Hi, It is heart warming to see that the race net can be improved still :)
The benchmark rates the new crashed net as stronger, which is great too, but the new contact net is rated weaker in moves (0.0104453134853 vs 0.0104996763558), stronger in cube actions. -Joseph On 22 June 2012 09:37, Philippe Michel <[email protected]> wrote: > The attached files are drop-in alternatives to gnubg and gnubg-nn weights > files. > > The crashed net is substantially stronger, the racing net should be > slightly better and the contact network should benefit from that for > positions soon to be crashed or non-contact but remain relatively unchanged > elsewhere. There could be gross regressions in certain cases of course. > > I'd be interested if some of you have private benchmarks or some process > that could quantify the difference in strength (in ppg or Elo) between > these and the 0.90.0 nets for "normal" usages like 2ply cubeful play. > > In the gnubg-nn benchmarks, the improvement for 1ply checker play is > important compared to that of 0- and 2ply. It would be interesting to check > if this translates to a clearer strength hierarchy between 2ply and 3ply > than with the current nets. > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg > >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
