Nice to hear that :)
2009/6/5 Michael Williams michaelwilliam...@gmail.com:
Łukasz Lew wrote:
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 00:56, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
Two things: Firstly, I'm storing (only in RAM) the precalculated Winrate
and InvSqrtVisits and keeping them
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Handicap games opens a can of worms.
Of course, any program is free to give its opponent any handicap it wants,
by passing in the opening (if the opponent didn't pass last).
It is up to the operator of the bot to decide when and how
The purpose of a handicap games is to allow a 50% chance of either
contestant winning. .. Programs do not care,
Are you sure?-) I haven't got round to moving beyond a plain MC bot yet,
where the effect is rather striking, but less naive bots also depend on win-rate
for their move evaluations.
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Heikki Levantohei...@lsd.dk wrote:
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 03:49:11PM -0400, Don Dailey wrote:
Handicap games opens a can of worms.
Of course, any program is free to give its opponent any handicap it wants,
by passing in the opening (if the opponent didn't pass
Hi
I have few days to buy a computer for Monte-carlo Go program.
There is not enough money for a multi processor, so I have to decide between
- core i7 2.66 GHz
- some core2 quad
both subjected to over-clocking.
Have you observed that Monte-Carlo Go program is faster on core i7
than on core2 ?
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:11 AM, Claus Reinke claus.rei...@talk21.comwrote:
The purpose of a handicap games is to allow a 50% chance of either
contestant winning. .. Programs do not care,
Are you sure?-) I haven't got round to moving beyond a plain MC bot yet,
where the effect is rather
Yes, there are lots of problem with this. And some of my bots will
automatically pass if doing so gives it the immediate win, so already I
know of one program that this will not work. As soon as you pass, the game
is over.
Of course CGOS could be modified with a rule not to end the game
i always buy at the low end because you get so much better of a deal. But I'd
guess the i7 is as excellent at Go as it is at everything else.
Łukwasz Lew wrote:
Hi
I have few days to buy a computer for Monte-carlo Go program.
There is not enough money for a multi processor, so I have to decide
.. plain MC bot ..
The effect is that the bot is only interested in a narrow range of fairly
balanced games: if it gets too far behind, or too far ahead, its play
becomes fairly random. The reason being that small differences in
score may not sufficiently affect the win/lose ratio to be
Hi,
I did some tests with my program about how well it does using 2 threads
instead of using only 1 thread. I played 200 games of 9x9 with 5 min SD using
gogui's twogtp. Here's the results:
rango (my program), 1 thread vs. gnugo: 46.7 +-3.5% wins
rango, 2 threads vs. gnugo: 54.5 +-3.5% wins
Hi Lukasz,
I have five core2 and one i7 computers running at home. I prefer i7,
though don't have exact measure.
The most important difference is the memory interface, ie, core2
uses a obsolete common bus (FSB) while i7 uses p2p connection with
an internal (on chip) memory controller. Also,
Hi ibd,
Guillaume's paper is informative.
http://www.cs.unimaas.nl/g.chaslot/papers/parallelMCTS.pdf
Don's scalability study is also interesting, though it's not for the
number of threads but the playouts for a move.
http://cgos.boardspace.net/study/ (9x9)
When a UCT search is completed, the usual selection criterion is
choose the move that has the most trials. This is more stable
than choosing the move that has the highest percentage of wins,
since it is possible to have an unreliably high percentage if the
number of trials is small.
I have a
Another strategy to be considered is to not allow the thinking to cease until the maximum win rate and the maximum visit count agree on the same move.
Obviously this requires some extra code to make sure you don't lose on time, etc.
Brian Sheppard wrote:
When a UCT search is completed, the
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 5:07 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
Another strategy to be considered is to not allow the thinking to cease
until the maximum win rate and the maximum visit count agree on the same
move. Obviously this requires some extra code to make sure you
I think this is?one of those?design decisions that nobody takes on faith. We
all wind up testing it both ways and in various combinations.
An additional advantage of using the number of visits is that branches at the
root become mathematically eliminated and can be pruned away. It often also
16 matches
Mail list logo
