is why they kept their logfiles of course all 'secret'.
I'm not the only one who offered my help to them, without payment,
but that wasn't accepted at
You guess also in go: side who begins wins game?
Vincent
On Sep 22, 2008, at 9:08 PM, Erik van der Werf wrote:
On Mon, Sep 22, 2008 at 7:14 PM, Ingo Althöfer 3-Hirn-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does someone here know of other (documented) attempts
to solve 6x6 Go?
Didn't Erik van der Werf
Don,
When i play or analyze with a world top player, like top 10 of world,
and i do not get that chance a lot in my life, then i can really
assure you,
from a social viewpoint seen, maybe YOU are far better than any of the
Russians i've ever played.
But from technical chess viewpoint seen:
On Sep 10, 2008, at 2:12 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
The rules are exactly the same for 9x9 as for 19x19. The boardsize is
different and that changes the game some.
I would suggest that if a top go player plays a game of chess
immediately after first learning the rules, he would lose very badly
Yeah won't be long until we've got petaflop hardware in PC hardware.
Currently it is double precision floating point crunching power in
CELL type hardware.
In short using hashtables is going to be very complicated on that
type of hardware.
If you're not using that your efficiency is not so
Congrats to the MoGo team for getting system time at SARA for a match.
The architecture of the power5/power6 system (2007 july a power5
system was installed and that has been updated to power6 now),
is based upon having sufficient RAM and high bandwidth to i/o (for
each Gflop a specific
On Aug 9, 2008, at 9:45 PM, Don Dailey wrote:
I'm curious what you guys think about the scalability of monte carlo
with UCT.
The MCTS technique appears to be extremely scalable. The theoretical
papers about it claim that it scales up to perfect play in theory.
We agree here that this is
From 1997 and onwards i managed to join in the computer chess world
champs every year.
Besides the participants Stefan MK (Shredder), Shay Bushinsky and
Amir Ban (both junior)
and tournament director Jaap van den Herik and Joke Hellemons who is
doing the entire
organisation from ICGA side;
21 matches
Mail list logo
