Hi Magnus, I don't understand who the players were in the 9 handicap game. Who received the handicap and who was Valkyria's opponent?
Was the opponent the un-pruned version of Valkyria? more comments below ... On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:38 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote: > I am currently working with different pruning methods for 19x19 go. > What worked > for Valkyria on 9x9 become much to slow on 19x19 where full board > evaluation of > several 100 moves simply does not work. During christmas I was able to > prune the > number of candiate moves to perhaps a factor 4-20 depending on the > stage of the > game. It now starts to play much better with a minute per move, but I did an > experiment where I let have 10 minutes per move (it took several days to play > that game) and for some moves I let it think for an hour. It was 9 handicap > game and when it resigned it was only losing with 4.5 points. One game > does not > prove anything, but it showed that my MC implementation has the potential as > long as it become more efficient. That is by better move pruning methods and > faster hardware. And improvements to the main algorithms of the progam should > of course also make a difference. > > I have said this before but I repeat my point here that is that MC programs > cannot just be moved from 9x9 to 19x19 right away. It will take a lot of new > ideas, but eventually I think really strong programs are possible even on > present hardware, and these programs will of course scale very wll on > 19x19. It > is my impression that scalability might even be better on 19x19 than for 9x9. This is clearly true - but probably because the games are much longer. With some 19x19 experiments I did using my old-fashioned MC program (which has limited scaling) the improvements were enormous with a doubling of the number of play-outs. With 9x9 the improvements were also significant, but not nearly so much. - Don > Quoting Sylvain Gelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > 2007/1/11, steve uurtamo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >> > Well then the time is now. Look at the Sylvain's post on the > >> > scalability of Mogo. > >> > >> if the improvement continues to hold with more doublings, that's > >> great. > > > > I did not do further experiments as 35k simulations per move already takes > > 30s per move, so about 1h15min per game. As I never consider making less > > than 200 or 400 or even 800 games to have precise statistics, you can > > imagine the amount of computer time it asks. > > I have precise statistics only with 35k and 70k, and unprecises with 2 > > minutes per move. > > Yet, for scalability issues I could consider making much less games. If my > > lab's cluster becomes available again, I will certainly try and post the > > results. > > _______________________________________________ > 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/
