Hi, I wrote that you can't change the luckanalysis setting from the GUI as in there are no graphical elements to do that, but in an indirect way, you actually can:
>From the menu: View -> Panels, check "Command"; this opens a command line. >From there you can enter the command "set analysis luckanalysis plies 2" . The status line at the bottom should respond with "luck analysis will use 2 -ply evaluation." I guess it is possible to include this command in a start-up script as well, so that it is always set to 2-ply. Maybe somebody on the forum knows which file to edit for that? Cheers, Robert-Jan Veldhuizen <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> Virus-free.www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail> <#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> On Mon, Sep 29, 2025 at 4:46 PM Francesco Ariis <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello Robert-Jan, > > Il 28 settembre 2025 alle 23:35 Robert-Jan Veldhuizen ha scritto: > > Hi Francesco, > > > > Your formulas are correct. > > Very good! > > > An important distinction between error analysis and luck analysis, is > that > > the latter is unbiased. Which means that in the long run, the luck > analysis > > numbers will approach the real values (inaccuracies of the bot will > cancel > > out).This is not the case for error analysis, where inaccuracies of the > bot > > may not cancel out and sometimes even pile up. > > Many thanks for the explanation. I fetched pencil and paper, and indeed > it is easy to see L is an unbiased estimator, by construction. [1] > > [1] Detailed in https://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/HedgingTowardSkill.html > > > With GnuBG, I believe the default luck analysis is unfortunately (still) > > set to 0-ply and not changeable from the GUI. 0-ply luck analysis is > quite > > inaccurate. With a command "set analysis luckanalysis plies 2" (or even > > higher, although that might be slow) you can improve the quality of the > > luck analysis significantly. You'll probably find that doing luck > analysis > > at higher settings reduces (but does not remove) the discrepancies > between > > error analysis and luck analysis. > > This would indeed be very useful. > Browsing the code, I think this is the place > > https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnubg.git/tree/analysis.c#n205 > > Alas, I am far from proficient in C. > > Thanks again! > —F > > Il 29 settembre 2025 alle 01:36 Murat Kalinyaprak ha scritto: > > BTW: This is not DailyGammon owned by your "control freaks"... > > You may get deservedly slapped for any garbage you spew... > > Please, let us not abuse people answering questions! >
