Well I suppose you would like to implement bad non-doubles, bad takes
and bad moves as well. If you can come up with a good way to measure
these, I'm sure the idea stands a much bigger chance of being put in
to gnubg.
Christian.
On 7/25/06, Albert Silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I wasn't sure how to put this in the subject, but the idea is simple enough:
Allow GNU to consider deliberate cubing errors that are played in oredr to
entice larger decisions from the opponent. What this would mean is that
while it could give the absolute values of the equity lost when I doubled
(ex: doubling is a 0.150 blunder), and the equity lost when my opponent made
a mistake in dropping (doubling might be a 0.150 blunder, but my opponent
makes an evenor taking, it would also give an alternative grade/evaluation
allowing for deliberate errors.
Suppose in my position, doubling is a 0.163 blunder, possibly even a beaver,
but I know that my opponent tends to misevaluate these badly and has a good
chance of dropping, losing far more equity in dropping than I sacrificed by
doubling.
GNU Backgammon Position ID: 2KZhgEPD3YEJEA
Match ID : cAmgAAAAEAAA
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: Some Guy
| X X O O | O | O O O X | 0 points
| X O | | O O O |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
v| |BAR| | 5 point match (Cube: 1)
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | X X O |
| O X | | X X O X | On roll
| O X | | X X O X | 2 points
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: You
Cube analysis
2-ply cubeless equity +0.604 (Money: +0.531)
62.9% 34.2% 1.2% - 37.1% 7.9% 0.1%
Cubeful equities:
1. No double +0.574
2. Double, pass +1.000 ( +0.426)
3. Double, take +0.411 ( -0.163)
Proper cube action: No double, take (27.7%)
In such a case, I'd like GNU to be able to give a grade that averages this
out, such as perhaps only attributing a 0.263 equity loss (426 minus 163) to
my opponent.
How would one know when one is a deliberate error? Well, since an alternate
grade would only be valid if you were clever enough to use this to your
advantage, it would make sense to conisder ANY case where both the doubling
decision and the take decision were both mistakes. Consider the cases:
1) I wrongly doubled (not good enough) and you even more wrongly dropped. If
you correctly took, then the blunder would be mine alone.
2) I wrongly doubled (too good) and you even more wrongly took. Again, if
you had correctly dropped, the mistake would be mine alone.
This would allow players with a clear edge over another player, and playing
that edge even more so, to not be incorrectly judged badly due to this. In
other words, a WC player using his edge wouldn't unnecessarily have to see
GNU telling him/her that they doubled like a moron, when in fact they played
even smarter than the 'right' move.
Albert
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
Bug-gnubg@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
Bug-gnubg@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
