Hi Sylvain,
On 1/10/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So between the default level (8) and the level 16, there are 7% winning
difference at around 50%, which is significant, but do not change by far
the results Hiroshi posted. It is far less than 100 ELO right?
I did not measure the
Hello Arend,
Unfortunately I don't have the log files anymore. I just remember that it
(at least one) was a position with a lot of stones (not a starting
position).
Sylvain
2007/1/20, Arend Bayer [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hi Sylvain,
On 1/10/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So between
: [spam probable] Re: [computer-go] Gnugo vs commercial programs
Hi Sylvain,
On 1/10/07, Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So between the default level (8) and the level 16, there are 7% winning
difference at around 50%, which is significant, but do not change by far the
results
2007/1/11, Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
50 X speedup sound rather impressive but it's not that much. It's
probably
made go programs about 2 or 3 stones stronger over the few years that it
took to get hardward 50X faster about what you would expect.
But it is hardly that much. Current
I still don't understand your point. Are you just trying to say
computers have a long way to go to beat really strong humans?
nope -- i'm saying that until extra time makes a measurable
difference in the strength of a program, worrying about how
much time a program spends on any particular
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 09:30 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
So GnuGo and commercial programs have been optimized to play strong in
very few time. For them, long thinking time is simply not relevant. It
is not the same goal.
Hi Sylvain,
What I'm saying is that the programmers don't realize their
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 04:18 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
I still don't understand your point. Are you just trying to say
computers have a long way to go to beat really strong humans?
nope -- i'm saying that until extra time makes a measurable
difference in the strength of a program,
Well then the time is now. Look at the Sylvain's post on the
scalability of Mogo.
if the improvement continues to hold with more doublings, that's
great. i am perhaps under the misguided opinion that there are all
kinds of structural reasons why the best 'scalable' programs can't
arbitrarily
PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:18:01 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Gnugo vs commercial programs
I still don't understand your point. Are you just trying to say
computers have a long way to go to beat really strong
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 07:40 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Of course there is some questions
about how long Moore's law will hold.
If you are referring to CPU speed doubling (as opposed to transistor
count), then that has been over for at least 5 years.
The Free Lunch Is Over: A Fundamental Turn
I am currently working with different pruning methods for 19x19 go.
What worked
for Valkyria on 9x9 become much to slow on 19x19 where full board
evaluation of
several 100 moves simply does not work. During christmas I was able to
prune the
number of candiate moves to perhaps a factor 4-20
involve significantly different technologies than silicon.
- Don
Terry McIntyre
- Original Message
From: steve uurtamo [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 4:18:01 AM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Gnugo
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 07:52 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
I agree that Gnugo was written in an absolute non-scalable style.
What
Gnugo does is continually upgrade from year to year.They are
making
their program scale in a painfully manual way.
I want to clarify what I said about Gnugo. I'm
Hello Magnus,
I am glad to hear your experiment in 19x19.
Your pruning is based on expert go knowledge or another statistic?
Do have some statistics of the level of your pruning method against another
program (let's say gnugo :)) in 19x19?
Sylvain
2007/1/11, Magnus Persson [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message -
From: Jeff Nowakowski [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 3:37 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Gnugo vs commercial programs
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 07:40 -0500, Don Dailey wrote:
Of course there is some
Hi Magnus,
I don't understand who the players were in the 9 handicap game.
Who received the handicap and who was Valkyria's opponent?
Was the opponent the un-pruned version of Valkyria?
more comments below ...
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 15:38 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
I am currently working
The bus problem is a general one. E.g. modern graphic cards have a very
powerfull GPU. One could use this e.g. for the computation of neural
networks. The theoretic speedup is impressive, but the practical is low or
it even slows down things. The neural-network-computation must - in
But often it also suddenly pick a really bad move and play it so the
descrioption above is a little idealized.
Did you try picking the move with the highest number of simulations rather
than the higher average? This only modification gave MoGo a +10% against
gnugo in 19x19 (from 40% to 50%
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:13 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
When I watch Valkyria analyze a 19x19 position it often goees like
this:
For the first 30 seconds or so it almost random, it does not have the
statistical power to pick out good moves.
Then it starts jump around between some moves
Magnus,
I applied my analogy to Mogo, but I really meant any good UCT
program such as yours - I just forgot who I was responding to
in my last email.
- Don
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:13 +0100, Magnus Persson wrote:
Quoting Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I don't understand who the players
Quoting Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Hello Magnus,
I am glad to hear your experiment in 19x19.
Your pruning is based on expert go knowledge or another statistic?
Do have some statistics of the level of your pruning method against another
program (let's say gnugo :)) in 19x19?
There are
On Thu, 2007-01-11 at 17:19 +0100, Sylvain Gelly wrote:
But often it also suddenly pick a really bad move and play it
so the
descrioption above is a little idealized.
Did you try picking the move with the highest number of simulations
rather than the higher
Quoting Sylvain Gelly [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
But often it also suddenly pick a really bad move and play it so the
descrioption above is a little idealized.
Did you try picking the move with the highest number of simulations rather
than the higher average? This only modification gave MoGo a +10%
Did you try picking the move with the highest number of simulations
rather than the higher average? This only modification gave MoGo a
+10% against gnugo in 19x19 (from 40% to 50% with 70k sim/move). And
you can't say that it is a difficult modification to do :).
This is an important
No I have not tried that yet. I think I have been planning to modify time
control, so that it will try to stop thinking when the highest winrate
has been
searched significantly more than the second highest winrate.
Perhaps a more elaborate time control should be useful. Maybe it is better
to
Finally I use a pruning method I have been using with non-MC
programs where moves evaluated bad at ply n is pruned when they are
evaluate
again at ply n + 2 and their local neighborhood has not been changed. This
method is a little crude and perhaps a little risky, but the gains clearly
, 2007 6:10 PM
Subject: [computer-go] Gnugo vs commercial programs
I tested Gnugo against some commercial programs.
Gnugo is 3.7.10.
Level is default with --never-resign and --komi 6.5 option.
Commercial program is max level.
All game is Japanese rule and komi is 6.5
: [computer-go] Gnugo vs commercial programs
Chrilly,
The computer go guys don't think of performance as a function of time,
only as a kind of absolute, it plays good or it doesn't.
Us computer chess people are used to thinking of it as a function of
how fast the computer is and how much memory
player.
s.
- Original Message
From: Don Dailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: computer-go computer-go@computer-go.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:24:38 PM
Subject: Re: [computer-go] Gnugo vs commercial programs
Chrilly,
The computer go guys don't think of performance as a function
I would suggest the minor correction to say that any non-GNU
based program would have this hope. SlugGo already does this,
but I doubt it has this meaning.
Cheers,
David
On 10, Jan 2007, at 4:38 PM, steve uurtamo wrote:
as an example, if any program could give gnugo 9 stones
under these
I still don't understand your point. Are you just trying to say
computers have a long way to go to beat really strong humans?
If so, that doesn't have anything to do with what Chrilly said
or my response to him.
On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 19:10 -0800, steve uurtamo wrote:
i'm saying that if
... when someone sucks, we usually don't distinguish
how much they suck so even if they improve a lot, we still think they
suck. And if you suck no one cares how much.
He's right. I suck and no one cares.
___
computer-go mailing list
32 matches
Mail list logo
