Yes, that’s 0-ply. I think I gave results for higher plies in another thread.
n Ian From: Mark Higgins [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 February 2012 16:48 To: Ian Shaw Cc: Øystein Schønning-Johansen; [email protected] Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db 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]<mailto:[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]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Øystein Schønning-Johansen Sent: 12 February 2012 16:39 To: Mark Higgins Cc: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db 2012/2/12 Mark Higgins <[email protected]<mailto:[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<http://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<http://contact.bm> file. -Øystein
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
