Re: [Bug-gnubg] Is GNUBG actively developed?

[Ian Shaw]

I'd be interested to hear, too. Øystein and I made little progress trying to 
train the nets using TD training, supervised learning against the rollout 
database, or a combination of both. Any gains we made were marginal, at best.

Øystein did a lot of work on speed improvements, and had some success with 
that. I don't know if they could easily be integrated back into gnubg, though.

-- Ian



-----Original Message-----
From: address@hidden [mailto:address@hidden On Behalf Of Mark Higgins
Sent: 14 January 2013 23:52
To: Philippe Michel
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Is GNUBG actively developed?

What training approach have you been using, if you don't mind elaborating?


On Jan 14, 2013, at 5:26 PM, Philippe Michel <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Stelios Togias wrote:
> 
>> I was just wondering if is GnuBG being actively developed. Not so 
>> much as in the GUI/program part as in the neural networks part. Is it 
>> considered mature or there's still training and maybe improvement taking 
>> place?
> 
> I have been training new neural nets (with the input features unchanged) for 
> some time and I'm almost done with it.
> 
> With them, gnubg should get significantly better on average and (as far as I 
> can see), suffer from few gross regressions in specific positions. It would 
> most probably still be a little weaker than eXtreme Gammon 2, though.
> 
> I posted a link to intermediate results there : 
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnubg/2012-09/msg00008.html
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg

_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg