I googled and found this: https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01521393/document
Seems very much like GNUBG, only a smaller net. No way to tell how it compares to (say) GNUBG. -Joseph On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 11:12, Joseph Heled <[email protected]> wrote: > A link to something? article? software? did they use alpha-like strategies? > > -Joseph > > On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 11:04, Philippe Michel <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 02:07:18PM -0500, Timothy Y. Chow wrote: >> >> > Also, it's my impression that many people *don't* think this is even a >> > worthwhile idea to pursue. Backgammon is already "solved," is what >> they >> > will say. It's true that "AlphaGammon" will surely not crush existing >> > bots in a series of (say) 11-point matches. At most I would expect a >> > slight advantage. But to me, that is the wrong way to look at the >> issue. >> > I would like to understand superbackgames for their own sake, even >> though >> > they arise rarely in practice. Furthermore, if we know that bots don't >> > understand superbackgames, then the closer a position gets to being a >> > superbackgame, the less we can trust the bot verdict. >> >> I'm not sure how related it may be, but there is a group of Greek >> academics that have published some articles on their work on a bot, >> Palamedes, that plays backgammon but also variants that have different >> rules and starting positions and lead to positions that would be very >> uncommon in backgammon. >> >> >> >>
