"Is making the bot auto-play the same as doing rollouts?" It sounds like you are asking what a rollout is? There are plenty of resources on the net. https://www.gnu.org/software/gnubg/manual/html_node/Introduction-to-rollouts.html
https://www.bkgm.com/openings/rollouts.html Your auto-play script sounds very similar but I don't know exactly what it does. The main difference would be that you can make your scripts double using your own algorithm. Or indeed, veer from the bot's best chequer play. Minor differences might be the play settings for search depth and pruning. Try this manual sequence, and evaluate the next move. This gets you back to the start position. But doubles would be allowed, so the bot evaluation should not be the same as that of the opening roll. 64: 13/7 24/20 33: 24/18* 13/7 21: bar/24 20/18* 51: bar/24 18/13 32: 18/13 ________________________________ From: MK <playbg-...@yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, March 1, 2024 10:46:29 PM To: Ian Shaw <ian.s...@riverauto.co.uk>; bug-gnubg@gnu.org <bug-gnubg@gnu.org> Cc: Philippe Michel <philippe.mich...@free.fr> Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership On 3/1/2024 6:22 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: > 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. This is good to know. Can you post the position ID so that there is no misassumptions. > The rollout suggests that the value of cube ownership in > the initial position is worth about 0.36 points. This is very interesting. Is making the bot auto-play the same as doing rollouts? During the past weeks, I have done 12 different experiments with 20,000 games in each. I'm now putting it all on a neatly organized web page which I will share here soon. Six of my experiments were about the value of winning the opening roll and/or owning the cube from the start (i.e. before the first move for the mutant but before the second move for the bot since it always auto-plays and there is no way to intercept before its first move). Very interestingly I also came up with 0.36 ppg and 0.28 ppc ("points per cube" decision). I collected and tabulated quite a lot of various stats which will be on my web page, along with the actual scripts I ran, saved games, log files, etc. so that you all can derive your own conclusions with or without replicating my experiments, with the important ones being about "mutant cube strategies". > 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. I'm not sure what you are referring to here. What I had posted was the GnuBG's 2-ply evaluation of the opening position (i.e. without initial doubles). So, that 1% must be the difference between that and your rollouts?? (as well as my experiments?) > 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. I don't understand these. Hopefully others will pitch in their comments in response... MK > *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 > <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 >
