Yes - you are right, 70% for a correct answer is what the talk says. Id misremembered the higher (~99%) numbers because for my purpose (simulating many random deals compatible with known cards to get probability distributions on hidden card positions and trick taking possibilities in each suit/notrumps ) a one trick error is quite acceptable. I agree a more straightforward architecture is a promising approach. Once I have generated weights in a form usable in C, I am also curious as to whether they can direct DDS's tree search as a kind of probabilistic oracle.
(There was some Ben code to use a neural net double dummy evaluator, because Ive used it, but it was removed. Ill try and find the git point it was removed.)
(There was some Ben code to use a neural net double dummy evaluator, because Ive used it, but it was removed. Ill try and find the git point it was removed.)