Yes. Really cool. I have earlier seen significant differences between
one-sided and two-sided race evaluation, but this is not one of the
positions where it is off.
Some years ago, I used the same algorithm to calculate a full two-sided
database for 15 checkers on 6 points. I can share it by
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:54:18PM +0100, Øystein Schønning-Johansen wrote:
> Cubeless prob. of saving gammon: 0.129424
> 16: 13/12 12/6 -> 0.913103
> 16: 13/12 8/2 -> 0.938736
> 16: 13/12 7/1 -> 0.942557
> 16: 8/7 8/2 -> 0.984595
> 16: 8/7 7/1 -> 0.984930
> 16: 7/6 7/1 ->
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 11:40:41AM +0100, ?ystein Sch?nning-Johansen wrote:
> I managed to calculate the gammon saving probability of the posted position
> in a few minutes using about 15GB of memory. (I also have a slower version
> of the tool that uses sparse matrices to store the
I wrote a little tool some years ago, that calculate the "exact" value for
such racing position. It calculates the probabilities with a top-down
dynamic programming way and uses *-minimax algorithm to fill in the values
and prune useless moves.
It is really unusable in real life situation as the
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:25:52AM +0100, Terje Pedersen wrote:
> I just ran into a huge evaluation difference between XG and Gnu BG:
>
> XGID=-BCFCA---acbb-:1:1:1:16:0:0:0:5:10
>
> I got dinged with a -0.684 error here while XG says it is a -0.0013
> error to play 13/6.
>
>
Hi!
I just ran into a huge evaluation difference between XG and Gnu BG:
XGID=-BCFCA---acbb-:1:1:1:16:0:0:0:5:10
I got dinged with a -0.684 error here while XG says it is a -0.0013
error to play 13/6.
Desktop version says it is:
7. Cubeful 0-ply13/6
