It would be very difficult to put 1000 computers to work on a big network to produce a single instance of a strong player. There are way too many interactions - it's difficult to split the work up in a reasonable fashion.
It's probably possible, but would require a lot of study. There are certain compromises that effect the playing strength of a single processor program but might be very good trade-offs for a such a beast. - Don Jason House wrote: > > > On 10/30/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jason House <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> > > To: computer-go <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > > Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 3:00 pm > > Subject: Re: [computer-go] BOINC > > > > > On 10/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > > > > milestone 1: All network-nodes compute pure Monte-Carlo (no > search tree) scores for the possible moves, the > > > scores > are combined centrally to pick the move. It's easy, it will > wring out the system, and the bandwidth is low. > > The > playing performance will always be poor because this algorithm > doesn't scale well. > > > > > It scales, reasonably, but there's a maximum total work to do > before any extra becomes useless. > > > Both of our statements are so vague that I can't tell if we agree > or disagree. :) Here's what I meant. The consensus is that > Monte-Carlo with UCT converges in the limit, as time and memory > approach infinity, while Monte-Carlo by itself does not. In > practice, Monte-Carlo by itself plateaus out at around 5K > playouts/move. Don's scalability study tested Monte-Carlo with UCT > out past 1 Million playouts/move and found no sign of a plateau. > So if a network of 1000 computers played pure Monte-Carlo go, I > believe the playing strength would still be weak. Not so for UCT. > > > > I think we're in agreement. I didn't know about the 5k limit, but > that's essentially what I was thinking. Having 1 computer do 5k sims > is pretty quick already. Having 1000 computers doing 5 playouts each > is just insanity. The overhead would probably make it take as long > (or longer) as 1 computer doing all of it. > > This is of course true only for pure monte carlo or other 1-ply variants. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/ _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
