The learning rate was the real lever, not the network's size
We grew the YINSH game AI to a larger brain and discovered one hardcoded number had been silently defeating the idea before it got started.
We grew the YINSH game AI to a larger brain and discovered one hardcoded number had been silently defeating the idea before it got started.
270 generations of self-play on one GPU. A bigger network and a stricter referee won; the cheap clever tricks lost; the next lever is a hardware upgrade, not another idea.
After I made the YINSH AI's practice cheap, the referee became the slow part. I diagnosed the bottleneck, built a careful fix, proved it correct — and it made zero difference. This is the story of why a flat performance curve fooled me, and how to ship an honest negative result.
The YINSH AI thought a win one move away and a win a hundred moves away were exactly the same thing. Fixing that — teaching it to prefer winning sooner — made it both stronger and cheaper to run, and taught me the value network is a search multiplier, not just a scorekeeper.
The YINSH AI spends two-thirds of its training time practicing against itself. Three planned changes cut that time — the biggest replaces 800 brute-force look-aheads per move with about 50 clever ones — under one hard rule: it must not get less creative.