Re: [Bug-gnubg] Multi-bot rollouts of backgame position

[Joseph Heled]

I don't buy it.

If 2ply came out worse than 0ply I say:
  Either
    He is using the wrong filters for 2ply.
    He is using the version before the rollout bug fix.
    The dice was different for the rolls, with particularly bad dice 
for the 2 ply.

-Joseph


Albert Silver wrote:
> Hi,
>
>         The following was posted by Michael Depreli in the GoL forum. It
> is the same position I asked about earlier however it comes with massive
> rollouts by all the top known bots (MANY thanks Michael!), including
> both the older and newer versions of GNU. I hope the text formatting
> comes out ok.
>
>         I have to agree with him in remarking how amazingly precise
> GNU's 0-ply rollouts have shown themselves to be. 
>
>                                                 Albert
>
>
> GNU Backgammon  Position ID: vHsXAADCNhQCNw
>                  Match ID   : MAEAAAAAAAAA
>  +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+     O: White
>  | O           O  O |   | O           O    |     0 points
>  |             O  O |   | O                |     On roll
>  |                  |   |                  |     
>  |                  |   |                  |     
>  |                  |   |                  |    
> ^|                  |BAR|                  |     (Cube: 1)
>  |                  |   |                  |    
>  |                  |   |    X     X       |     
>  |                  |   | X  X  X  X  O    |     
>  |                  |   | X  X  X  X  O  O |     
>  | O           O  X |   | X  X  X  X  O  O |     0 points
>  +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+     X: Blue
> Pip counts: O 203, X 69
>
>
> Re: Backgame Bot Benchmark Position
> Posted By: Michael Depreli <address@hidden>
> Date: Saturday, 8 March 2003, at 5:47 a.m. 
>
>
> Here are the results of the rollouts.
> For the sake of uniformity I've listed Snowie's ply as 1 ply less that
> actually used in the rollout.
> I used SW's strongest settings and set GNU to the same filters. 
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
> Is nuGNU 0-ply really that strong? Or is it losing equity defending
> against the backgame?
> GNU & nuGNU 1-ply seems to have gone haywire.
> Although SW4' seems to evaluate back games very well I expected the
> difference in playing strength to be be more noticeable over SW3.2.
> nuGNU's 2-ply evaluation is truly shocking!
>
>
>
>   
> 	Trials Ply 	Eval 	   R/O 	W 	Wg 	Wbg 	L
> Lg 	Lbg 
>
> JF      32000     0     -0.640   -0.672  40.2   0.9     0.0     59.8
> 35.0 	13.6 
>
> GNU     32000   0       -0.664   -0.582  43.5   0.9     0.0     56.5
> 34.6 	11.5 
>
> nuGNU 32000   0         -0.835   -0.442  48.7   0.9     0.0     51.3
> 31.5 	11.0 
>
> SW3.2 32000   0         -0.738   -0.669  40.4   1.0     0.0     59.6
> 35.7 	13.0 
>
> SW4     32000   0       -0.425   -0.636  42.1   1.0     0.0     57.9
> 35.7 	13.1 
>
>
> JF      1296vr  1       -0.732   -0.607  42.4   1.1     0.0     57.6
> 33.6 	12.9 
>
> GNU     1296vr  1       -0.682   -0.878  35.6   0.6     0.0     64.3
> 41.7 	18.0 
>
> nuGNU 1296vr  1         -0.477   -0.797  37.9   0.9     0.0     62.1
> 40.8 	15.6 
>
> SW3.2   1296vr  1       -0.773   -0.545  44.1   1.6     0.1     55.9
> 34.0 	10.3 
>
> SW4     1296vr  1       -0.475   -0.552  44.8   1.1   0.0       55.2
> 33.6 	12.3 
>
>
> GNU     1296vr  2       -0.705   -0.497  46.5   0.8     0.0     53.5
> 32.0 	11.5 
>
> nuGNU 1296vr  2         -1.056   -0.469  47.4   1.3     0.0     52.6
> 31.8 	11.2 
>
> SW3.2 1296vr  2         -0.784   -0.498  45.7   1.4     0.1     54.3
> 32.7 	9.9 
>
> SW4     1296vr  2       -0.487   -0.496  46.4   1.1     0.0     53.6
> 32.4 	11.2 
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg