Well, not literally useless, as long as you are building a tree equally fast.
On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 8:13 PM, Hideki Kato <[email protected]> wrote: > Although speed matters, the quality of simulations is dominant. When > the simulations cannot manage a postion correctly, speed is useless. > > Hideki > > Bojun Huang: <[email protected]>: > >It seems to me that, there is a thread of efforts that try to improve the > playing capability > >of GO bots by dramatically increasing playouts/sec. Now we know that FPGA, > GPU, and SIMD can > >make much more playouts per second than single-core CPU, but all these > results are based on > >"light" playout schemes. So everytime when these kind of results come out, > people would doubt > >the likelihood that these designs really generate strong programs. > > > >So my question is, Is there a "widely accepted" baseline performance to > compare with for all > >these works? > > > >For example, we may pick a known program with "lightest" playout scheme > among those > >frequently attending the KGS monthly. So if a high-performance design > implements similar > >playout scheme of that program but achieves much higher playout/sec, we > could reasonably > >expect a stronger program based on this design. > > > >Another question ... does more playouts really provide a *consistent* > improvement on the ELO > >score, especially for those strongest programs? I remember that some > programs running on > >laptop rank very high in the Olympaids, that seems imply that speed simply > doesn't matter > >here ... > > > >Thanks, > >Bojun Huang > > > >>Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 22:23:29 +0200 > >>From: Antoine de Maricourt <[email protected]> > >>To: [email protected] > >>Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Direct DX11 and graphics cards for cheaper > >> simulation hardware? > >>Message-ID: [email protected]> > >>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > >> > >> > >>> Despite the challenges using it in a tree, and the contentious issue of > >>> whether light playouts can make a really strong program, I think this > is > >>> interesting research. By 1.6 times quicker than libego, do you mean as > >>> it runs on the CPU? Or is this a simulated speed as if it was running > on > >>> the GPU? I think libego was the clear leader in light playout speed, so > >>> working out a way to do playouts even faster (if that is what you have > >>> done) is amazing. > >>I just emulated data structures and algorithms that are targeting GPU > >>in C++ for a CPU. 128-bit CPU's SIMD instruction set simply emulates 4 > >>GPU-like threads working on 32-bit registers. After several attempts > >>made to test various ideas, the first complete implementation had > >>performances similar to libego, without a simple CPU specific > >>optimization. I then put back some specific CPU optimizations (not > >>likely to be effective on GPU) + tuning and easily improved the > >>performances. This is really how it runs on the CPU. The same data > >>structure and algorithm is likely to have an even better ratio against > >>libego with an AVX enabled processor. > >> > >>Light playout was a beginning to start with. The random move generator > >>has been designed to take into account a probability distribution (with > >>a little slowdown) that can be derived from local pattern matching. > >> > >>Regards, > >> > >> Antoine > >---- inline file > >_______________________________________________ > >Computer-go mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go > -- > Hideki Kato <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > Computer-go mailing list > [email protected] > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
