Here is another fun project. Solve BG for 1 checker vs 1, exactly. Obviously, the only interesting case is when you have to decide if you want to hit or not.
On 18 February 2018 at 12:21, Joseph Heled <[email protected]> wrote: > Since backgammon pieces don't come back from the dead, a system with > plentiful memory will have a set of nets for one-side-has-1-checker, > one-side-has-2-checkers, > etc/ That will help a lots of those boundary (but relatively rare) > situations. > > Another possible approach in that direction is to have a > per-remaining-checkers setting for move filters. > > -Joseph > > On 18 February 2018 at 11:37, Philippe Michel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Øystein Schønning-Johansen >> wrote: >> >> > So.... the conclusion must be that there is something funny with the >> > movefilters. Don't know what. >> >> 0-ply evaluates the resulting positions quite haphazardly and there is >> only one move with 24/19 if the first eight choices. The wider filter >> gets three more and these four get the top spots at 2-ply. This is >> better but there are still a few reasonable 24/19 plays missing. >> >> The 0-ply evaluations of the next roll position are probably rather poor >> as well since the 2-ply equities of these moves are much more dispersed >> than they should. 3-ply is better and 4-ply seems right, with all the >> plays breaking the 24 point sensibly in a 0.02 interval. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
