[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Questions about gnubg-nn tools

From: Massimiliano Maini
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Questions about gnubg-nn tools
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 10:19:19 +0100

That would be interesting indeed.
Do you have any description of what your own cube code does ?
At the time I just went as far as verifying that the current cube code is.
OK with respect to R.Janowksi's formulae (and it was).

Not sure I can help in integrating your code in gnubg, but I'm definitely
curious in understanding what's different with respect to the current one.


On 5 January 2012 09:35, Joseph Heled <address@hidden> wrote:
> I wonder if this is just the net or the cube code contributes as well.
> As you know, the cube code in gnubg-nn is different from the one used in
> gnubg. (my own dewvelopment).
> I always thought it did better, but it will be interesting if someone
> verifies it, and offers it as a gnubg option  (especially with regard to the
> odd/even issue).
> -Joseph
> On 5 January 2012 21:17, Massimiliano Maini <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 5 January 2012 02:20, Joseph Heled <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > Seems like you got a very very slightly better race net, but I would be
>> > surprised if it makes a difference in real life.
>> >
>> > Would be much more interesting to
>> >   - get a better contact or crashed net
>> >   - expand the roll-out database for all categories (should be easy with
>> > the
>> > current availability of cycles)
>> >   - improve cube decisions (this is a hard one)
>> >   - improve back game evaluation and play (very hard one)
>> >
>> > -Joseph
>> One thing that has always puzzled me is the strange behavior of the
>> strength
>> of gnubg at different plies. The last large scale study (done to compare
>> the
>> existing bots to the new extreme gammon), is resumed here:
>>  http://www.extremegammon.com/studies.aspx
>> Checker play is fine, error goes down as plies go up.
>> However, for cube actions, the situation is very strange:
>> 3ply does much better than 2ply and 4ply on missed doubles and wrong
>> takes.
>> But 3ply does terribly worse than 2ply and 4ply on wrong doubles and
>> wrong passes.
>> It has always been accounted to the so called "odd-even" effect, but
>> no other bot
>> seems to be affected as much as gnubg.
>> MaX.
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bug-gnubg mailing list
>> address@hidden
>> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg

reply via email to

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