[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db

From: Mark Higgins
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2012 16:47:31 +0000

I think Ã˜ystein was talking about gnubg 0-ply when he quoted 1125.

My best player scores much worse than that - around 1495. 

On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:52 PM, Ian Shaw <address@hidden> wrote:

1125 is a great result. Gnubg contact benchmarks at about 1122, so your net is pretty much as good as gnubg. 1 point of contact-benchmark error is about 156.5 micropoints/game advantage.


We’ve managed to get as low as 1073 with the standard 250 inputs, but it took a 512 hidden nodes to do it, which would kill performance if we used it in the production gnubg.


Are you prepared to discuss your extra inputs?


n  Ian



From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=address@hidden] On Behalf Of Øystein Schønning-Johansen
Sent: 12 February 2012 16:39
To: Mark Higgins
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db



2012/2/12 Mark Higgins <address@hidden>

My best player (TD trained, race & contact networks, a couple extra inputs beyond the standard Tesauro ones) has an average error of 0.0164ppg/move in the contact set, so not surprisingly worse than GNUbg (I assume 1125 means 0.01125ppg/move?).



No, I mean total error over the file.


> grep -e '^m ' contact.bm | wc -l



1125 is the total error over all these 107485 positions. That makes an average error of 0.010466577 Equity points pr positon in the contact.bm file.




reply via email to

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