Interestingly enough, after doing some experiments (with evaluations, not rollouts), I am unsure there is a ³bug² here. The position seems very volatile if you factor in potential future cube decisions. It may just be a fluke that 1 and 2 ply got it right (It didn¹t look deep enough to see future cube actions). I¹d like to hear feedback from others on this.
With that in mind I asked GnuBG to tell me (as an experiment) what the result would be if the checker play evaluations on cube decisions were cubeless, and except for 0 ply everything came out Double/take. On a side note, and I am wondering how other people feel about this. On the Hint screen (or on analysis pane for analyzed positions) you have the ³0/1/2/3/4² buttons Each corresponds to a ³cubeful N play evaluation². I have always found this not be be very intuitive. My expectation would be that ³0/1/2/3/4² would use the existing settings that you can see with ³...² and simply change the ply level for cube and checker (and keep all other settings like cubeful/cubeless/noise/filter the same). I found myself wanting to do cubeless checker play evaluations on cube decisions and I kept having to click ³...² change the ply level manually, click OK, then hit the Eval button. My view is that if I hit those buttons ³0/1/2/3/4² I want to see the difference at each ply level with respect to my current eval settings. Michael On 27/08/09 2:24 PM, "Neil Robins" <[email protected]> wrote: > I have same result as initially on a different computer with 20090612 version. >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >> From: Michael Petch <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> To: Neil Robins <mailto:[email protected]> >> >> Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2009 9:05 PM >> >> Subject: Re: Requested gnubgautorc >> >> >> >> Something is very bizarre. I¹m going to try some experiments with some >> internal features of Gnubg turned off. But as you suggested in your post, >> exiting Gnubg and restarting alters the outcomes. but then I have found >> sometimes all plies start giving the right output. >> >> On 27/08/09 1:43 PM, "Neil Robins" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >>> Strangely, I am yet to see a problem with any other position. >>> >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
