Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
MK: What I PROPOSE is doing the same thing done training TD-Gammon v.1, I.E. random self-play, but this time also cubeful and MATCHFUL, i.e. random cube as well as checker decisions. As I remember it (though it's many years since I read the research), the self-play wasn't accomplished by picking random moves. It was the initial network weights that were random. The move picked was the best-ranked move of all the evaluated moves. This is a calculation, not a random selection. How do you propose to rank double vs no double, and take vs pass? From: MK Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 10:01:17 PM To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership On 4/2/2024 5:13 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: > What would be your proposed structure for training a > cubeful bot? What gains and obstacles do you foresee. I don't know what you mean by "structure". What I propose is doing the same thing done training TD-Gammon v.1, i.e. random self-play, but this time also cubeful and matchful, i.e. random cube as well as checker decisions. Apparently Tseauro still works at IBM with access to huge CPU powers. Perhaps he can be put to shame for the damage he caused to BG AI by what he did with TD-Gammon v.2 and be urged to redeem himself. In other forums, people talk about doing "XG rollouts on Amazon's cloud servers", etc. Doing more biased rollouts is plain stupid/illogical. Any such efforts would be put to better use in training a new bot instead. The question is who would volunteer to do it. People like the Alpha-Zero team, etc. don't seem to want to touch "gamblegammon" with a ten feet pole, possibly because of the gambling nature of the game. In the past, I have suggested in RGB that random rollout feature can be added to GnuBG and results from trustable users can be collected over time in a central database to gradually create a bot that won't rely on concocted, biased/inaccurate cube formulas and match equity tables. Unfortunately the faithfuls are happy with their dogmas and no better bots are likely in the near future... :( MK
Re: Buggy bugs
On Tue, Apr 02, 2024 at 03:07:50AM +, Theodor.Constantinescu wrote: > I installed the newest version of the wonderful gnuBG on a new > computer and have two problems: > [...] > 2 On the 2D board, if one of the players can't move, the roll is not > shown! Very annoying! In God's name, WHY lol?! In these cases the roll is shown and is cleared after the delay (300ms by default) set in Settings|Options|Display|Move delay If there is an actual move it remains shown longer: the above delay and then during the animation showing the checkers moving. Maybe we should add a small additional delay if there is no checker move to show.
Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 4/2/2024 7:08 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: A cube strategy against a bot that never passes: Not never but we loosely say that since it takes at GWC > 0, i.e. even at 0.0001% only double when (a) you are 100% to win I don't understand why you wouldn't double at 99%? Can you explain this? (b) it's the last roll of the game and you have an advantage. Yes, this is very bad for the mutant and already happens now. So the take point is 16.7%. Gammons complicate it, but I'm sure you get the idea. If you can clearly define your strategy, I would be glad to create a script to run the experiment to see what will happen. BTW: you are still avoiding the issue of how much the mutant will win compared to what it would be expected to win based on its total "cube error rate". What win rate would you say a mutant that takes at GWC > 0.0001 even on the last roll, (which must be the biggest possible cube error), will achieve? Any guesses by anyone..? MK
Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 4/2/2024 5:13 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: What would be your proposed structure for training a cubeful bot? What gains and obstacles do you foresee. I don't know what you mean by "structure". What I propose is doing the same thing done training TD-Gammon v.1, i.e. random self-play, but this time also cubeful and matchful, i.e. random cube as well as checker decisions. Apparently Tseauro still works at IBM with access to huge CPU powers. Perhaps he can be put to shame for the damage he caused to BG AI by what he did with TD-Gammon v.2 and be urged to redeem himself. In other forums, people talk about doing "XG rollouts on Amazon's cloud servers", etc. Doing more biased rollouts is plain stupid/illogical. Any such efforts would be put to better use in training a new bot instead. The question is who would volunteer to do it. People like the Alpha-Zero team, etc. don't seem to want to touch "gamblegammon" with a ten feet pole, possibly because of the gambling nature of the game. In the past, I have suggested in RGB that random rollout feature can be added to GnuBG and results from trustable users can be collected over time in a central database to gradually create a bot that won't rely on concocted, biased/inaccurate cube formulas and match equity tables. Unfortunately the faithfuls are happy with their dogmas and no better bots are likely in the near future... :( MK
Re: question
On 4/2/2024 5:39 PM, Max S wrote: HI Am I able to import a file of a position, match score etc and you would return the XG analysis to me? If I understand correctly that you want to post here a GnuBG ID, (i.e. position + match ID), and want someone to post the XG analysis, I will do it for you (instead of giving unsolicited advice, etc.) It may perhaps be interesting for all to compare the two bots' analysis. (If you want, specify the skill level for XG analysis.) MK
Re: question
Hi Max, GnuBg can import match files and analyse them. You can also copy an XG position id and paste it into gnubg. Like XG, it can identify errors and estimate how lucky the rolls are. The results won't be exactly the same as XG because the analysis engine is different. But it will be very similar. Does this answer your question? Regards, Ian Shaw From: bug-gnubg-bounces+ian.shaw=riverauto.co...@gnu.org on behalf of Max S Sent: Wednesday, April 3, 2024 2:39:07 AM To: bug-gnubg@gnu.org Subject: question HI Am I able to import a file of a position, match score etc and you would return the XG analysis to me?
Re: question
Hello Max, Il 02 aprile 2024 alle 19:39 Max S ha scritto: > HI > Am I able to import a file of a position, match score etc and you would > return the XG analysis to me? what do you mean with “XG analysis”? —F
