2007/10/29, Ben Lambrechts [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Has anyone tried to program Go via BOINC?
Like, trying to solve 7x7 by distributed computing? That would be
interesting. (Although I'm skeptical about participation.)
--
Seo Sanghyeon
___
computer-go
Don Dailey wrote:
Of course that's better, but I'm talking about a quick and
dirty solution. I may never implement handicap games since it's
tricky with ELO ratings.
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is
too strong, Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes
How does one configure MoGo to do a fixed number of playouts per move?
I saw only time-based command line options.
On 10/27/07, Rémi Coulom [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
I have just connected Crazy Stone (CS-8-26-10k-1CPU). It uses 10,000
playouts per move, and runs on 1 CPU. It should finish
How can I find and view older games on CGOS once they scroll off of
http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/standings.html? I know I can recreate URL's
such as http://cgos.boardspace.net/9x9/SGF/2007/10/29/176900.sgf with some
pain and download all the games for the day(s) of interest. My problem is
then
I don't see Mogo on the server?Where is Mogo?
However CrazyStone is there to represent the Monte Carlo programs and
seems to be doing a very good job indeed!
CS-8-26-2CPU http://www.lri.fr/%7Eteytaud/cross/CS-8-26-2CPU.html is
doing absurdly well for far, winning almost every game it plays.
G'day guys,
I'm involved in the development of a very powerful and flexible grid
software, which we plan to release in January. It is all java based.
http://www-nereus.physics.ox.ac.uk/ (bear in mind you can't download
it yet and the website is out of date)
One of the things I'd like to do on it,
Not that I'm aware, but the engine I'm working on will be parallelized.
Depending on time and finances I'm even considering going down the
route of custom fpga based boards but that's on the dream list so far,
and isn't planned for RC1.
-Josh
On 10/29/07, Ben Lambrechts [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Just an observation... On the cross-table page, the back to standings link
is incorrect. It should point to
http://www.lri.fr/~teytaud/cgosStandings.html
On 10/29/07, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't see Mogo on the server?Where is Mogo?
However CrazyStone is there to
We have used as many as 72 CPUs running SlugGo, but our
algorithm did not scale well and we found that after 16 there
was no benefit.
We are trying new things, and will report positive or negative
results as we get them.
Cheers,
David
On 29, Oct 2007, at 8:03 AM, Ian Preston wrote:
I'd
Olivier just configured the server wrong.In the configuration file
you have to point things to the right directory and some of this is
relative. I have no control over this (which is how I want it!)
- Don
Jason House wrote:
Just an observation... On the cross-table page, the back to
For all of us in the bot-making kiddie pool, it's exceptionally helpful to
have reference implementations of basic algorithms running on the server.
When playing with AMAF, I found the reference AMAF bots very helpful. Now
that I'm playing with UCT, references for UCT would be helpful.
I have
I don't see Mogo on the server?Where is Mogo?
we will come :-)
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
On Oct 29, 2007, at 8:39 AM, Jason House wrote:
For all of us in the bot-making kiddie pool, it's exceptionally
helpful to have reference implementations of basic algorithms
running on the server. When playing with AMAF, I found the
reference AMAF bots very helpful. Now that I'm playing
Thanks!
I'm not sure if my engine will support 50k simulations without running out
of time in long games. Is it possible to do 10k?
My engine does about 2k playouts per second. This may be a side-effect of
the language I'm using.
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm not sure if my engine will support 50k simulations without
running out of time in long games. Is it possible to do 10k?
no problem. I will start 'myCtest-10k-UCT' later today.
Christoph
How does this compare to myCtest-10k
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jason House wrote:
no problem. I will start 'myCtest-10k-UCT' later today.
How does this compare to myCtest-10k that previously ran on CGOS?
myCtest-10k: 1 random playouts (1050 ELO)
myCtest-10k-UCT: 1 random playouts guided by a UCT search (1350 ELO)
G'day guys,
I'm involved in the development of a very powerful and flexible grid
software, which we plan to release in January. It is all java based.
http://www-nereus.physics.ox.ac.uk/ (bear in mind you can't download
it yet and the website is out of date)
One of the things I'd like to do
milestone 2: Each network-node builds its own tree using UCT, but
information is only combined at the root. This version will play much
better because each node is smarter. The bandwidth will be higher. I can
only guess at the scaling behavior, but this milestone might be the 80%
solution.
I
On Oct 29, 2007, at 10:35 AM, Jason House wrote:
Thanks!
I'm not sure if my engine will support 50k simulations without
running out of time in long games. Is it possible to do 10k?
no problem. I will start 'myCtest-10k-UCT' later today.
Christoph
On 10/29/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
milestone 1: All network-nodes compute pure Monte-Carlo (no search tree)
scores for the possible moves, the scores are combined centrally to pick the
move. It's easy, it will wring out the system, and the bandwidth is low. The
playing
On 10/29/07, steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As results from children get aggregated, the parent node can repartition
what fraction of its
resources to dedicate to each subtree.
um, doesn't this mean sending out messages to every child for every
repartitioning?
I was thinking
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too
strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart
It would be easy to change the cgos3.tcl script to enable self-handicap
in this way. I would make this
change if crazy-stone or mogo would agree to put up a copy.
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
myCtest-10k-UCT: 1 random playouts guided by a UCT search (1350 ELO)
* nodes are expanded after 50 runs through them
* UCT_score = win_ratio + 0.5 * sqrt(log(N)/n)
I added variants with different expansion
As results from children get aggregated, the parent node can repartition what
fraction of its
resources to dedicate to each subtree.
um, doesn't this mean sending out messages to every child for every
repartitioning?
s.
__
Do You Yahoo!?
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart tricks.
If CrazyStoneH3 is given white and plays: 2.
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning. i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only cooperating programs will have their
One way to handle handicaps without a server change which could be
easily implemented with the client is to to simply make the first N
moves random - but it would not resemble a traditional handicap system
in any way. Plus the first N moves might end up being pretty good
moves so it would be
why not just ignore game results that took place in
fewer than 10 moves?
then black can play his handicap stones, white can
pass, and everyone's cool.
s.
- Original Message
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007
there's not really much sense in a game 'won' in the first 10 moves.
i.e. i mean that it doesn't have much intrinsic meaning. i think
it's fair to throw away game results that have this feature to them,
then only cooperating programs will have their results counted.
s.
- Original Message
On 10/29/07, Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Jacques Basaldúa wrote:
This can also be done by the programmers. E.g. If CrazyStone is too strong,
Rèmi can introduce a CrazyStoneH3 which passes 3 times
at the beginning. But not at the first move, to avoid smart
It appears as if both CGOS servers crashed ...
___
computer-go mailing list
computer-go@computer-go.org
http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
The whole idea is to not have to change the server. If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.
I remember us talking about this before - we went back and forth on how
to implement handicap with chinese scoring and CGOS but I don't remember
what conclusion I
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
The whole idea is to not have to change the server. If I'm going to
change the server I might as well do handicap the right way.
But this is a trivial change compared to dealing with an
ad hoc ELO/handicap conversion.
Christoph
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
or to simply not include the results of such games,
so as not to break the protocol for machines that
wanted to have such games take place.
What would break?
Server - clientB: genmove
clientB - Server:PASS
server - clientW: play PASS
or to simply not include the results of such games,
so as not to break the protocol for machines that
wanted to have such games take place.
s.
- Original Message
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 5:55:52 PM
So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?
Or simply to not rate them? Or is it to not consider 2 passes a draw
unless 20 moves have been played?
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might
ah, well, okay then. :)
s.
- Original Message
From: Christoph Birk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 6:24:41 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] 19x19 CGOS
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, steve uurtamo wrote:
or to simply not include the
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like this:
pass
pass
pass
etc.
I think it is very unlikely for any program to pass in the early
game (my would not :-)
And if, there is no harm done, as at
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like this:
pass
pass
pass
etc.
And if, there is no harm done, as at some point the 'self-handicapped'
program will start
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Don Dailey wrote:
So the suggestion is to throw out games that end in less that 20 moves?
No, just have the server not stop games before move-20.
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which could easily happen. The game might start like
My only arugment is that it would look silly - but it would be correct.
But I guess passing on the first few moves will always look silly.
- Don
Christoph Birk wrote:
On Mon, 29 Oct 2007, Christoph Birk wrote:
Of course it seems silly to have 2 of these programs play each other -
which
How does one configure MoGo to do a fixed number of playouts per move?
I saw only time-based command line options.
On Oct 7th Sylvain wrote:
--nbTotalSimulations 3000
Once you set this option it ignores all other time settings.
Darren
___
It depends a great deal on timing. Physics Monte Carlo has been
running non-stop for months ... a very big computation that is still
quite short on statistics. I will try to find out when that should
finish.
Cheers,
David
On 29, Oct 2007, at 11:50 AM, Christoph Birk wrote:
Once it is
44 matches
Mail list logo
