Hmm ... you may be on to something. To clarify: 1. I use the Analyze|Market Window dialog box to generate take points via GNU. 2. I think the dead cube take points reported here must be gammon adjusted -- they clearly depend on the value that you put in the "gammon rate" window. 3. Yes, the values that I or GNU get are not for a specific position, only a specific match score -- and specific gammon rates. 4. Yes, I also take "for this position" to mean "for those gammon rates".
The only GNU generated take point I can't reproduce is the live one, *when gammons are included*. Worse, I've run out of ideas of how to reverse engineer their calculation -- except maybe for examining the source code (thank you for that suggestion). /Lasse Den søn. 11. jun. 2023 kl. 19.12 skrev Timothy Y. Chow < [email protected]>: > 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 > >
