I can't really remember. It is entirely reasonable to assume that with the increase in CPU power we can have a better soft spot of prunning net size and number of positions to prune.
-Joseph On 17 February 2011 10:50, Philippe Michel <[email protected]> wrote: > I have tried to use the patch to SSE code that Oystein posted here about one > year ago to compute the pruning nets' outputs (using the current weights > file padded with zeroes at the right places). > > It works and is a little faster than the current way, so I suppose it could > be used as is. The cost for non-SSE processors looks very small and they > could always use the current nets. > > But then the obvious question is : how about using properly trained nets > with 8 and 12 (or 16) hidden nodes ? Could it make a difference in overall > playing strength ? Could it allow faster evaluations thanks to more > aggressive pruning ? > > Do you (especially Joseph) have insights about this ? Were other parameters > tried than 5 and 10 hidden nodes / 10 moves selected ? How did they do ? > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg > _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
