Thanks, Tim. I don't think the problem is simply that I fail to factor gammons in, because my dead-cube take points agree with GNU, also for gammonish positions. It is only when I try to *both* account for gammons and a fully live cube, that I see a discrepancy.
I think I will try to examine the source code (although that might not be so simple). /Lasse søn. 11. jun. 2023 kl. 15.10 skrev Timothy Y. Chow <[email protected] >: > Lasse Hjorth Madsen wrote: > > Funny enough, when I try examples with no gammons, I can reproduce GNUs > > fully live TPs exactly. > > > > If anybody can explain what I’m doing wrong, I would be forever > > grateful. > > I'd also be interested in the answer to this question. Given your comment > about gammons, I suspect that what GNU is calling live-cube take points is > "gammon-adjusted." This means it's supposed to be the win percentage you > need to take, given the number of gammons you win and lose. If the gammon > situation is unfavorable for you, then you need more wins to take, so that > would explain why the reported live-cube take point is higher than what > you calculated. > > But, I haven't looked at the source code. > > Tim
