I've made a start on my first attempt at writing a go playing program using
the .NET framework, and with 1000 empty 9x9 random playouts I'm getting the
following benchmarks,
Single Threaded (uses about 30% CPU)
VS DEBUG 64bit (with Debugger) - 266ms per 1000 playouts.
VS RELEASE 64bit - 182ms per 1000 playouts
Thread Per Core (Uses 100% CPU) (Thread Per Core - 1 yielded similar
results)
VS DEBUG 64bit (with Debugger) - 154ms per 1000 playouts.
VS RELEASE 64bit - 111ms per 1000 playouts
System Specifications:
Processor: Intel Core i7-4600U CPU @ 2.10Ghz
8GB DDR3 RAM
The random player won't play,
- Positional super-ko moves (or optionally situational)
- Suicide moves
- Eye filling moves
and continues to play until there are no good moves left (i.e. all empty
intersections are an eye, suicide or unplayable due to ko)
Am I missing any other checks/features to the random play outs that would
normally be implemented?
What sort of play out speeds are normal, should I spend any more optimizing
the random play outs before moving into a Monty-Carlo implementation?
Regards,
Ben
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:09 PM, Jason House <[email protected]>wrote:
> Simple ko checks are required in playouts. Advanced ko checks are
> typically restricted to inside the search tree. With simple ko checks, I've
> had playouts get stuck in a 3 ko cycle. Ko cycles can be caught with a
> maximum playout length.
> On May 7, 2014 10:46 AM, "Álvaro Begué" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I believe you *have to* check for simple ko in playouts. Otherwise you'll
>> end up with infinite playouts quite easily.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 9:09 AM, Ben Ellis <[email protected]>wrote:
>>
>>> All,
>>>
>>> When playing random playouts, do you (anyone) bother checking for KO
>>> or super KO? Does this have a negative impact on accuracy of the win:loss
>>> outcomes?
>>>
>>> Ben
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 4:52 PM, Marc Landgraf <[email protected]>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Now I feel stupid :(
>>>> Thanks...
>>>> So now I'm down to 126 on average with /O2 /Ot /favor:INTEL64 (+the
>>>> usual fluff)
>>>> This is still about 15% slower then mingw-w64, but this is just for
>>>> singlethreaded playouts.
>>>> And it looks like, that when using 4 threads on the same tree, this
>>>> gets compensated, and we arrive at pretty much the same speed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2014-05-01 15:36 GMT+02:00 Harald Johnsen <[email protected]>:
>>>>
>>>> Le 01/05/2014 13:00, Marc Landgraf a écrit :
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>> I'm not talking about 20% speedloss here with VC++.
>>>>>> Just the times for 1000 empty playouts on 9x9, not using any sort of
>>>>>> multithreading:
>>>>>> VS debug configuration: 15257
>>>>>> VS release config (optimized): 756
>>>>>> C::B mingw-w64 no optimizations: 498
>>>>>> C::B mingw-w64 -O3 -fexpensive-optimizations -march=corei7-avx: 108
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This of course clearly looks as this is certainly my fault... But
>>>>>> right now I can't find what I'm doing wrong here... and so I have to miss
>>>>>> out those handy VS-comfort features and continue with C::B + mingw-w64.
>>>>>> And the VS profiler results looks pretty much like what I got, when I
>>>>>> last used VerySleepy on my code compiled with mingw. No super drastic
>>>>>> bottlenecks just general slowness it seems.
>>>>>> Mingw-w64 makes it impossible to profile the code, but mingw has
>>>>>> performance issues as well for me, so I'm using it only when i need
>>>>>> profile
>>>>>> data (not as drastic as VC++, but about factor 3).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you doing any memory allocation or input/outputs ? If that's the
>>>>> case then you should not start the code with F5 but shift F5 from inside
>>>>> VS.
>>>>>
>>>>> hj.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
