i have a net that won 67.5% out of 20k matches.
It has 40 hidden units and relatively simple inputs (dummies for 1, 2 and more
than 3 stones, and an integer for the excess of 3)
note: it doesnt have a notion of gammons yet. Does this make it less
comparable?
gr boomslang
________________________________
From: Mark Higgins <migg...@gmail.com>
To: bug-gnubg@gnu.org
Sent: Tuesday, 17 January 2012, 6:28
Subject: [Bug-gnubg] pubeval benchmark
How does gnubg perform against the pubeval benchmark in cubeless play?
I ask because I'm playing around with a backgammon network and have got one
that wins 83% of games and +0.945ppg against pubeval (10k cubeless games). This
is a single 80-hidden-node network with outputs for prob of win, prob of gammon
win, and prob of gammon loss; and just the original Tesauro inputs. 0-ply.
But in the TD-Gammon scholarpedia article it says that TD-Gammon 2.1 in 1-ply
mode wins only +0.596ppg against pubeval. (I think 1-ply here means the gnubg
0-ply.)
http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Td-gammon
That seems really low compared to my result, since I'm pretty sure 2.1 had
gammon outputs and also extra customized inputs.
So I'm wondering if I'm interpreting this correctly, or if I have an
incorrectly-setup version of pubeval, or something like that.
_______________________________________________
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
