My experience tells me that 100,000 trials may not be sufficient. With today's computing power it should be easy to do at least a couple of millions.
-Joseph On 12 December 2011 11:22, Mark Higgins <migg...@gmail.com> wrote: > I tried a little experiment on this: a 10-hidden-node network with a single > probability-of-win output, but two setups. The first doesn't have a "whose > turn is it" input and doesn't add any symmetry constraints. The second has > the extra inputs for the turn and makes the symmetry constraint I described. > > I trained them in parallel and benchmarked them against pub eval and against > each other. > > The symmetric case performed a little better: it trained more quickly, did > better against pub eval, and was on par or a little better than the other > case when playing head to head. > > Details and data here: > > http://compgammon.blogspot.com/2011/12/testing-value-of-symmetry-constraint.html > > Of course not conclusive with such a simple setup, but kind of suggestive > anyways. > > > > > On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Mark Higgins wrote: > >> Thx! Makes sense. Though I wonder if adding back in the "whose move is it" >> input and reducing the hidden->output weights by half ends up as a net >> benefit for training. Maybe I'll test it out. >> >> >> >> On Dec 10, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Frank Berger <fr...@bgblitz.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Mark, >>> >>>> If I take a given board and translate the position into the inputs and >>>> then evaluate the network, it gives me a probability of win. If I then >>>> flip the board's perspective (ie white vs black) and do the same, I get >>>> another probability of win. Those two probabilities should sum to 1, since >>>> one or the other player must win (or equivalently, the probability of >>>> white winning = probability of black losing = 1 - probability of black >>>> winning). >>> >>> >>> I assume your assumption is wrong. IIRC in an earlier paper there was an >>> input to indicate who's on. It is much simpler to present the position from >>> the point of the moving player, because the net has to learn less. I'm not >>> that familiar with the gnubg code, but I think they do it in this way, so >>> you can't just turn the perspective. >>> >>> ciao >>> Frank >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Bug-gnubg mailing list >>> Bug-gnubg@gnu.org >>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg > > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > Bug-gnubg@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg