rs, then it should be a little
bit more.
From: MK
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 10:29:11 pm
To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 4/2/2024 7:08 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> A cube strategy again
_
From: MK
Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 10:01:17 PM
To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 4/2/2024 5:13 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> What would be your proposed structure for training a
> cubeful bot? What gains and obstacles do
On 4/2/2024 7:08 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
A cube strategy against a bot that never passes:
Not never but we loosely say that since it takes at GWC > 0,
i.e. even at 0.0001%
only double when (a) you are 100% to win
I don't understand why you wouldn't double at 99%? Can you
explain this?
(b) it
On 4/2/2024 5:13 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
What would be your proposed structure for training a
cubeful bot? What gains and obstacles do you foresee.
I don't know what you mean by "structure". What I propose
is doing the same thing done training TD-Gammon v.1, i.e.
random self-play, but this time al
Bg Bug
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/31/2024 4:18 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> If the mutant strategy is always to take, then gnubg GAINS when > Mutant
> takes a D/P because that increases the points GnuBg wins.
Yes, of course, but only an
y, April 2, 2024 11:43:40 AM
To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/31/2024 3:53 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> I'm glad we agree on the basic 25% take point. Do you also agree on
> the the theoretical 20% take point for perfect cu
formulae again... Do you see your problem..?
MK
*From:* MK
*Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2024 2:28:09 AM
*To:* Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug
*Subject:* Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cub
ng my arguments. If you (all) can't,
then I really don't care about my credibility with people who can't
understand my arguments, let alone rise up to defeat my arguments.
MK
--------------------
*From:* M
opponent would never pass.
From: MK
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 2:28:09 AM
To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/19/2024 3:54 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> MK "Those numbers are based on how
n't played for money.)
Regards,
Ian Shaw
From: MK
Sent: Friday, March 29, 2024 4:34:39 AM
To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/19/2024 7:44 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> I don’t "divinely belie
On 3/19/2024 7:44 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
I don’t "divinely believe" in the current cube theory. I understand
the maths behind it. If you have found errors in the maths, then I
would be glad to re-evaluate.
Let's find out where you disagree by starting from the beginning.
What is your analysis of
On 3/19/2024 7:37 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
MK: This is why I am doing my various experiments. One of which
that I had previously mentioned in this very thread involves a
"mutant cubestrategy" of doubling at GWC > 50% and taking at
GWC > 0%. In that experiment of 20,000 money games, the mutant
won 40.
On 3/19/2024 3:54 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
MK "Those numbers are based on how the bot would play against itself.
If you accept the bot's decisions as best/perfect and if you try to
play just like bot, assuming that your opponent will also try to play
just like the bot, of course you wouldn't/shouldn'
MK: Even though I think most of you won't absorb what I wrote above, because
you all "divinely believe" in the current "cube skill theory", I won't consider
it a total waste of my time even if it sows a seed of doubt in just one mind.
I don’t "divinely believe" in the current cube theory. I und
MK: This is why I am doing my various experiments. One of which that I had
previously mentioned in this very thread involves a "mutant cube strategy" of
doubling at GWC > 50% and taking at GWC > 0%. In that experiment of 20,000
money games, the mutant won 40.80% of total points against GnuBG 2-p
MK "Those numbers are based on how the bot would play against itself. If you
accept the bot's decisions as best/perfect and if you try to play just like
bot, assuming that your opponent will also try to play just like the bot, of
course you wouldn't/shouldn't double."
Agreed. Against a worse p
On 3/16/2024 6:15 PM, Ian Shaw via wrote:
As this thread became more about the starting position than
the original subject, I will branch out a separate thread
for that and only reply to the cube issue in this one.
Knowing the absolute equity is only useful for cube actions,
and since the rules
of any subsequent game is equally likely, so the equity of each game starts at
zero.
I did read some of the old rgb threads. They descended into rudeness and I
lost interest.
For some reason, your last 2 messages got caught in my spam filter, hence the
late reply.
Regards,
Ian
-Origina
Cat got your tongues?
Meow... ;)
MK
On 3/4/2024 5:26 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
Since at least you care to continue this discussion, I will invest
more of my time and effort mainly for the sake of improving GnuBG.
Sorry, MK, I didn't read back over the old threads,
It was in my a previous post in this current thread here but it's
no b
verauto.co.uk>>;
bug-gnubg@gnu.org<mailto:bug-gnubg@gnu.org>
Cc: Philippe Michel mailto:philippe.mich...@free.fr>>
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/1/2024 6:02 PM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> "Is making the bot auto-play th
On 3/3/2024 8:16 PM, MK wrote:
The next day after that, I checked it in Snowie and I
posted a comprehensive recap about the subject. See:
Sorry I forgot to give the link. Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/rFZyUcg8IPQ/m/gxuWiERmCAAJ
MK
On 3/1/2024 6:02 PM, Ian Shaw wrote:
"Is making the bot auto-play the
same as doing rollouts?"
It sounds like you are asking what a rollout is?
I wasn't.
https://www.gnu.org/software/gnubg/manual/html_node/Introduction-to-rollouts.html
I had read it many a times before.
https://www.bkgm
/24 18/13
32: 18/13
From: MK
Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 10:46:29 PM
To: Ian Shaw ; bug-gnubg@gnu.org
Cc: Philippe Michel
Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/1/2024 6:22 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> 27000 trials at 0-ply and 1-ply. 135000 trials at
Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:39 AM
*To:* playbg-...@yahoo.com; bug-gnubg@gnu.org
*Cc:* Philippe Michel
*Subject:* RE: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
It just so happens that I rolled out the opening position a few days ago for another reason. This
was at 7-away
ounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org
On Behalf Of Ian Shaw via
Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:39 AM
To: playbg-...@yahoo.com; bug-gnubg@gnu.org
Cc: Philippe Michel
Subject: RE: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube o
On 2/11/2024 6:01 AM, EDWARD GOLDBERG wrote:
Can I be removed from this email list please?
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-gnubg/
Can I be removed from this email list please?
> On Feb 10, 2024, at 9:59 PM, MK wrote:
>
> Hi Ian,
>
> Thanks for the additional info. Unfortunately it didn't help
> me understand anything better or answer my own question. I'm
> still trying and hope that you or others will continue this
> sub
Hi Ian,
Thanks for the additional info. Unfortunately it didn't help
me understand anything better or answer my own question. I'm
still trying and hope that you or others will continue this
subject to help me with it, which will benefit all in the end.
For the cubeless equity of the opening posi
.
Cube: 2-ply cubeful prune [world class]
Cheers,
Ian
-Original Message-
From: bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org
On Behalf Of MK
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:23 AM
To: bug-gnubg@gnu.org
Subject: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
I&#
I'm chugging along with my mutant cube skill experiments
as I can spare time, saving all games, which I will share
on my web site, when I'm done, along with my scripts.
While doing the double at > 50% experiment, I remembered
an old question I had asked in RGB about a year ago: What
if the winner
31 matches
Mail list logo
