On Sun, 11 Jun 2023, Lasse Hjorth Madsen wrote:
Thanks, Tim. I don't think the problem is simply that I fail to factor gammons in, because my dead-cube take points agree with GNU, also for gammonish positions. It is only when I try to *both* account for gammons and a fully live cube, that I see a discrepancy.
But it could be that GNU's dead-cube take point is *not* gammon-adjusted, while the "live-cube" take point *is* gammon-adjusted. There's wide consensus on what the dead-cube take point should mean, but there's much less consensus on how to define the "live-cube" take point.
Another small thing to note is that the dead-cube take point doesn't depend on the specific position; it depends only on the match score. But in the GNU documentation, when it quotes a live-cube take point, it says that it's the live-cube take point *for that position*. If the live-cube take point depended only on the match score, then why would they say that it's for that *position* as opposed to for that *match score*? That they say it's for the position is (to me) some weak evidence that they're taking into account gammons (which of course vary from position to position).
Tim
