| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author |
|---|
|
Gone is the convolutional neural network, for it turns out not only is
it more difficult to train, but all of the extra information about
board layers didn't make much of a difference at this size.
So cnn1986 has been replaced by nn1986, a standard, two-layer, dense
nn configured as a binary classifier and (mis)used in that capacity.
Note: total number of parameters is unchanged.
HARK: this new nn exposes a bug somewhere in ctak. Run ctlm with
self-play to see the completely borked board state at the end.
|
|
I tried the following, but they all made things worse:
- moving away from the singly-linked (tail tracking) list for actions
by:
+ using an array zipper for a deque
+ using an array to poorly hold a floating deque
- caching the results of generating move lists in the transposition
table and then
+ copying the resulting list/zip/deque instead of generating it
+ applying the move-to-front without copying, but this made the
search order worse. Presumably in this case shallower nodes were
messing up the search tree with garbage moves?
I think some of this is not supposed to happen, but i have just the
right combination of poor evaluation function and naively ordered and
cheap move generation that i'm in a local minimum here.
|
|
Eventually there'll be a more complicated data generation step than
the one we're presently using, so having it in-lined in the loop is
wasteful. Ideally also this would be update per ply and we could avoid
recalculating it entirely for every query -- though it's probably
``fast enough'' for now. Also, caching is WIP.
|
|
|
|
If TEI is implemented, then i could make use of Morten's
racetrack (https://github.com/MortenLohne/racetrack) and develop a
quantitative measure of the bot's performance. This is the current
priority.
|
|
``Common wisdom'' dictates that placements are often better than stack
moves, so we bias the generated move list in this fashion. Seems to be
a little faster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
For now we'll stay with directly recomputing it at each non-terminal
node
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
