[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: computer-go: Computer Go hardware




My 2 cents: I just pulled out the 1990 Goliath and played two games against Many Faces,
with both colors. Many Faces won both, by 1.5 and 31.5. It's too few games to tell, but in
1990, Goliath was considerably stronger than Many Faces, so I'm satisfied that Many Faces
has gotten stronger in the last 10 years :)

Many Faces used about 15 minutes total, and Goliath made most of its moves instantly, with
a few taking 1 to 2 seconds. This is on a 450 MHz Pentium-3.

Then to test the equal-machines idea, I played a game with Many Faces set to level 3, which
is much, much weaker against people. Many Faces used 9 seconds for the whole game, and won
by 12.5 points.

At 07:36 PM 4/10/2001 -0400, Don Dailey wrote:

Hi Mark,

You say the strongest programs of today  are only marginally stronger.
I'm not in a good position to know if this is true or not, but can you
(or someone) try to quantify this a  little better?  I'm interested in
a rough   compilation of the  following  information, even if   it's a
guess:

  1. What do you mean by only mariginally?  In a 100 game match
     with no handicap,  would todays very best program have
     a good chance of losing to the best 10 year old program on 10 year
     old hardware?    What would be the "expected" score?
Most of todays programs would always lose on 10 year old hardware since they would not make
the time control. I don't think this means much though, since the progress in the last few years
has been in using the faster computer to read better. There hasn't been much effort to make the
programs play well on slow hardware :)


  2. If I had a competitive program 10 years ago, then I would
     not have to maintain it, it would still be competive today
     even with that old 10 year old computer.  Is this true or false?
False. I think there are 6 to 10 programs today that are stronger than the 10 year
old Goliath (3 time world champion).


  3. Does the hardware make any difference?   Will the newest and
     best programs play equally well on ANY old machine, say a 486
     class machine (with no extra time allowance of course)?

     This is an important point, because if the answer is YES, hardware
     makes a difference, and there has been no improvement,  then the
     only difference in todays software is that it takes a more powerful
     computer to play just as well, a kind of negative progress.
Absolutely not. Many Faces can play a game at 100 times the rate of a tournament
game, but it is much weaker when it does so against people, since it reads much
more poorly. Against a program like Goliath that plays good shape and avoids fights,
reading skill isn't such a big benefit. Hardware makes a huge difference to fighting strength.



In other  messages  from   this group,  I   have been  told   that the
programmers have adjusted their algorithms  as hardware has  improved.
This directly implies that it's possible  to take advantage, if even a
little, of additional   computing power.  And  if  the improvement has
only  been  marginal, then it  almost seems  like  all the improvments
(what little there has been) is all based on extra computing power.
Most of the improvement with compute power is in reading skill. I don't think
todays programs are much stronger strategically. But against human opponents,
or computer opponents that start fights, that reading skill makes a huge difference
in strength, even if the moves don't look much better in a quiet game.

David


We could actually do the test, I'm sure someone has hardware that
represents a PC from 1991 and an old program.


Don




From: "Mark Boon" <tesuji@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 18:57:42 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
Importance: Normal
Sender: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510"
Content-Length: 4208

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

My 2 cents worth: the strongest programs of today are only marginally
stronger than they were 10 years ago, when computers were 100 times slower
than they are today. So I think it's fair to say the efficiency index value
would actually be (significantly) lower than 0.01. So your value 0.7 is
quite a wild guess indeed. If I would have to make a wild guess, I'd rather
put it in the 0.001 to 0.0001 range. And since the programs don't get
stronger with more processing power (not yet, anyway), the index is
subjective to getting halved about every 18 months.

Mark
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Compgo123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:23 PM
To: computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: computer-go: Computer Go hardware
[ stuff deleteded ]

We may define a concept, calling it the 'logic
efficiency index'. For a best possible program, the index value is 1. I'll
make a wild quess here. Today's best program has an index value about 0.7.
A
related question is, for Go, what's the relation between the index value
and
the amount of programming?
[ stuff deleteded ]


------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN =
class=3D359254816-10042001>My 2=20
cents worth: the strongest programs of today are only marginally =
stronger than=20
they were 10 years ago, when computers were 100 times slower than they =
are=20
today. So I think it's fair to say&nbsp;the efficiency index value would =

actually be (significantly) lower than 0.01. So your value 0.7 is quite =
a wild=20
guess indeed. If I would have to make a wild guess, I'd rather put it in =
the=20
0.001 to 0.0001 range. And since the programs don't get stronger with =
more=20
processing power (not yet, anyway), the index is subjective to getting =
halved=20
about every 18 months.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D359254816-10042001></SPAN></FONT>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#0000ff face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D359254816-10042001>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Mark</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-LEFT: =
5px">
<DIV class=3DOutlookMessageHeader><FONT face=3D"Times New Roman"><FONT =

size=3D2>-----Original Message-----<BR><B>From:</B>=20
owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx=20
[mailto:owner-computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]<B>On Behalf Of</B>=20
Compgo123@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Sent:</B> Saturday, March 31, 2001 7:23=20
PM<BR><B>To:</B> computer-go@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> =
computer-go:=20
Computer Go hardware<BR><FONT color=3D#0000ff></FONT><FONT =
size=3D2><FONT=20
face=3DArial><SPAN class=3D359254816-10042001>&nbsp;<FONT =
color=3D#000000=20
face=3D"Times New Roman">&nbsp;[ stuff deleteded=20
]</FONT>&nbsp;</SPAN><BR></FONT></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV></FONT><FONT face=3DArial><FONT size=3D2>We may define a concept, =
calling it=20
the 'logic <BR>efficiency index'. For a best possible program, the =
index value=20
is 1. I'll <BR>make a wild quess here. Today's best program has an =
index value=20
about 0.7. A <BR>related question is, for Go, what's the relation =
between the=20
index value and <BR>the amount of programming?&nbsp;</FONT>&nbsp;<FONT =

color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D359254816-10042001>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial><FONT color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D359254816-10042001>[ stuff deleteded=20
=
]&nbsp;<BR>&nbsp;</SPAN></FONT></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_000F_01C0C1F0.1F5C0510--
David Fotland
(;
GM[1]FF[4]VW[]AP[Many Faces of Go:10.0]
SZ[19]
HA[0]
ST[1]
PB[The Many Faces of Go, level 3, 9 seconds]
PW[goliath 1990]
DT[2001-04-10]
KM[5.5]
RU[Japanese]
RE[B+12.5];B[qd];W[po];B[dc];W[ep];B[kq];W[hq];B[cp];W[mq]
;B[dn];W[jr];B[qm];W[qk];B[om];W[rn];B[oc];W[ce];B[cg];W[ee]
;B[fd];W[dh];B[cd];W[ch];B[be];W[cf];B[bf];W[bg];B[rm];W[ok]
;B[ql];W[rk];B[cj];W[ej];B[mm];W[qn];B[km];W[lo];B[jo];W[kr]
;B[im];W[no];B[qi];W[mk];B[ml];W[mi];B[gn];W[lr];B[pf];W[lk]
;B[jk];W[mf];B[ji];W[mc];B[kc];W[kh];B[hd];W[cl];B[bn];W[dk]
;B[rj];W[pi];B[qg];W[ph];B[lb];W[mb];B[gf];W[ki];B[jj];W[cq]
;B[bq];W[dq];B[br];W[bl];B[ef];W[dg];B[ne];W[me];B[ke];W[md]
;B[bj];W[di];B[eg];W[fe];B[ge];W[bi];B[nb];W[la];B[de];W[df]
;B[dd];W[nf];B[ka];W[fh];B[em];W[od];B[pc];W[nd];B[jq];W[iq]
;B[es];W[fq];B[gs];W[hr];B[ma];W[dr];B[ds];W[cs];B[cr];W[qh]
;B[rh];W[og];B[ig];W[jh];B[eh];W[ei];B[ff];W[gi];B[ih];W[qq]
;B[gk];W[pn];B[pm];W[sj];B[ri];W[ip];B[ko];W[ln];B[lm];W[gp]
;B[hi];W[gj];B[hj];W[fk];B[gl];W[af];B[bd];W[fl];B[qj];W[pk]
;B[ho];W[io];B[in];W[fm];B[fn];W[pj];B[gm];W[nl];B[nm];W[el]
;B[kj];W[lj];B[ae];W[ag];B[pe];W[sm];B[oe];W[sl];B[on];W[oo]
;B[mn];W[mo];B[lp];W[si];B[rg];W[er];B[bs];W[gr];B[fs];W[cm]
;B[cn];W[ld];B[kd];W[dm];B[en];W[sh];B[sg];W[sk];B[jg];W[kg]
;B[kf];W[am];B[an];W[ol];B[lf];W[lg];B[jp];W[kn];B[jn];W[go]
;B[hs];W[is];B[kl];W[fo];B[do];W[lq];B[bm];W[al];B[dp];W[oq]
;B[cs];W[mp];B[kp];W[nc];B[fr];W[eq];B[oa];W[pd];B[rc];W[pg]
;B[fg];W[of];B[se];W[gh];B[hg];W[lc];B[gg];W[le];B[hh];W[kk]
;B[eo];W[ll];B[pl];W[rl];B[nn];W[hp];B[hn];W[tt];B[tt])
(;
GM[1]FF[4]VW[]AP[Many Faces of Go:10.0]
SZ[19]
HA[0]
ST[1]
PB[Goliath 1990]
PW[The Many Faces of Go]
DT[2001-04-10]
KM[5.5]
RU[Japanese]
RE[W+1.5];B[eq];W[pq];B[pc];W[cd];B[ed];W[hd];B[dg];W[kc]
;B[cc];W[ci];B[bg];W[qo];B[jq];W[qe];B[qd];W[cl];B[pe];W[nc]
;B[nq];W[fp];B[fq];W[co];B[gp];W[cq];B[ep];W[bc];B[dc];W[cb]
;B[db];W[ba];B[ab];W[be];B[bb];W[or];B[nr];W[oo];B[qj];W[ql]
;B[qg];W[fg];B[di];W[dj];B[ei];W[gh];B[ch];W[bi];B[ej];W[ck]
;B[dn];W[cn];B[dm];W[ac];B[ca];W[ob];B[fo];W[ne];B[pb];W[fc]
;B[lp];W[ok];B[rk];W[oh];B[rl];W[pi];B[pf];W[of];B[qm];W[qi]
;B[ri];W[gj];B[ek];W[rn];B[rm];W[ce];B[ef];W[fe];B[ee];W[gl]
;B[ff];W[gf];B[fd];W[gd];B[ge];W[qh];B[rh];W[he];B[ho];W[eb]
;B[ke];W[kg];B[ki];W[kk];B[mk];W[ik];B[ii];W[ig];B[lj];W[mm]
;B[ll];W[kn];B[nl];W[in];B[ml];W[pl];B[pm];W[ji];B[jj];W[jh]
;B[jk];W[kl];B[kj];W[kh];B[ij];W[lm];B[jl];W[km];B[nm];W[nn]
;B[om];W[pj];B[lh];W[mi];B[li];W[lg];B[mh];W[ni];B[md];W[nd]
;B[je];W[jd];B[mc];W[mb];B[kd];W[lb];B[hb];W[ic];B[dr];W[cr]
;B[oa];W[il];B[jm];W[im];B[jn];W[jo];B[lr];W[mg];B[hk];W[gk]
;B[io];W[lo];B[mp];W[na];B[pa];W[cm];B[dl];W[hj];B[pg];W[og]
;B[ec];W[fb];B[cs];W[bs];B[ds];W[ar];B[hi];W[gi];B[bh];W[qk]
;B[rj];W[dq];B[er];W[ib];B[hh];W[hf];B[fe];W[sm];B[ea];W[gb]
;B[dk];W[re];B[rd];W[cj];B[oq];W[pp];B[pr];W[qr];B[os];W[qs]
;B[nh];W[fa];B[da];W[fl];B[ng];W[nf];B[mo];W[mn];B[ai];W[aj]
;B[ah];W[em];B[en];W[kp];B[kq];W[ps];B[or];W[mj];B[lk];W[nk]
;B[oc];W[nb];B[od];W[jp];B[ip];W[ko];B[sl];W[sn];B[qn];W[rp]
;B[on];W[no];B[do];W[dp];B[me];W[ld];B[lc];W[ol];B[eg];W[eh]
;B[hg];W[gg];B[ih];W[if];B[fi];W[fh];B[dh];W[el];B[pn];W[po]
;B[np];W[gn];B[fn];W[hn];B[fm];W[gm];B[oe];W[ph];B[fj];W[go]
;B[fk];W[hq];B[hp];W[op];B[qf];W[tt])
(;
GM[1]FF[4]VW[]AP[Many Faces of Go:10.0]
SZ[19]
HA[0]
ST[1]
PB[The Many Faces of Go]
PW[Goliath, 1990]
DT[2001-04-10]
KM[5.5]
RU[Japanese]
RE[B+31.5];B[qd];W[cd];B[pq];W[co];B[oc];W[po];B[ed];W[cg]
;B[cc];W[bc];B[dc];W[bb];B[hc];W[qq];B[ql];W[qp];B[cq];W[ep]
;B[eq];W[fq];B[bo];W[bp];B[er];W[fp];B[dp];W[do];B[bq];W[cp]
;B[fr];W[pr];B[ph];W[aq];B[hq];W[cl];B[fn];W[go];B[kd];W[fl]
;B[gn];W[ho];B[ol];W[fo];B[hn];W[en];B[dh];W[bi];B[ce];W[dd]
;B[df];W[dg];B[bd];W[ch];B[eg];W[eh];B[fg];W[fh];B[gg];W[io]
;B[jq];W[fm];B[oq];W[or];B[nq];W[mr];B[lq];W[nr];B[mq];W[hi]
;B[lr];W[qn];B[rm];W[rn];B[sn];W[so];B[sm];W[ro];B[oe];W[ig]
;B[ji];W[hh];B[gh];W[gi];B[im];W[jm];B[jl];W[jn];B[il];W[lm]
;B[kg];W[kl];B[kk];W[lk];B[kj];W[lj];B[li];W[mi];B[fi];W[ei]
;B[mj];W[mh];B[ml];W[ll];B[mk];W[lh];B[jh];W[ki];B[ij];W[oj]
;B[ar];W[ap];B[fj];W[gk];B[ni];W[nh];B[oi];W[lf];B[kf];W[le]
;B[ke];W[ld];B[lg];W[mg];B[mf];W[nf];B[me];W[ne];B[md];W[nd]
;B[mc];W[nc];B[od];W[nb];B[lc];W[pb];B[qb];W[ob];B[mb];W[pc]
;B[qc];W[of];B[pf];W[dq];B[dr];W[br];B[dp];W[gr];B[gq];W[ko]
;B[pd];W[no];B[hf];W[kh];B[jg];W[if];B[ie];W[bf];B[pj];W[og]
;B[pg];W[gm];B[mo];W[cr];B[dq];W[ds];B[hr];W[pm];B[nn];W[oo]
;B[cb];W[qa];B[ra];W[pa];B[rb];W[mn];B[mm];W[ln];B[om];W[qm]
;B[rl];W[pl];B[pk];W[ae];B[ad];W[hg];B[ej];W[di];B[ef];W[hk]
;B[ik];W[jf];B[lp];W[je];B[id];W[jd];B[jc];W[on];B[be];W[af]
;B[cf];W[bg];B[ms];W[ns];B[ls];W[nm];B[nl];W[nn];B[hj];W[gj]
;B[na];W[lo];B[mp];W[hl];B[bs];W[as];B[kp];W[ar];B[ip];W[jp]
;B[jo];W[oh];B[pp];W[hm];B[in];W[jp];B[ii];W[jo];B[hp];W[ih]
;B[np];W[gp];B[op];W[oa];B[ma];W[es];B[gs];W[cs];B[fs];W[dj]
;B[tt])