Don Dailey wrote:
Gian-Carlo,
We could probably add this new version to the mix and extend the
study.But what kind of data has your own testing produced? Do you
have an indication that it is roughly as strong at the same basic time
setting (because of it's being 3X faster or so?)
It is
Doesn't the total number of playout simply relates to the search ply depth?
DL
-Original Message-
From: Gian-Carlo Pascutto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Fri, 11 Apr 2008 10:01 am
Subject: [computer-go] Scalability study request
Hi all,?
?
the
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't the total number of playout simply relates to the search ply depth?
I have no idea what you mean or what the relevance is in the discussion.
--
GCP
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Doesn't the total number of playout simply relates to the search ply depth?
There is a relation, but it's not simple. The more playouts you
do, the more lines you will explore to deeper depths.
My suspicious is that with lighter playouts, you will tend to
I am now wondering if scalability could be unaffected by playouts (just
adding a constant offset) and only depend on the UCT/search implementation.
From the publications of the MoGo team it seems likely that the programs are
very similar there.
Leela and mogo are probably quite similar.
On
If we start up another scalability test, I'd be
delighted to offer up a few computer cores.
It would be real nice to not only have the
light-playout variant of leela, but perhaps the
nakade-patch version of mogo and maybe even some third
program. ( if wishes were horses ... )
Terry McIntyre
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
I am now wondering if scalability could be unaffected by playouts
(just adding a constant offset) and only depend on the UCT/search
implementation. From the publications of the MoGo team it seems likely
that the programs are very similar there.
Leela and mogo are
simulations is perhaps not always a good idea.)
Is the patch in some way parameterized by the number of simulations?
No. Perhaps it should :-)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
--- Olivier Teytaud [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
light-playout variant of leela, but perhaps the
nakade-patch version of mogo and maybe even some
third
no problem for the nakade-patch version of mogo, but
results
are only known in 9x9, no idea for 13x13. Maybe it
is better,
maybe it is
light-playout variant of leela, but perhaps the
nakade-patch version of mogo and maybe even some third
no problem for the nakade-patch version of mogo, but results
are only known in 9x9, no idea for 13x13. Maybe it is better,
maybe it is worse :-)
___
Good to find out, no?
we have validated that:
- it is good in 9x9;
- it is bad in 19x19 (unless perhaps for very large number of
simulations).
we did not have a look at 13x13.
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
Olivier Teytaud wrote:
light-playout variant of leela, but perhaps the
nakade-patch version of mogo and maybe even some third
no problem for the nakade-patch version of mogo, but results
are only known in 9x9, no idea for 13x13. Maybe it is better,
maybe it is worse :-)
At 9x9 you see a
If we can get some consensus on what to test, we can do more.Or we
can add 1 program version to the current study.
Any ideas?(Or we could do a 19x19 study.)
- Don
terry mcintyre wrote:
If we start up another scalability test, I'd be
delighted to offer up a few computer cores.
Gian-Carlo,
We could probably add this new version to the mix and extend the
study.But what kind of data has your own testing produced? Do you
have an indication that it is roughly as strong at the same basic time
setting (because of it's being 3X faster or so?)
Even if it isn't, it would
14 matches
Mail list logo
