I've rolled at the opening position again, at money play.
27000 trials at 0-ply and 1-ply. 135000 trials at 2-ply.  There's almost no 
difference in value between the rollout that took 8 minutes and the one that 
tool 23 hours, which speaks to the strength of the initial evaluation.

The rollout suggests that the value of cube ownership in the initial position 
is worth about 0.36 points.

One thing to notice is that the rollout has the on-roll player winning about 1% 
less than the evaluations posted by MK. I think this is due to the evaluation 
assuming that initial doubles may be played, whereas I set the rollout to play 
as the initial position.

Ply

Cube

Pwin

Pwin2

Pwin3

Plose

Plose2

Plose3

Ecl

End

Edt

Action

0

1Cen

0.5135

0.1425

0.0065

0.4865

0.1310

0.0055

+0.0395

+0.0599





8 m

2Opp

0.5141

0.1428

0.0064

0.4859

0.1317

0.0056

+0.0804



-0.2941

NB (27.4%)

1

1Cen

0.5136

0.1472

0.0071

0.4864

0.1352

0.0059

+0.0405

+0.0594





38 m

2Opp

0.5136

0.1495

0.0074

0.4864

0.1350

0.0060

+0.0867



-0.2977

NB (27.5%)

2

1Cen

0.5130

0.1461

0.0069

0.4870

0.1336

0.0058

+0.0395

+0.0580





23 h

2Opp

0.5147

0.1468

0.0068

0.4853

0.1332

0.0059

+0.0881



-0.3002

NB (27.6%)



I haven't found a way toa ask gnubg for an evaluation for the initial roll. Is 
there one?
You could get a 1-ply evaluation by combining all 15 0-ply evaluations of the 
first roll, and so forth.

Cheers,
Ian



From: bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org 
<bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org> On Behalf Of Ian Shaw via 
Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 11:39 AM
To: playbg-...@yahoo.com; bug-gnubg@gnu.org
Cc: Philippe Michel <philippe.mich...@free.fr>
Subject: RE: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership




It just so happens that I rolled out the opening position a few days ago for 
another reason. This was at 7-away 7-away rather than $ play, because I was 
interested in match play. I doubt that makes a huge difference.



This was using gnubg-1_08_dev-20240103-setup.exe not the newest 
gnubg-1_08_001-20240204-setup.exe that Philippe released recently.



Philippe, am I correct in thinking that the cube handling on these two versions 
is the same? Your announcement emails both include the same comment.

"Improvement to cube decisions at 0- and 1-ply and weaker levels. Cube error 
rates are approximately halved and the repartition of errors (premature doubles 
vs. missed doubles vs. take or pass errors) is now similar to higher plies 
instead of being mostly premature doubles."



The rollout results indicate about 1% fewer wins for the roller than the 
evaluations.



4HPwATDgc/ABMA:cAngAAAAAAAE



Cube analysis

Rollout cubeless equity +0.0408 (Money: +0.0396)



Cubeful equities:

1. No double           +0.0655

2. Double, pass        +1.0000  (+0.9345)

3. Double, take        -0.2999  (-0.3654)

Proper cube action: No double, take (28.1%)



Rollout details:

Centered 1-cube:

  0.5129 0.1480 0.0083 - 0.4871 0.1351 0.0073 CL +0.0408 CF +0.0655

[0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 CL  0.0003 CF  0.0008]

gnubg owns 2-cube:

  0.5156 0.1522 0.0091 - 0.4844 0.1375 0.0150 CL +0.1216 CF -0.2999

[0.0001 0.0002 0.0001 - 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 CL  0.0007 CF  0.0012]

Full cubeful rollout with variance reduction

186624 games, rollout as initial position, Mersenne Twister dice generator with 
seed 823069761

Play: world class 2-ply cubeful prune [world class]

keep the first 0 0-ply moves and up to 8 more moves within equity 0.16

Skip pruning for 1-ply moves.

Cube: 2-ply cubeful prune [world class]



Cheers,

Ian



-----Original Message-----
From: 
bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org<mailto:bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org>
 
<bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org<mailto:bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org>>
 On Behalf Of MK
Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 2:23 AM
To: bug-gnubg@gnu.org<mailto:bug-gnubg@gnu.org>
Subject: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership



I'm chugging along with my mutant cube skill experiments as I can spare time, 
saving all games, which I will share on my web site, when I'm done, along with 
my scripts.



While doing the double at > 50% experiment, I remembered an old question I had 
asked in RGB about a year ago: What if the winner of the opening roll is 
allowed pre-double?



See thread:

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/BVEnaqGM6dg/m/2c685q4DAAAJ



When you evaluate the opening position in GnuBG, this is what you get:



=========================================================

Position ID:         4HPwATDgc/ABMA

Match ID:            cAkAAAAAAAAA



Evaluator:            Contact

         Win     W(g)    W(bg)   L(g)    L(bg)   Equity    Cubeful

static:  52.1    15.4     0.8    13.0     0.8   +0.067    +0.084

  1 ply:  52.7    14.8     0.9    12.9     0.5   +0.076    +0.098

  2 ply:  52.5    14.9     0.7    12.5     0.5   +0.076    +0.099



Cube analysis

2-ply cubeless equity +0.076

    52.5  14.9   0.7 -  47.5  12.5   0.5

Cubeful equities:

1. No double           +0.099

2. Double, pass        +1.000  (+0.901)

3. Double, take        -0.171  (-0.270)

Proper cube action: No double, take (23.0%) 
=========================================================



I have created a Python script to intervene if the human player wins the 
opening roll, to set the cube at 2 owned by the bot, and then to execute "end 
game" command, for the bot to play for both sides at the same checker and cube 
skill settings.



So, you know the equity gained by winning the opening roll and the equity lost 
by making the cube error at the same time, before the first move. Can anyone 
tell me what I will be expecting to see after, let's say,

10,000 games, in terms of which side will win/lose by what percentage?



BTW: I already know. ;) I'm asking to see how confident are you in GnuBG's 
equity and/or error calculations and how competent are you to make mathematical 
predictions?



MK


  • Interesting q... MK
    • RE: Inte... Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
      • Re: ... MK
      • RE: ... Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
        • ... MK
          • ... Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
            • ... MK
              • ... MK
              • ... Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
                • ... MK
                • ... MK
                • ... Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.
                • ... Murat K
                • ... Bug reports for and general discussion about GNU Backgammon.

Reply via email to