On 19 June 2012 09:36, Philippe Michel <philippe.mich...@sfr.fr> wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2012, Philippe Michel wrote: > > The benchmark database for the crashed positions seems seriously >> corrupted. >> > > I have rerolled it. How should I proceed to have it uploaded to > ftp.demon.nl ? > I should remind everyone that the benchmark measures how well the net does against a "hypothetical super computer player" which is fast enough to use rollouts instead of evaluations. Also, the rollout for crashed positions are nowhere near as good as for non-crashed contact. A better approach (better net, more nets, evaluation+rollout hybrid, something else) is still sorely needed. -Joseph > > The change for checker plays is quite large. > > Original database : > > % perr.py -W $DATA/nets/nngnubg.weights $DATA/benchmarks/crashed.bm > 98 Non interesting, 99902 considered for moves. > 0p errors 26022 of 99902 avg 0.00772197376664 > n-out ( 1026 ) 1.03% > 26651 errors of 213398 > cube errors interesting 26651 of 213394 > me 0.00196758116477 eq 0.00016451881191 > cube errors non interesting 0 of 4 > me 0.0 eq 0.0 > > New database : > > % perr.py -W $DATA/nets/nngnubg.weights $DATA/benchmarks/crashed.bmn > 78 Non interesting, 99922 considered for moves. > 0p errors 24169 of 99922 avg 0.00599333832388 > n-out ( 578 ) 0.58% > 26662 errors of 213398 > cube errors interesting 26662 of 213391 > me 0.00201874481948 eq 0.000165458107733 > cube errors non interesting 0 of 7 > me 0.0 eq 0.0 > > I think there was nothing wrong with the cube results and the small > discrepancy is only due to the different weights files used in the rollouts. > > > ______________________________**_________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > Bug-gnubg@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/**listinfo/bug-gnubg<https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg> >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
