The top programs are considerably stronger now. I would love to see another scaling study. And I would donate a few cores (running Windows). Perhaps the best way to crowd-source it would be to setup a dedicated cgos where only certain programs will run. Perhaps 2 or 3 strong programs at many different strength levels.
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Don Dailey <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:11 PM, Hideki Kato <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> Don Dailey: <[email protected]>: >> >On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Matthew Woodcraft >> ><[email protected]>wrote: >> > >> >> Don Dailey wrote: >> >> > The concept I'm trying to refute isn't whether some particular >> program is >> >> > not scaling but the concept that "MCTS don't scale", as if the whole >> >> concept >> >> > is seriously broken. >> >> >> >> I think you would have done better to try to refute that concept by >> >> following up to a message in which someone was expressing it, instead >> of >> >> following up to Hideki's message in which he said nothing of the sort. >> >> >> > >> >Here is what he said: >> > >> >That's simple (at least I think). The scaling law converges at some >> >point where the speed (or more thinking time) benefits little. Zen19D >> >already reached that point and Zen19S's rank is lower than Zen19D's. >> > >> > >> >Maybe I misunderstood, but he talked about the "scaling law converging at >> >some point" which sounds like a "law" (that is applied uniformly) and >> then, >> > "Zen19D already reached that point" which sounds to me like he was >> >complimenting Zen on being so strong it has reached the limits of the >> "law >> >of scalability" already. >> > >> >If I misunderstood it's because he didn't express himself very clearly. >> >> Ok, I've omitted why I wonder the scalability of MCTS in my post to >> avoid multiple issues in one reply. Below is the reason. >> >> UCT's global convergence theorem was proved with the assumptions, the >> stocastic process is stationally and i.i.d (independent, identical >> distribution). These could be not held in the game of Go. >> >> Also, the proof requires the factor of the exploration term has to be >> greater than some constant which we have no way to know in practice. >> >> So, my conclusion is that we have no way to develop guaranteed >> correct (in Don's sense) MCTS programs now. >> >> #Sorry for unclear posts. Japanese way of thinking is not so >> logical nor clear as Westerns way, probablly because my mother language >> is basically not logical but emotional and my English skill is not >> enogh. I'm doing my best but still seems not clear enough. Please >> point out if you find somthing not clear. >> > > Fair enough. > > I'm pretty sure the algorithm or some modification of it is scalable, and > it may be that as hardware continues to advance (at least for as long as > that continues) constant adjustments might be needed to keep things > moving. Things that could in practice be a part of the program now. So > even if it's not technically scalable due to some minor implementation > details I think the general concept is. > > Maybe another scalability study is in order? I'm not volunteering, but > it might be good to see real data instead of anecdotes and speculation > on either side. With multi-core so common it might not be difficult > getting a serious amount of data with a little cooperation. > > Don > > > > > > > > > >> >> Hideki >> >> > >> > >> >> >> >> I wouldn't normally bother mentioning it, but I think your message was >> >> rather rude (particularly the "I'm trying to save you from looking >> >> stupid in 10 years" part). >> >> >> > >> >Ok, this was a rude on my part and I apologize. I could have been a >> bit >> >more delicate for sure. >> > >> >Sometimes you have to tell someone they have body odor as a kindness, >> even >> >though you KNOW it's not going to go over too well. This was given in >> that >> >spirit - I AM trying to get people to stop saying these things that make >> >them look naive now so that people won't reflect on this in a few years >> and >> >laugh at. I'll bet Bill Gates wished he been warned when he said, >> "640K >> >ought to be enough for anybody" although he denies saying that. Would >> it >> >have been cruel, or kind to tell Gates that he is going to sound stupid >> >later if he says that now? >> > >> >Don >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> -M- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> Computer-go mailing list >> >> [email protected] >> >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go >> >> >> >---- 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 >
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
