I wonder if this is just the net or the cube code contributes as well. As you know, the cube code in gnubg-nn is different from the one used in gnubg. (my own dewvelopment). I always thought it did better, but it will be interesting if someone verifies it, and offers it as a gnubg option (especially with regard to the odd/even issue).
-Joseph On 5 January 2012 21:17, Massimiliano Maini <[email protected]> wrote: > On 5 January 2012 02:20, Joseph Heled <[email protected]> wrote: > > Seems like you got a very very slightly better race net, but I would be > > surprised if it makes a difference in real life. > > > > Would be much more interesting to > > - get a better contact or crashed net > > - expand the roll-out database for all categories (should be easy with > the > > current availability of cycles) > > - improve cube decisions (this is a hard one) > > - improve back game evaluation and play (very hard one) > > > > -Joseph > > One thing that has always puzzled me is the strange behavior of the > strength > of gnubg at different plies. The last large scale study (done to compare > the > existing bots to the new extreme gammon), is resumed here: > > http://www.extremegammon.com/studies.aspx > > Checker play is fine, error goes down as plies go up. > However, for cube actions, the situation is very strange: > > 3ply does much better than 2ply and 4ply on missed doubles and wrong takes. > But 3ply does terribly worse than 2ply and 4ply on wrong doubles and > wrong passes. > > It has always been accounted to the so called "odd-even" effect, but > no other bot > seems to be affected as much as gnubg. > > MaX. > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
