Not really; like I said it has an additional optimization over the Java bot.
2009/12/16 Don Dailey <[email protected]>: > That's pretty impressive for the go language if this is an apples to apples > comparison. Is it pretty much? > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 9:50 PM, Brian Slesinsky <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Oops, you're right. Here it is with -server: >> >> Plug-and-Go refbot: 17857 >> CRef bot (-O3) 12500 >> Gongo 10000 >> Java bot: 10000 >> CRef bot (no optimization) 5882 >> >> On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Mark Boon <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > The relative values look about right. But I remember getting much >> > higher numbers. Did you run the Java versions with or without the >> > -server parameter? >> > >> > Mark >> > >> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 11:00 PM, Brian Slesinsky <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> >> Okay, I added a few more timings (playouts / second, very rough): >> >> >> >> Plug-and-Go refbot: 14700 >> >> CRef bot (-O3) 12500 >> >> Gongo 10000 >> >> Java bot: 6500 >> >> CRef bot (no optimization) 5882 >> >> >> >> Note that Gongo and Plug-and-Go are using different board data >> >> structures than the others. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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/ >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> 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/ > _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
