[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11
From: |
Frank Berger |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 89, Issue 11 |
Date: |
Fri, 30 Apr 2010 00:01:13 +0200 |
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