Ned Cross wrote:
| Build 0.14 Devel 2004Oct28 on Win2000.
|
| 1) I have to use the English-UK setting because the English-US puts a
huge
| whitespace in the analysis window making it unusable (I think this was
| already identified, and it's not a big deal to use English-UK but some
users
| might not think of that).
Fixed!
| 2) Settings/Analysis will not let me do full cube nor chequer analysis
| "without" using neural net pruning. Same problem for Evaluation
settings as
| well. --> Do settings/analysis and UN-check "use neural net pruning", OK
| and then settings/save settings. "Settings saved to .gnubgautorc", yet
| close and reopen GNUBG and settings/analysis reveals "use neural net
| pruning" is checked again! (likewise for Evaluation).
Fixed!
| 3) Move filter for Tiny is still selecting 8 candidates, 0.080. Seems
like
| a lot of candidates for "tiny". I recall some users doing rollout tests
| that gave very good results with 5 candidates, .100. OK nevermind I just
| checked the 29SEP2004 buld and the tiny filter was 8 candidates then
as well
| so I guess that's how it has been...I thought it used to be 4 candidates.
'Tiny' is now redefined to 5 candidates within 0.08.
| 4) Settings/Analysis GUI: the tooltips on the analysis and evaluation
| settings dialogs sometimes persist instead of disappearing. This
makes it
| difficult to make selections, and I sometimes have to drag the window
across
| the screen to uncover the OK button so I can close the dialog and
continue
| using the program. This has been going on for some time, not just
with this
| latest build, but I suppose it could have something to do with my
graphics
| card if noone else is having the trouble.
Can't fix.
| 5) Of course the biggest problem of all is the sometimes poor results
of the
| pruning net in rollouts combined with the inability to use the old
| evaluations at reduced speed. 2-ply rollouts performed at 50% checker
and
| 33% cube speed have proven quite accurate and considerably faster than
2-ply
| 100%. 2-ply prune rollouts, while faster per number of trials, are not
| proving as accurate, and have very high standard error rates, making them
| possibly unusable.
No comment.
-Øystein