[Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes

David Fotland fotland at smart-games.com
Sat Aug 11 00:55:59 PDT 2012


Not much memory overhead.  If you look at your tree you will find that most
nodes are only visited one or two times.  There is a lot of noise in the
fringes of the tree, so there are few duplicates.  This also means that not
sharing most of the tree has no impact on strength.

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 9:42 AM
> To: computer-go at dvandva.org
> Subject: Re: [Computer-go] Kas Cup - results and prizes
> 
> 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




More information about the Computer-go mailing list