[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Training neural nets: How does size matter?
From: |
Douglas Zare |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Training neural nets: How does size matter? |
Date: |
Sun, 1 Sep 2002 04:31:17 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.1 |
Quoting Joern Thyssen <address@hidden>:
> On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 09:56:28AM +0200, Øystein O Johansen wrote
> > Hi,
> >
> > gnubg uses a race network, a contact network and a crashed network.
> > I think these scheme works OK. The crashed network is a not mature
> > yet, but there is work in progress. There has also been discussions
> > about splitting into more classes. I guess this will be done
> > eventually, but we must take one step at the time. Two years ago
> > there was also a network called BPG, (Backgame and Prime). There
> > was really some problems with this net, so is was removed.
>
> As far as I remember the problem back then was that a position could be
> BPG, then turn into contact, and back into BPG.
That does make it more difficult to bootstrap, but was that the real problem?
> There is discontinuities are the boundaries between two neural nets,
> i.e., the evaluate the same position differently. For example, that may
> lead to the program refusing to break contact, as the contact neural net
> overestimates the contact position. As I remeber it the big problem with
> the BPG net was huge discontinuities at the boundaries.
>
> The conclusion was that we should avoid "loops". For example, currently
> we have:
>
>
> Contact ----------- Race ------ Bearoff
> \ /
> \__ Crashed __/
>
> so no loops. Another way to avoid the discontinuities is the meta-pi
> scheme, since this will make the evaluations continuous. The price is
> that you, in general, have to evaluate two neural nets.
Would two neural nets and a meta-pi system be better than one neural net of
twice the size? I don't see the advantage, abstractly, although I can imagine
that one would mainly focus on the race in a midpoint vs. midpoint contact
position. (On the other hand, Walter Trice mentioned a very interesting
midpoint vs. midpoint position that would be a big pass due to the race, but
was a take due to the pips wasted on repeated x-1's.)
I call the discontinuities "blemishes" after Boyan. I think both humans and
neural nets face a problem related to blemishes when considering radically
different positions that can result from playing doubles in different ways. It
hardly matters if the contact net is used to evaluate both a blitz and an
outside prime, as there is little reason for the evaluations to be consistent.
One solution I try in my own play is to be able to produce better absolute
evaluations, e.g., "After this move, am I the favorite? Should I accept if my
opponent offers me a point on a 2-cube?" This has prevented a few massive
blunders, and I think it is actually a strength of bots, not a weakness.
How did you try to find a representative set of data to train the backgame net?
Is there an archive of the discussions?
Douglas Zare
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Training neural nets: How does size matter?,
Douglas Zare <=