{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030/events","html_url":"https://github.com/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030","id":304758264,"number":1030,"title":"Bigger, stronger, not faster (4dc12a8e etc)","user":{"login":"gcp","id":1104290,"avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/1104290?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp","html_url":"https://github.com/gcp","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/gcp/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":191,"created_at":"2018-03-13T13:10:53Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T12:43:53Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"OWNER","body":"There are a number of tests with bigger networks running, notably 128x20 and 192x10 configurations. Probably due to issue #1025, the 128x20 networks failed rather badly, but 192x10 has been doing OK (it was not affected by the bug due to fortunate circumstances).\r\n\r\nIf the new networks are noticeably stronger than the best 128x10, it makes sense to switch. It looks like we may already be very close to this point. \r\n\r\nWhat the boundary *exactly* is is not so clear: if 128x10 has stalled (it has not, so far), then it's clear. If the new net is several hundreds of Elo stronger, then it's clear. In the middle there's some trade-off between having 1/2 the games played at a higher level, versus being able to iterate new networks faster at a smaller size. I am not worrying too much about this zone, as inevitably we will hit either of the \"clear\" cases sooner rather than later.\r\n\r\nI would also prefer to be able to retrain the 128x20 so it can be tested against 192x10, but I don't consider it a blocker for moving up (if 128x20 ends up surpassing 192x10 significantly, we'll just let it promote...).\r\n\r\n(I originally planned for 128x10 to be the \"final size\" for this \"first run\", but the progress made with bootstrap/net2net, improved client speed and the current strength are certainly making me want to keep going at it for a bit longer...)"},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero/issues/comments/374583840","html_url":"https://github.com/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030#issuecomment-374583840","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcp/leela-zero/issues/1030","id":374583840,"user":{"login":"jkiliani","id":33714573,"avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/33714573?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani","html_url":"https://github.com/jkiliani","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jkiliani/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2018-03-20T12:43:53Z","updated_at":"2018-03-20T12:43:53Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"A while ago, @alreadydone raised the point that switching to -v 3201 would result in better compression ratio for the training data, any thoughts on that?"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"jkiliani"}}