bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Cmarked rollouts some moves stopping short of set trial


From: Christian Anthon
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Cmarked rollouts some moves stopping short of set trials
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:17:16 +0100

Probably the machine I wrote the code on, wasn't fast enough to
trigger the problem. I'll take a look.

Christian.

On Sun, Jan 17, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Philippe Michel
<address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010, Christian Anthon wrote:
>
>> As usual an example makes the problem easier to track...
>
>> On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Michael Depreli
>> <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>
>>> Since updating to build 20091230 I'm having problems with cmarked
>>> rollouts
>>> stopping
>>> short of the set trials for some moves.
>>> I'm using 1296 trials minimum 720 if jsd 2.33 is reached.
>>>
>>> I'm seeing that one move has reached 1296 but the others seem to be
>>> stopping
>>> at anything between 1295 and 1285 trials typically.  JSD has NOT been
>>> reached.
>
> With a setup similar to Michael's (set rollout trials 1296, set rollout jsd
> minimumgames 324), I get the same kind of behaviour all the time. Something
> like :
>
>        1296 games, Mersenne Twister dice gen. with seed 845589805 and
> quasi-random dice
>        1291 games, Mersenne Twister dice gen. with seed 845589805 and
> quasi-random dice
>        1292 games, Mersenne Twister dice gen. with seed 845589805 and
> quasi-random dice
>
> for three candidate moves, and sometimes it even gets to a little below 1290
>
> It doesn't particularly shocks me, although it would be nice if the rollouts
> were stopped at exactly 1296.
>
> I think I read a comment somewhere (maybe in this list or in the code) that
> with multithreading and the current way to stop rollouts this was to be
> expected. Since most recent changes in rollout code are yours, Christian, it
> may even have been you who would have written that.
>
> Maybe these discrepancies are larger than you thought. Maybe they are
> smaller with the more common dual core systems but can get larger with 4 or
> more cores ? Above example is with 4 threads.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Philippe Michel




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]