|Subject:||Re: [Bug-gnubg] "Joseph-ID" in benchmark db|
|Date:||Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:52:33 +0000|
1125 is a great result. Gnubg contact benchmarks at about 1122, so your net is pretty much as good as gnubg. 1 point of contact-benchmark error is about 156.5 micropoints/game advantage.
We’ve managed to get as low as 1073 with the standard 250 inputs, but it took a 512 hidden nodes to do it, which would kill performance if we used it in the production gnubg.
Are you prepared to discuss your extra inputs?
From: bug-gnubg-bounces+address@hidden [mailto:bug-gnubg-bounces+address@hidden
On Behalf Of Øystein Schønning-Johansen
2012/2/12 Mark Higgins <address@hidden>
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?).
No, I mean total error over the file.
> grep -e '^m ' contact.bm | wc -l
1125 is the total error over all these 107485 positions. That makes an average error of 0.010466577 Equity points pr positon in the contact.bm file.
|[Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread]|