[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg 04-Mar-2009 release

From: Christian Anthon
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg 04-Mar-2009 release
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 10:55:13 +0100
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20090105)

Efe Arkayin wrote:
> Hi Joaquín,
> Glad that you were able to notice the same thing - at least I am not
> the only one suffering from this glitch :)
> Christian,
> Were you aware of this - is there already a rationale that explains
> this behavior (which means that I am missing something about the
> doubling theory) or is this indeed a bug that needs further inspection?
> Kind Regards,
> Efe
> --- On *Wed, 18/3/09, Joaquín Koifman /<address@hidden>/* wrote:
>     From: Joaquín Koifman <address@hidden>
>     Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg 04-Mar-2009 release
>     To: address@hidden
>     Cc: "Christian Anthon" <address@hidden>, "Massimiliano
>     Maini" <address@hidden>, address@hidden
>     Date: Wednesday, 18 March, 2009, 11:55 PM
>     Efe,
>     Correct, that only happens when the cube has already been turned.
>     The tutor doesn't inform about the mistake nor mark the move with
>     yellow.
>     Joaquin
>     2009/3/18 <address@hidden
>     <http://uk..mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>
>         Dear Christian, Joaquín, Max,
>         I just stumbled again upon a faulty "Too Good To Double" tutor
>         error during one of my matches against Gnubg.
>         Attached is the match file for your observation - I occured
>         during Game 5. I knew it was too good to double anyway, but
>         tried it just to see whether the tutor was going to stop me
>         against committing this mistake. According to the anaysis
>         pane, it was a blunder of 0.764 points magnitude marked with a
>         big yellow!!! Obviously, Gnubg dropped it...
>         I guess you can open the same file with your own Gnubg and
>         then continue Game 5 from the Redouble move onwards. Please
>         inform me how the match continues for you? Does the tutor warn
>         you against the move or does it just go ahead with your
>         decision just to let Gnubg pass the cube?
>         I am now wondering with suspect, whether the tutor is not
>         functioning correctly for "Too Good To Double" _when the cube
>         is already turned_??? Anyone wanna comment on this??
>         Kind Regards,
>         Efe
>         --- On *Sat, 14/3/09, address@hidden
>         <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>
>         /<address@hidden
>         <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>/*
>         wrote:
>             From: address@hidden
>             <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>
>             <address@hidden <http://co.uk/>>
>             Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg 04-Mar-2009
>             release
>             To: "Christian Anthon" <address@hidden
>             <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>,
>             "Joaquín Koifman" <address@hidden
>             <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>,
>             "Massimiliano Maini" <address@hidden
>             <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>
>             Cc: address@hidden
>             <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>
>             Date: Saturday, 14 March, 2009, 11:36 AM
>             Dear Christian, Joaquín and all,
>             I have some further diagnosis and observations since
>             yesterday that I would like to share with you upon
>             Joaquín's request:
>             8) I realize now that my older version (Sep-08) is
>             analyzing the match "on-the-go" [player0, analysis and
>             evaluation settings in both versions all set as checker
>             play="supremo", cube play= "worldclass", tutor
>             decision="same as evaluation"]. What I mean with this is
>             that when I for example make a very lucky, very unlucky,
>             doubtful, bad, very bad move etc, I immediately see its
>             effects (bold, italics, colored etc.) in the "Game Record"
>             panel after I confirm my move by clicking on the dice.
>             On the other hand, the newer version (Mar-09) does not do
>             this "on-the-go" analysis right after the move. All
>             comments (bold, italics, bad, very bad, lucky, unlucky
>             etc.) only appear in the "Game Record" panel, if and only
>             if you perform a full analysis of the match afterwards. In
>             addition, the missing "delta equity" for each move with
>             respect to the average dice roll in the parenthesis also
>             appears surprisingly after the analysis!
>             This is basically the reason why it is taking so short for
>             the older version to analyze the match (since it is just
>             analyzing gnubg's moves - half the work!), whereas the
>             newer version starts everything from scratch. I
>             double-checked the settings for everything and can assure
>             you that they are the same. Does this mean anything to
>             you? Do you encounter the same problem? Is it in anyway
>             related to an already addressed error?
>             A) After Joaquín's request, I tried to artificially create
>             some "Too Good To Double" positions by using the edit
>             mode. He is right - I could not see the problem at least
>             in these examples anymore with Mar-09 version - maybe this
>             problem also depended on the match scores when I
>             encountered them in the past?
>             Therefore, I assume for now that the Tutor works fine with
>             the newer version regarding "Too Good To Double"
>             decisions. If I ever encounter a similar error in the
>             future during any of my matches, I will same the game and
>             forward it as a concrete evidence for your inspection.
>             C) As I wrote in my original mail, those cases were
>             _definitely_ wins or losses for Gnubg and its equity was
>             already probably -1.000 or +1.000. So Joaquín's argument
>             makes sense. Since all possible moves are having the same
>             equity value at that instant, Gnubg cannot differentiate
>             between them and probably picks "any random" one amongst
>             them. That's the only reasonable explanation for it.
>             Kind Regards & Nice Weekend to all!
>             Efe
>             --- On *Fri, 13/3/09, Joaquín Koifman /<address@hidden
>             <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>/*
>             wrote:
>                 From: Joaquín Koifman <address@hidden
>                 <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>
>                 Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Problems with Gnubg
>                 04-Mar-2009 release
>                 To: "Christian Anthon" <address@hidden
>                 <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>
>                 Cc: bug-gnubg-bounces+massimiliano.maini=amadeus.com
>                 <http://amadeus.com/>@gnu.org <http://gnu.org/>,
>                 "Massimiliano Maini" <address@hidden
>                 <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>>,
>                 address@hidden
>                 <http://uk.mc283.mail.yahoo.com/mc/address@hidden>
>                 Date: Friday, 13 March, 2009, 2:24 PM
>                 Hi all,
>                 A couple of comments about some issues:
>                 1) It's still not solved in the 20080313 version.
>                 8) I think that what happened was that the match was
>                 already analyzed. 45 seconds is normal for an analysis
>                 while 5 seconds is very, very fast.. Could you try to
>                 reproduce it again, Efe?
>                 A) I couldn't reproduce neither in the 20080313
>                 version nor in the 20080304 one.
>                 C) Probably gnubg had already won the match or there
>                 was no posibility that it could save the gammon, in
>                 the examples you gave. Thus, the program made any move
>                 because the equities would be all the same. Could you
>                 check this also?
>                 Joaquin
Hi Efe,

I'll make sure that it works when I'm done with the hint changes. Thx,
for the report.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]