Thx - I'll run it longer and with more hidden nodes and see what happens.
On Dec 11, 2011, at 5:44 PM, Joseph Heled <jhe...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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