I am not sure if you refer to benchmark or training positions. The benchmark positions were taken from actual gnubg games. The training positions were indeed incremental, where at each stage positions mis handled by the current stage are added.
On 7/18/06, Albert Silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are the positions used, ones that Gnubg gets wrong? Or are they just typical positions of certain types of situations? If no, would it be beneficial to use positions it gets wrong? Albert > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:bug-gnubg- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joseph Heled > Sent: Monday, July 17, 2006 12:45 PM > To: Ian Shaw > Cc: bug-gnubg@gnu.org > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Is it time for Gnubg 0.15? Re-rolling the > positiondatabase. > > On 7/18/06, Ian Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Joseph Heled [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 17 July 2006 16:05 > > > To: Ian Shaw > > > Cc: bug-gnubg@gnu.org > > > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Is it time for Gnubg 0.15? > > > Re-rolling the position database. > > > > > > Hi Ian, > > > > > > Yes, it would be great to improve the playing level of gnubg > > > once more. Here are (yet again) my thoughts and comments. > > > > > > The net was not trained from the rollout results, but by > > > using 2 ply evaluations. The best I could come up with > > > resulted from the choice which positions to include in the > > > training set. And for my particular training method, more was > > > frequently not better. > > > > > I've just been reading old archive posts, e.g. > > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2003-11/msg00104.html, and > > realised that my description was incorrect. I guess I'm a victim of > > wanting to have a simple explanation to a question, but the reality is > > much more complex. > > > > So how exactly were the rollout results used? Are they just used as a > > benchmark for trying out new neural nets. As such, can we safely assume > > that they are still accurate enough, three years on, to be the gold > > standard? If so, I would be wasting my time re-rolling them. Should I > > just drop the idea? > > While originally I thought they would make a good training base, that > turned out not to be the case. And yes, there were used as (a very > valuable) benchmark. I did some selective re-rolls at the time, and > for the purpose of a benchmark there is very little reason to re-roll > them. > > > > > My personal view is that to move past the next step we need a > > > new method to generate an evaluation net. this requires some > > > thought and research by someone other than me, as I am set in my ways. > > > > > > > I have some ideas, but that's another thread. It's by far the most > > radical approach, but quite likely the most rewarding, both in terms of > > playing strength and enjoyable design and implementation. > > By far that would be the best use of your time and energy. > > -Joseph > > > > > -- Ian > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > Bug-gnubg@gnu.org > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
