Author: James Swafford
Date: 11:34:09 01/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2001 at 12:11:32, Bas Hamstra wrote: >Hi James! > >On January 06, 2001 at 11:48:44, James Swafford wrote: > > >I started with all weights zero. To see it did something reasonable, I let it >play a pool of 100 slightly randomized hand-tuned evals. You don't need 100 >programs, just 100 weight sets and one program. It then learns to score 50% in >200 or 300 games. I plotted the weights real time in a graph to see how they >developed. This was my first test. Second step was to put it in my console based >"real" program and it is playing Crafty right now. Seems to me it would help things along if you started with reasonable values. I think Tridgell / Baxter started with all weights = 0, too, with KnightCap, and remarked the same thing. > >>2. What do you mean by "wrong trend?" I suppose you mean a term >>is "drifting" the wrong way... becoming more negative when it should >>be going more positive? > >Yep. Say 90% of the weights tend to show reasonable values. But a few don't at >all. It might be that it needs more games, though. I am not sure if this is the >fastest way of automatic parameter tuning. Maybe some kind of "weight fitting" >on a large set of positions is more efficient, but how? What would happen if you "moved" those weights to where you think they belong? > >>3. How are you training your evaluator? With a wide variety of >>opponents, or by playing the same programs over and over, or ??? >>How many games have you played? > >Right now I am playing Crafty for a couple of hundreds of 1 0 games. Hmmm.... so you're training your evaluator to play the best it can against Crafty at 1 0. Why not ICC (or FICS) against a wide variety of opponents? I'd prefer slightly slower time controls, too, although I know with that many games time gets to be a problem... > >>4. Does your engine compete on ICC? > >A couple of times. But mostly FICS. The TD version has not played there yet. By >the way: I compared what it learns from a) wins b) losses c) draws. In my >opinion a) and c) did not do well. So now I only learn from losses. Never change >a winning team. Yes, that makes sense. Thanks for the info! Maybe we can share notes in a few months... -- James
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.