On 24 June 2012 13:38, Joseph Heled <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I take this back. After updating the contact benchmark to include all missing positions, the new net comes out ahead. The crashed benchmark need to be updated as well. I am very interested to know how those nets were generated? -Joseph > > -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
