Getting Primefarm looks like a hosting site page. Agree account must
have lapsed.
-Josh
On Jan 14, 2008 11:34 AM, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it just me, or did the http://www.computer-go.info/ site just expire?
Ian
___
computer-go
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Ian
Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Is it just me, or did the http://www.computer-go.info/ site just expire?
The hosting server was taken down for repairs yesterday. The physical
server is now up and running again, but it seems the admins have not put
Is it just me, or did the http://www.computer-go.info/ site just expire?
Ian
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Joshua Shriver [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Getting Primefarm looks like a hosting site page. Agree account must
have lapsed.
Admin kicked. It's working again now.
Nick
-Josh
On Jan 14, 2008 11:34 AM, Ian Osgood [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is it just me, or did the
Hi,
I read on the web, and some other places that most Go programs can only
evaluate a dozen of moves per second. Is this still true today on a
typical machine, say, single 2GHz CPU, 2GB memory?
And if this is still true, how can we make it faster?
To make the question more precise, I define a
I think your question boils down to answering what is meant by
evaluate. Chess has a heuristic that is easy to compute and gives a
good evaluation. Go lacks this. While probably an inferior evaluator,
the Bouzy 5/21 score estimator is an example from go that can be quite
slow. UCT (or
On Jan 14, 2008 6:15 PM, Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
slow. UCT (or generically Monte Carlo) can evaluate a position fairly
quickly (maybe 1k-100k per second depending on how heavy the playout
is), they don't give a reliable estimate. To improve this, they end up
1K ~ 100 K / sec
1K ~ 100 K / sec is much faster than a dozen / sec of a conventional
program.
Do they calculate dragon safety (eyes, connections, patterns ...)? if not,
the estimate will be VERY unreliable.
No, because they play the game out to the end where everything is as
safe as it can be. Then,
On Mon, 2008-01-14 at 19:41 -0800, mingwu wrote:
1K ~ 100 K / sec is much faster than a dozen / sec of a conventional
program.
Do they calculate dragon safety (eyes, connections, patterns ...)? if
not, the estimate will be VERY unreliable.
That's just it, they don't. They play a
The problem here is that you asked mutually contradictory things. You
defined what you meant by a board update, in which you specified a
list of things, and you also asked about top programs. The top
programs do not do the kinds of evaluations you specify, although
older conventional
(sent to my email address only; now fwd to ML to share information). Thank
everyone for the explanation.
-- Forwarded message --
From: terry mcintyre [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Jan 14, 2008 8:02 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] On average how many board updates/sec can top Go
programs
It does this by generating random legal moves. A string of legal moves, to
the end, is one playout.
OK, now I understand it generates a sequence of moves, all the way to the
game end; which means a playout typically contains 200 (from middle game) ~
300 (from opening) moves, and the so-called
Yes, you are right. Now I understand how those Monte Carlo programs works.
I modified my question (and email subject) as:
On average how many board updates/sec can top conventional Go programs do
these days?
On Jan 14, 2008 8:48 PM, David Doshay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The problem here is
13 matches
Mail list logo
