[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: computer-go@computer-go.org
>Sent: Mon, 16 Apr 2007 5:26 AM
>Subject: Re: [computer-go] The dominance of search (Suzie v. GnuGo)
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<javascript:parent.ComposeTo("dhillismail%40netscape.net", "");> wrote:
>> I also find this kind of information very interesting and useful.
Now > I have a better feel for what kind of scaling is realistic to
try >for > and how to measure it.
>> > Putting some recent data points together, it look like giving
Mogo 2 > orders of magnitude more computer power would result >in low
dan level > 19x19 play? Not the sort of thing one can pull out of a
back pocket, > but tantalizing.
>> > I would be very interested to see equivalent scaling numbers from
> CrazyStone, if Remi would be so kind.
>> > - Dave Hillis
>Hi,
>
>Here is some data, each result measured over about 200 games, on a
single CPU (AMD Opteron 2.2 GHz):
>9x9, 2 minutes per game, GNU Go level 10: 87.0%
>13x13, 16 minutes per game, GNU Go level 10: 72.4%
>19x19, 32 minutes per game, GNU Go level 0: 53.6%
>19x19, 32 minutes per game, GNU Go level 8: 28.1%
>19x19, 64 minutes per game, GNU Go level 8: 35.4%
>
>(GNU Go version 3.6)
>
>Rémi
Thanks! These are interesting. I assume that the number of playouts
per move was variable. If it was a fixed number, or easily
characterized, it would be a helpful statistic too.
- Dave Hillis
Yes, it was variable. On that machine, Crazy Stone does about 15,000
playouts/second on 9x9 with UCT. BTW, CrazyStone-Fast on CGOS is 5k
simulations, and CrazyStone-Slower is 20k.
Rémi
_______________________________________________
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
