Hi Rick, It has been a long time. The mec26 was obtained by first getting the post crawford probabilities from rollouts, then from the program mec.cc (i.e. "first principles"). I can't remember where the other tables came from :(
However, I remember running a fair number of rollouts and evaluations of specific positions with different equity tables, and was always surprised how little effect that had, if at all. A position has to be very marginal in some sense if an equity table change changes the move or cube action. It has been a while, so perhaps someone can take a fresh look and see if my observation above is correct or not - by examining on a much larger scale (which was not feasible at the time). Alternatively, one can build an accurate table today based on rollouts alone, and compare it to the rest. -Joseph On 22 June 2013 02:39, Rick Janowski <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi,**** > > ** ** > > I wanted to ask how the match equities for Zadeh and mec METs (mec not > mec26) are handled in gnu – the met files have no array of probabilities so > it looks like the computer calculates from first principles. If so > something has gone badly wrong with the parameters because the Zadeh > equities are often more than 3or 4% different than the values tabulated in > his paper of 75. Checking those values in his paper I found that > incredibly there was quite negligible error with the rolled out mets > produced by Rockwell and Kazaross – less than 1% at all pre crawford scores > in a 15 point match and when crawford and post crawford are also considered > no error greater than 1.2%. Unfortunately the values you see in Gnu make it > look like the worst MET of all.**** > > ** ** > > Rick**** > > _______________________________________________ > 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
