Petri Pitkanen: <[email protected]>: >2011/6/17 Jean-loup Gailly <[email protected]> > >> I have done precisely this. The reports of scalability death are greatly >> exaggerated, as you can see from the attached graph. To avoid self play >> benchmarks which are misleading, I tested Pachi against Fuego 1.1. Fuego >> Jean-loup >> >> >> Well this gives a biased solution. Wrong sample so to speak. Fuego will not >create complex semeais and har read ishi-no-shita nakade shapes i.e opponent >that puts no pressure to known problems . So you prove that agains opponent >who does not play like human you do scale. But you advance the ladder of >human players these small issues tend pop-up more often. > >Scaling measurement against strong humans is obviously bit hard. Just about >only thing is letting different CPU machines play in KGS.
Try GNU Go with 9 or more handicap stones. Hideki >Yes I do believe that pachi/Fuego will play better given more time. But It >would scale better if there were better algorithm in place and part of that >extra CPU would be used there. Just that exactly what to for it is bit >murky. > >So I don't think that we get to 6 Dan EGF (8-9 Dan KGS?) with current >programs just adding memory and CPU. > >Petri >---- 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
