On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:08:47PM +0200, ds wrote:
Hyperthreading does the trick, I have the experience it increases the
performance by about 10%. I think this is due to waiting for RAM I/O or
things like that
Yes. With hyperthreading, performance per thread goes down
significantly, but
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Petr Baudis pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:08:47PM +0200, ds wrote:
Hyperthreading does the trick, I have the experience it increases the
performance by about 10%. I think this is due to waiting for RAM I/O or
things like that
Yes.
This is very interesting,
I have not more than 10% with oakfoam on i7-2600K. Would be interesting
if it is the processor or if you e.g. access more often memory instead
of cache due to your code...
Do you have the chance to run your program on a i7-2600? or do you have
to much time and try
I don't have an i7-2600, but I could run oakfoam on the 3930. I just
downloaded it and it does compile. If you give me a list of gtp commands to
run the benchmark, then I will send you the output back.
Erik
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, ds d...@physik.de wrote:
This is very interesting,
This surprises me. Isn't it inefficient to have one core run
multiple-threads? Can you explain why you did it this way to a hardware
challenged person like me. Thanks.
On 08/07/2012 03:35 AM, Petr Baudis wrote:
Program authors / operators, please state in this thread the hardware used.
Hyperthreading does the trick, I have the experience it increases the
performance by about 10%. I think this is due to waiting for RAM I/O or
things like that
Detlef
Am Mittwoch, den 08.08.2012, 10:21 -0700 schrieb Richard Lorentz:
This surprises me. Isn't it inefficient to have one core
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 02:08:49AM +0200, Łukasz Lew wrote:
Notably at least one game (Round 2 Aya : Pachi) ended with premature
resignation at final position.
Yes. This was a bug in Pachi - its dynamic komi state got reset when the
opponent played an unexpected move (that could therefore not
On Tue, Aug 07, 2012 at 12:35:29PM +0200, Petr Baudis wrote:
In my testing, this version of Pachi is about 60 Elo weaker than normal
Pachi against Fuego 1.1 with 500s/game (PachIV's rating drop against
humans on KGS is about 40 Elo).
I just realized that PachIV used i7 920 instead of i7-2600
Kaś Cup has finished with only one game ending with scoring.non-resign.
Here are the results:
Round 1.
Aya : Zen -50 : 50
Many Faces : Pachi 2.5 : -2.5
Round 2.
Zen : Many Faces 50 : -50
Aya : Pachi 50 : -50
Round 3.
Zen : Pachi 50 : -50
Aya : Many Faces 50 : -50
Total scores:
Message -
From: Łukasz Lew lukasz@gmail.com
To: computer-go@dvandva.org
Sent: Tuesday, August 07, 2012 9:08 AM
Subject: [Computer-go] Kaś Cup - results and prizes
Kaś Cup has finished with only one game ending with scoring.non-resign.
Here are the results:
Round 1.
Aya : Zen -50 : 50
Hello friends,
I am very happy to announce that thanks to an anonymous donor,
Kaś Cup prize pool has doubled !
Therefore our prizes will be:
I place - 100$
II place - 60$
III place - 40$
Gentlmen, prepare your engines !
Łukasz
___
Computer-go mailing
On 12/07/2012 10:48, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Why truncate to [-50..50] ?
Assume that the event attracts some reasonably good programs, and
some poor programs.
For games between good programs, the winning margin will almost
always be in the range [-50..50], so truncation makes no difference.
For
In such a competition techniques like dynamic komi become extremely
important. A program must endeavor to earn more points even if the best
result is 0.5 point loss. Interesting.
Aja
Whether a bot loses to CrazyStone by 10 points or 20 tells us more
about its skill than whether it beats break
Truncating to [-50 .. 50] seems rather arbitrary to me too.There
should either be no truncation at all, or if the concept is to not over
reward big wins it should be replaced by a function such as the square
root of the score. In this way you get progressively less credit for
bigger and
The square root is just as arbitrary as capping at 50. The only
function I really like is capping at 0.5.
Álvaro.
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:16 AM, Don Dailey dailey@gmail.com wrote:
Truncating to [-50 .. 50] seems rather arbitrary to me too.There should
either be no truncation at
Like you I agree that they should not not use this at all.However,
given that this is what they want to do I would argue that using using the
square root function (or something like it) is really what they want.
If they believe 150 is no better than 50, but that it's suddenly linear
below 50,
P.S. I'm sure their motivation behind this is to keep it simple and
easy to compute. I suspect that most of the time it would probably come
out the same using their cap, the square root, or the log of the scores
anyway and I don't expect them to change based on this suggestion.
But it did
We are dealing with a quantity (the score difference) which can be
positive or negative, so neither square root nor log are very natural
functions to use.
If you want diminishing returns, here's a better way to do it: Give
each player 1/(1+exp(-K*score)) points. As K goes to infinity this
I assumed with the log or square root function that the winner would get
this number of points and the loser would lose the same amount.And it
should be centered around a komi value in my opinion - so that if komi is
5.5 you consider a score of 7.5 to be worth 2 points or sqrt(2).
I like your
I think that you guys are overcomplicating the fact that a man offered a
tournament setup with a prize with rules.
I'm sure alternative formats proposed by other tournament organizers might
be interesting too, but I'm simply curious to see how this particular one
works out.
s.
On Jul 12, 2012
On 12/07/2012 15:22, Don Dailey wrote:
I assumed with the log or square root function that the winner would get
this number of points and the loser would lose the same amount.And
it should be centered around a komi value in my opinion - so that if
komi is 5.5 you consider a score of 7.5 to
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:34 AM, steve uurtamo uurt...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that you guys are overcomplicating the fact that a man offered a
tournament setup with a prize with rules.
I think you are taking our comments too seriously.It's in my nature
(and probably the same for most
The round robin format is much better for something like this.I cannot
even imagine trying to pair games using this system.
Don
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 10:43 AM, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
On 12/07/2012 15:22, Don Dailey wrote:
I assumed with the log or square root function
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Nick Wedd n...@maproom.co.uk wrote:
On 12/07/2012 10:48, Rémi Coulom wrote:
Why truncate to [-50..50] ?
Assume that the event attracts some reasonably good programs, and
some poor programs.
For games between good programs, the winning margin will almost
Let me lay down my motivation over the rules for you.
I believe computer go community is in local minima when it goes to
optimizing strength of the programs.
There are two reasons to go to linear score:
1. Creation of divide and conquer algorithms (My research topic,
future of Go IMO) will be
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 5:05 PM, Łukasz Lew lukasz@gmail.com wrote:
Note that after tournament we can check what would be the score if
there would be no truncation.
You can check afterwards, but the programs should be adapting their
behaviour to the rules, so they will play for a safe +50
On 07/12/2012 10:22 AM, Don Dailey wrote:
The real point of this is to impose a more western attitude to the game,
trying to crush your opponent - pick off every possible stone you can,
etc.
That's overly dramatic and political. Eastern players don't throw away
points like
Note that after tournament we can check what would be the score if
there would be no truncation.
You can check afterwards, but the programs should be adapting their
behaviour to the rules, so they will play for a safe +50 rather than a
risky +75.
This is a very good point. It may have the
Łukasz Lew has today posted a message to this list, which I have
not received. I know he has posted it, I can see his posting in
the list archive, at
http://dvandva.org/pipermail/computer-go/2012-July/005168.html
I encourage you to read it, it is an invitation to a bot
tournament with
On 11/07/2012 11:00, Nick Wedd wrote:
Łukasz Lew has today posted a message to this list, which I have
not received. I know he has posted it, I can see his posting in
the list archive, at
http://dvandva.org/pipermail/computer-go/2012-July/005168.html
I encourage you to read it, it is an
Fellow Go enthusiasts,
I would like you invite you to:
Kaś Cup - a peculiar computer Go tournament.
There will be prize pool of total 100$, yay!
It will take place on 5th of August on KGS.
The peculiarity will come from the scoring method.
While this will be a Round Robin, the score for each
31 matches
Mail list logo
