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
to even mediocre players or even advanced
I'm not sure about the strength of professional players on 9x9 but
basically agree with Don.
Of course, there are no definition what Go is. So, I'd just like to
introduce some in Japan.
- Meien O 9p is radical in some sense. He wrote in his book that Go
is already unified in the sense that
. -Jie Li, 9 dan
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2008 5:12:57 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Lockless hash table and other parallel search ideas
The rules are exactly the same for 9x9
- There had been a TV program of professional 9x9 Go for years (some
member of this list have the records of the games played in this
program). Takemiya 9p and Yuki 9p were the strongest.
I'm afraid the answer is no, but:
are these records free and available somewhere ?
Thanks for your
Maybe these are the same?
http://gobase.org/9x9/
Erik
On Wed, Sep 10, 2008 at 4:38 PM, Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- There had been a TV program of professional 9x9 Go for years (some
member of this list have the records of the games played in this
program). Takemiya 9p and
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
Erik van der Werf: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Maybe these are the same?
http://gobase.org/9x9/
Yes but a part. Unfortunatelly, whole records is temporary not
available. Following is the reason (and history) which I can remember
now.
All records were published (but not sold) in a few booklets. Dr.
On Sep 10, 2008, at 8:27 AM, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
Note that computer-go has one big advantage over computer-chess;
because there is little sales possible to
achieve, there is little money at stake, that gives the advantage
that the programmers at least communicate
with each other in a
Hi Vincent,
What does this possibly have to do with me?
But we must correct you here in case you no longer see yourself as a
beginner
or as an advanced beginner.
Directly after learning the games of
chess, a strong go player will be able to win from you.
Strategically and
Yes. I use Sylvain's fpu and decrease it a little before starting a
simulation, say, fpu *= 0.99. This is very simple and fast.
Ok. Perhaps I'm wrong (I might misunderstand your solution and I might be
wrong
whenever I've understood :-) ); but
- I think that this does not avoid
Olivier Teytaud: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Yes. I use Sylvain's fpu and decrease it a little before starting a
simulation, say, fpu *= 0.99. This is very simple and fast.
Ok. Perhaps I'm wrong (I might misunderstand your solution and I might be
wrong
whenever I've understood :-) ); but
- I think
Although I'm parallelizing in not SMP systems but a cluster of loosely
coupled (small) computers connected through moderate speed networks
using broadcasting positions, this may not change the vlaue of
avoiding redundancies. I'll study more when implementing
pre-knowledge or some. Thanks.
Olivier Teytaud: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Although I'm parallelizing in not SMP systems but a cluster of loosely
coupled (small) computers connected through moderate speed networks
using broadcasting positions, this may not change the vlaue of
avoiding redundancies. I'll study more when
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
In 19x19, it's much better, but the MPI parallelization of 9x9 Go is
challenging.
The bright side here is that 9x9 is not really important but just
a test bed. If it works for 19x19, that's good.
Christoph
The bright side here is that 9x9 is not really important but just
a test bed. If it works for 19x19, that's good.
People moderately intested in Go could also claim that both 9x9 and 19x19
are
just testbeds for power plant management :-)
In my humble opinion, both are intesting, both as
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
testbed for
parallelization because it's more difficult) and as real targets (as there
are players
for both).
Sorry, but there are (almost) no players for 9x9. To repeat
D.Fotland's earlier comment: 9x9 is just for beginner's practice.
It's not go.
On Sep 8, 2008, at 11:45 AM, Olivier Teytaud
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By my recent experiments, 8~9 * (threads - 1) ELO is lost. This
matches my earlier result well.
Do you have tricks for avoiding redundancies between simulations ?
I suggest simple tricks like do not go to node X if
Christoph Birk: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Tue, 9 Sep 2008, Olivier Teytaud wrote:
testbed for
parallelization because it's more difficult) and as real targets (as there
are players
for both).
Sorry, but there are (almost) no players for 9x9. To repeat
D.Fotland's earlier comment: 9x9 is just for
By my recent experiments, 8~9 * (threads - 1) ELO is lost. This
matches my earlier result well.
Do you have tricks for avoiding redundancies between simulations ?
I suggest simple tricks like do not go to node X if there is a thread
currently in node X
(simply by setting the score of the
On Mon, Sep 8, 2008 at 11:45 AM, Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By my recent experiments, 8~9 * (threads - 1) ELO is lost. This
matches my earlier result well.
Do you have tricks for avoiding redundancies between simulations ?
I suggest simple tricks like do not go to node X if
Olivier Teytaud: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
By my recent experiments, 8~9 * (threads - 1) ELO is lost. This
matches my earlier result well.
Do you have tricks for avoiding redundancies between simulations ?
Yes. I use Sylvain's fpu and decrease it a little before starting a
simulation, say, fpu
Rémi Coulom: [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
snip
I'll run tests to try to figure out how much strength is lost by
parallelization (ie, what is the winning rate of 10,000 sequential
playouts vs 1,000 playouts over 10 processors). Hideki ran similar tests
against GNU Go, and found 25 Elo loss with 4 CPUs. So
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
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
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
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
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
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
27 matches
Mail list logo
