[Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes

steve uurtamo uurtamo at gmail.com
Fri Aug 10 12:01:20 PDT 2012


you could always distribute the tree. if you have enough nodes and fast
enough network hardware, it should be feasible. there are good distributed
algorithms for concurrent tree read/write/rebalance.

just a thought,

s.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Michael Williams <
michaelwilliams75 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I imagine you can get around the lack of implicit information sharing
> that you get with a shared tree by explicitly sharing information near
> the root.
>
> But doesn't having separate trees mean a large memory overhead due to
> duplicate nodes?
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM, David Fotland <fotland at smart-games.com>
> wrote:
> > Because my current approach seems to work just as well (or maybe better),
> > and I haven't had time to code up a shared try and tune it up to validate
> > that assumption.  Chaslot's paper indicates perhaps that not having a
> shared
> > tree is stronger.  My guess is that they are about the same, so it's not
> > worth the effort to change.
> >
> > david
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org [mailto:computer-go-
> >> bounces at dvandva.org] On Behalf Of Michael Williams
> >> Sent: Friday, August 10, 2012 12:06 AM
> >> To: computer-go at dvandva.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes
> >>
> >> Why don't you use a shared tree?
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:49 PM, David Fotland <fotland at smart-games.com
> >
> >> wrote:
> >> > On an i7-2600 Many Faces does 11.4K pps with 4 threads, and 18.7k with
> >> > 8 threads, a 64% increase, so the 2600 scales a little better than the
> >> > 3770, but the 3770 is still a litte bit faster.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > david
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > From: computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org
> >> > [mailto:computer-go-bounces at dvandva.org] On Behalf Of Erik van der
> >> > Werf
> >> > Sent: Thursday, August 09, 2012 4:41 AM
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > To: computer-go at dvandva.org
> >> > Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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 <ds2 at physik.de> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > 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
> >> > https://bitbucket.org/francoisvn/oakfoam/wiki/Home
> >> > on your i7-3930. If so, I would be very much interested in the number
> >> > you get in the beginning of a 19x19 game without book:)
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Detlef
> >> >
> >> > Am Donnerstag, den 09.08.2012, 12:16 +0200 schrieb Erik van der Werf:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Petr Baudis <pasky at 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. With hyperthreading, performance per thread goes down
> >> >>         significantly, but total performance goes up by about 15%. In
> >> >>         the
> >> >>         Pentium 4 era, hyperthreading did not usually pay off, but
> >> >>         with i7,
> >> >>         its performance is much better. The basic idea is that there
> >> >>         are two
> >> >>         instruction pipelines that share the same ALU and other
> >> >>         processor units;
> >> >>         if one of the pipelines stalls (usually due to memory fetch),
> >> >>         the other
> >> >>         can use the ALU in the meantime, or the two threads may use
> >> >>         different
> >> >>         parts of the CPU altogether based on what the instructions
> >> do.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> 10-15%, really, that low? For my program (on an i7-3930K, going from
> >> >> 6 to 12 threads) it is more in the order of 40% extra simulations per
> >> >> second.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Erik
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Computer-go mailing list
> >> >> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> >> >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Computer-go mailing list
> >> > Computer-go at dvandva.org
> >> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Computer-go mailing list
> >> > Computer-go at dvandva.org
> >> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Computer-go mailing list
> >> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> >> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Computer-go mailing list
> > Computer-go at dvandva.org
> > http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
> _______________________________________________
> Computer-go mailing list
> Computer-go at dvandva.org
> http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/attachments/20120810/b51b3dc6/attachment.html>


More information about the Computer-go mailing list