|Subject:||Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db|
|Date:||Sun, 12 Feb 2012 11:13:25 -0500|
My best player (TD trained, race & contact networks, a couple extra inputs beyond the standard Tesauro ones) has an average error of 0.0164ppg/move in the contact set, so not surprisingly worse than GNUbg (I assume 1125 means 0.01125ppg/move?).
I also was curious which benchmark set was most relevant for predicting match score, since of course a real game is a mixture of the positions. I took a bunch of my players, of varying skills, and calculated the average error rate for the three benchmark sets; and also played each against PubEval for 40k cubeless money games. Then I regressed the score in those games against the benchmark ERs to see which was most important (using R^2 as a proxy for importance).
Turns out the contact benchmark is most relevant, followed by crashed. Race is not that important.
On Feb 12, 2012, at 8:51 AM, Øystein Schønning-Johansen wrote:
I've looped through all 'm'-positionsThe following way:
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|