I think Øystein 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 <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > Øystein Schønning-Johansen > Sent: 12 February 2012 16:39 > To: Mark Higgins > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db > > > > 2012/2/12 Mark Higgins <[email protected]> > 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 > 107485 > > 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. > > -Øystein >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
