Recent net improvements are not by me. (built on the the framework I established, I think, but using modern computing power unheard of 15 years ago).
That is why I suggested a "weaker net". Unlike noise, it usually plays weaker but not by doing silly things due to random noise. more like a weaker human. On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 14:04, Ian Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: > > What do you think of using 0-ply with a little noise introduced? > > I have played around a little with that in the past and too much noise causes > Gnubg to do very silly things that I doubt a human would do. > > Another option might be to use a very old build of Gnubg. There are some > significant strength gains along the way to our current version. You did the > neural net, you would know that better than anyone :-) > > On Wednesday, 27 November 2019, 11:38:17 am AEDT, Joseph Heled > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 at 13:25, Ian Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi Joseph, > > > > " > > That is why I, personally, would like to see proof it really matters. like: > > > > -- Take a weak player - with the "weakest" MET file and the > > "strongest" - and show a significant difference. > > > > " > > > > I understand your viewpoint. When Gergely and I can get the scripts and any > > bug-fixes sorted we will first do some preliminary testing as you suggest. > > > > I think 0-ply v 0-ply using the Woolsey MET vs the Kaz-XG2 MET might be the > > way to start. > > > > Then 2-ply v 2-ply using the Woolsey MET vs the Kaz-XG2 MET is probably > > needed as well for comparison. > > > > Let's see what comes from these sorts of tests and move on from there. > > > > I think I probably need to ask Xavier how he arrived at his supposedly > > 'significant difference' of 0.4 ELO between the ExtremGammon MET and the > > Roc-Kaz MET. > > > > GNUBG ply-0 might not be weak enough :) I might be wrong here, but I > "wanted" a weak player in the belief it will be easier to establish > statistical significance. But I might be wrong and it is the other > way. To get a weaker player you probably need to use a "weaker/lesser > trained net". > > > -Joseph > > > Cheers, Ian. > > On Wednesday, 27 November 2019, 05:59:09 am AEDT, Joseph Heled > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ian and bg fans, > > > > I would like to clarify my own view RE your post and the other replies. > > > > Any BG playing bot is a complex entity. GNUBG uses two-sided bearoff > > tables, one-sided bearoff tables, three different types of neural > > nets, not to mention my "pruning nets" -- And all this just to guess > > the cubeless probabilities. For match play it uses the MET file and > > *an algorithm* to covert cubeless to cubeful. GNUBG uses the > > code+formulas by Joern Thyssen, which I never understood fully, and > > was always slightly skeptical of. My own cube code is based on linear > > interpolating, based on the ideas here > > (https://bkgm.com/articles/met.html) which I think is the right > > approach (danalyze.cc in gnubg-nn). > > > > Yes, those are details, but they matter. The playing abilities of a > > bot are a complex emergent property of the system. The MET table is > > just one part, and focusing on it is <very-personal-opinion>enormously > > premature</very-personal-opinion>. My own experience indicates the > > system as a whole is not that sensitive to the MET. That is why I, > > personally, would like to see proof it really matters. like: > > > > -- Take a weak player - with the "weakest" MET file and the > > "strongest" - and show a significant difference. > > > > Then we can start debating if it is worth while to "improve" the MET. > > We have to use BOTS to develop this even if it is intended for human > > use. Humans can't generate enough test data. > > > > I have more thoughts, but that is enough on this topic :) > > > > -Joseph > > > > On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 at 22:44, Ian Dunstan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi team, > > > > > > I have tried several subscription attempts to the email list directly, I > > > think, without success. After finding the archives I see that there have > > > been a number of replies to my first post. I didn't read them until very > > > recently I wasn't ignoring your feedback, I just had not viewed it. Thank > > > you, all, for what I received. Also, I apologise that this post almost > > > certainly starts a new thread, though I considered it more important to > > > make a response now. > > >
