Since backgammon pieces don't come back from the dead, a system with plentiful memory will have a set of nets for one-side-has-1-checker, one-side-has-2-checkers, etc/ That will help a lots of those boundary (but relatively rare) situations.
Another possible approach in that direction is to have a per-remaining-checkers setting for move filters. -Joseph On 18 February 2018 at 11:37, Philippe Michel <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 02:09:33PM +0100, Øystein Schønning-Johansen wrote: > > > So.... the conclusion must be that there is something funny with the > > movefilters. Don't know what. > > 0-ply evaluates the resulting positions quite haphazardly and there is > only one move with 24/19 if the first eight choices. The wider filter > gets three more and these four get the top spots at 2-ply. This is > better but there are still a few reasonable 24/19 plays missing. > > The 0-ply evaluations of the next roll position are probably rather poor > as well since the 2-ply equities of these moves are much more dispersed > than they should. 3-ply is better and 4-ply seems right, with all the > plays breaking the 24 point sensibly in a 0.02 interval. > > _______________________________________________ > Bug-gnubg mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg >
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
