Ian Shaw wrote: > Astonishingly, it's been about three years since version 0.14 of gnubg was > released. It has proved to be superior to JellyFish and at least the equal of > Snowie 4. Since then, BgBlitz has arrived as a serious opponent, and rumours > of Z-bot's approach persist. If it ever arrives, I'm sure it will be a strong > player. > > I think we've rested on our laurels long enough, and it's about time we > started trying to improve the playing strength of our favourite bot. > > I can think of several ways where might seek to make improvements: > > A) Speed up the evaluation function so gnubg can search faster, and maybe > deeper. > B) Improve the evaluation function by changing the neural net inputs or > hidden nodes. > C) Retrain the existing net using a new set of training positions. > D) Retrain the existing net using newer rollouts of the current set of > training positions.
Is having more neural nets a good idea? The race net does seem nearly perfect, the crashed net is quite specialised, this seems to leave a lot of positions for the contact net (the vast majority I guess). If we split the contact positions up into several/lots of different categorises (e.g. back games, holding games, prime positions) would this produce a stronger bot? I've deliberately side-stepped how you would exactly define these types of positions and also the worked involved... Just wondered if it was a direction worth considering? Jon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
