2011/6/16 Don Dailey <[email protected]> > That's simple (at least I think). The scaling law converges at some > >> point where the speed (or more thinking time) benefits little. > > > It converges at perfect play. Thinking that it just happens to converge > at the exact limits of >
Not by current playout algorithms. Sampling in a wrong way gives wrong statistics regardless how much you sample. Or so it was said in my "Statistics and Probability" course back in eighties. But I think it is still true. So 10 years from now 100 times faster computers will not create very good players by themselves. Part of that CPU must allocated to smarter algorithms. As I remember your previous post I would say this happened in chess as well? At least there are very good chess programs that do not do millions of evaluations/second http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human-computer_chess_matches#Pocket_Fritz_4_.282009.29 So that is not scaling, thats programming I would say. Yes, partly scaling. Mobile phones in 2009 had pretty fast processors. Still nothing to compare desktops > Don > currentWhat is 9 x 15? And what is 20 minutes + 5 x 30, I don't > understand the time controls. How much time is the human getting and how > much time is the computer getting? I assume the computer is getting 13 > and 28 right? So the extra time for the computer is just over 2X which > isn't > > 9x15 is 15 seconds/move with max 9 overruns. So in the beginning you have 9 byo-yomi times left and if you spend 28 seconds thinking for the move you lose one. If think for instance 31 seconds you would have lost two periods. Basic Byo-yomi overtime. and second one is 20 minutes basic time and after that 5 periods for 30 seconds. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byoyomi Petri
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
