I also have many modern computers at disposal if we proceed with the training
El lun., 19 oct. 2020 a las 16:33, Turker Eflanli (<[email protected]>) escribió: > I have three computers that can do approximately 250,000 static > evaluations / second each: I am happy to help in any way I can > > Turker Eflanli > > On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 2:29 PM Øystein Schønning-Johansen < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 19, 2020 at 7:52 PM Joseph Heled <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> I can comment on that: my experience from 20 years ago was that at some >>> stage adding positions started to hurt the net performance. It is always a >>> balancing act between getting the common/regular positions right and >>> getting the edge cases right. I think that whatever you do you might want >>> to start fresh and see how my "method" (as you outlined above) can be >>> improved. >>> >> >> Yes, I think I remember that you have mentioned that before. The >> reasoning behind it might be due to the size (hence capacity) of the neural >> network. Maybe, with a bigger and deeper neural network, and modern >> training algorithms, a bigger training set can be used and still get better >> performance. As you say, there is a sweet spot between getting the common >> positions right, and then getting the edge cases right. >> >> Yes, the outlined method is (of course) Joseph's idea. In my view, he is >> the best backgammon neural network trainer. Maybe I should start this >> process on my own, and gain some experience before involving a community >> with effort. It will be really unfortunate if we waste resources on a >> braindead idea. >> >> How can the outlined idea be improved? Before I get into that, I think I >> need some experience, but maybe see if there's some special kind of >> positions that's over or under represented in the set, and then >> automagically (in some way) detect these? >> >> -Øystein >> >
