John J. Chew III wrote: > Stewart wrote: > >> Anyone care to explain these results? > > Can you post the .gcg file for the game so that others can try to > repeat the results? I wouldn't be too worried about the 99.24%, > as it just suggests that there is a fluky way to win following > any of the plays, and that not enough iterations were run. Is it > possible your computer was overloaded with other processes while > running this sim, and wasn't able to spend enough time on the > position? Have you tried a specific sim of this one position?
I have posted the .gcg file and the analysis here: http://www.tilefish.co.uk/BMSC2.gcg http://www.tilefish.co.uk/bmsc2.txt Not much else was running at the time, although I do set Quackle to Low priority so that it can run in the background and I can do other things with my laptop. I was under the impression that this made the analysis take longer to produce NOT that it reduced the number of iterations; am I wrong about this? The Turn 12 results in the above files are even more nonsensical. The quality of these outputs concerns me because I'm putting them on Centre Star to accompany the games, so I don't want them to have a lot of inexplicable oddities. If there is a way to increase the number of iterations (even it means each analysis taking longer) then I'd be very interested. Stewart
