2011/1/28 Álvaro Begué <alvaro.be...@gmail.com> > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Don Dailey <dailey....@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't understand your objection, Don. The side that is winning will > at some point determine that the probability of winning the game is > large enough (say, more than 80%) and it will propose doubling. At > that point the losing side can resign and lose 1 point; resigning > later (after accepting the doubling) costs 2 points. > > Álvaro. > _______________________________________________ >
Well I have an objection. Example you gave person offering the double already made a mistake. If one starts working with the cube, then it is needs to be done well. Optimal doubling point is when chance of winning is exactly 75%, then for the opponent it is indifferent whether he accept of rejects. And erring in direction doubling too late is far more serious than doubling too eraly. Also erring to direction of resigning instead of playing is usually far bigger mistake. So if a winds of war will make situation clear after next encounter, then the correct moment to double just before it. 55% chance of winning maybe enough in some cases,depends of how likely is the re-double. Term used used for this is volatility. Bigger the volatility smaller is the edge ususally required to double. And if there is no re-double 50%+epsilon is good enough to double and optimal is still as close to 75% you can get. So why we would introduce new set of skills to bve programmed into a game where it makes no sense? And when done optimally it will not shorten the games too often as correctly offered double should be accepted. Petri
_______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list Computer-go@dvandva.org http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
