Re: [Bug-gnubg] pubeval benchmark

[boomslang]

i have a net that won 67.5% out of 20k matches. 

It has 40 hidden units and relatively simple inputs (dummies for 1, 2 and more than 3 stones, and an integer for the excess of 3)

note: it doesnt have a notion of gammons yet.  Does this make it less comparable?

gr boomslang

---

From: Mark Higgins <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 6:28
Subject: [Bug-gnubg] pubeval benchmark

How does gnubg perform against the pubeval benchmark in cubeless play?

I ask because I'm playing around with a backgammon network and have got one that wins 83% of games and +0.945ppg against pubeval (10k cubeless games). This is a single 80-hidden-node network with outputs for prob of win, prob of gammon win, and prob of gammon loss; and just the original Tesauro inputs. 0-ply.

But in the TD-Gammon scholarpedia article it says that TD-Gammon 2.1 in 1-ply mode wins only +0.596ppg against pubeval. (I think 1-ply here means the gnubg 0-ply.)

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Td-gammon

That seems really low compared to my result, since I'm pretty sure 2.1 had gammon outputs and also extra customized inputs.

So I'm wondering if I'm interpreting this correctly, or if I have an incorrectly-setup version of pubeval, or something like that.


_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg