Hi Ian, tnx for the info.
Yes, BGBlitz uses TD-Lambda training only. I assume that your TD-Lambda code migt have a small quirk somewhere. At least that was my experience when I started some years ago based on the net of eric groleau. I was sure my encoding was better, but I couldn't get it playing stronger and the net was stuck at intermediate strength. So I decided to start from scratch. Two years later I found that I had a small bug in the encoding where for one input the sign for Gammons was wrong..... I made some experiments with training a 1-ply net with a 2-ply net (0 and 1 -ply in Gnu speak :)) but it was terribly slow and after around 3 weeks there was a slight decrease in playing strength. It might have been a transition to better play but it was so slow, that I wasn't patient enough :)) ciao Frank > Frank, I mis-remembered our test results. We have seen steadily > increasing performance as we have gone through 40, 80, 128 (gnubg's > current size) and 180 hidden nodes. 200 nodes is roughly the same as 180 > so far, and I'm not sure what really happened to the 512 node test - I > can't find the results right now. > > One of our problems is to get the best training out of the network. So > far, our best efforts have been when we started with temporal difference > training, then switched to supervised training when that stalls. > > So far, this has worked better that temporal difference or supervised > training alone. We can't explain why, and it is a problem because it > requires manual intervention. We would like a single training method > that convergence to optimal performance, because this will make it much > easier to try new things. > > You seem to get by on purely TD training, don't you. > > -- Ian _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
