I think that comparing a non double outcome/equity with a specific continuation is problematic. You can make a similar argument with
I choose move 2 instead of move 1 (with a lose of some equity, presumably selecting a more "complex" position for my simple minded opponent), he rolled a 2-1 and I rolled 6-6 and look what a wonderful position I got. This certainly vindicates my choice! If you could determine for each position where the action is a double an estimate of the probability of opponent error you can make an "evaluation" which takes those errors into account, and compare it with the equity against a "gnu level" opponent to get an idea if you were justified in postponing the double. The hitch is obviously in getting a reliable estimate. On 7/26/06, Albert Silver <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----Original Message----- > From: Ian Shaw [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:17 PM > To: Albert Silver; Christian Anthon > Cc: bug-gnubg@gnu.org > Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Permit GNU to consider deliberate cube errors > > > From: Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:53 > > > > Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:11 > > > > Ex: > > > > > > > > Move 1 - Correct Play: D/Take Played: No double My > > Error: -0.048 > > > > Move 2 - Correct Play: D/Pass Played: No double My > > Error: -0.178 > > > > Move 3 - Correct Play: too good Played: D??/Take?? My > > Error: -0.078 > > > > > > > > In this case, the take was a (supposing) 0.560 mega blunder. > > > > It couldn't be much less for taking a double in a Too > > Good position. > > > > In this case, since there was a blunderous Take, not only is the > > > > wrong double deducted from the equity lost by the take, but the > > > > immediately preceding errors I made by not doubling are > > also added > > > > up. This gives 560 - 48 - 178 - 78 = a single 0.256 > > blunder for my > > > > opponent. > > > > > > This is simply wrong. Your opponent has made a 0.56 > > blunder, and must > > > be charged for it irrespective of your errors. > > > > The point is to balance out my error with his. If in absolute > > terms, I did indeed sacrifice equity, to gain further equity, > > then that sacrificed equity shouldn't be ignored, should it? > > Since the idea is to not be punished for this, the only > > logical way I see is to deduce it from larger equity loss of > > my opponent. > > His error is still 0.56. There is more of a case for adjusting your > error by: > > -0.078 - -0.56 = +0.482 i.e. a positive blunder in your favour. Hmmm... That works too if I understand what you mean. The idea as explained is to not be punished for my error, as it wasn't a genuine error in the classic sense, so if this still does that and properly dings the opponent, then great. > > Do you go back to Move 1 and also adjust the -0/048 error? If Move 2's > correct action was ND/T, would move 1 still be re-evaluated? This is > what I was referring to when I talked about taking future moves into > account - future from the current move's POV. No, as I said, it only takes into account *immediately* previous moves. If Move 2 wasn't a mistake, then there are no previous moves to consider. That is the line I draw that you asked about. 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
