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: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
Of course I don't assume that gnubg always wins. That would be naive. A cube strategy against a bot that never passes: only double when (a) you are 100% to win (b) it's the last roll of the game and you have an advantage. The bot can also take a double deeper than normal, since the mutant will always take the recube to 4. So the risk is 1 point and the reward is 5 points (instead of 3). So the take point is 16.7%. Gammons complicate it, but I'm sure you get the idea. From: MK Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 12:08:49 pm To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership On 3/31/2024 4:18 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: > If the mutant strategy is always to take, then gnubg GAINS when > Mutant > takes a D/P because that increases the points GnuBg wins. Yes, of course, but only and only if the GnuBG wins. Obviously you faithfully assume that GnuBG will always win and keep raking in the higher cube points but experiment like the ones I did may prove it otherwise. And this is only speaking about winning more than 50% of points. To this day, I have never been able get you guys to talk about mutant strategies winning more than what would be expected from their cube error rates, which is even more important in debunking the elaborate so-called "cube skill theory" a complete mound of cow pies... > Currently, gnubg is assuming it is playing against a player using > it's own cube strategy. And this is why they are as easy to derail as toy trains on tracks around the xmas tree and to beat even by people like me, who is a nobody compared to gamblegammon giants. See my 10-years old experiments against various bots at my site: https://montanaonline.net/backgammon/ I do however believe that future bots, trained through cubeful and matchful self-play, will come very close to "perfect" play that no human may possibly beat but current bots, including GnuBG, are not even worth a mention by that measure. > It could be reprogrammed to take advantage of knowing that it's > opponent would never pass. Okay, well, I'm daring to tell me how do you propose the bot could be reprogrammed to do that? You don't need to post the programming code here. Just explain how the bot would achieve that in plain language. I bet you won't be able to do. Empty talk is cheap... Let me hold your hand to make another baby step: even if you could reprogram a bot to to that, it would become just another version of the same toy train on tracks going in circles around the xmas tree, with the same weakness of exploitability by being totally predictable. After that, you would have to reprogram you bot by revising your jackoffski cube formulae again... Do you see your problem..? MK > > *From:* MK > *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2024 2:28:09 AM > *To:* Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug > *Subject:* Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership > On 3/19/2024 3:54 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: > >> MK "Those numbers are based on how the bot would play against itself. >> If you accept the bot's decisions as best/perfect and if you try to >> play just like bot, assuming that your opponent will also try to play >> just like the bot, of course you wouldn't/shouldn't double." > >> Agreed. Against a worse player, you can take with fewer winning chances. >> If your opponent will give up enough equity in errors to overcome the >> error of the bad take (and your own subsequent errors), then you should >> still come out ahead. > > I hope you are realizing that you are agreeing with the bot, not with me. > What you quoted from me above was in response to your previously saying: > > "I wouldn’t double. As shown by the rollouts, I'd be giving > "up 0.36 points per game, on average. Even if I knew you would > "roll 66, I would still take, because the equity of -0.276 * 2 > "is still better than giving up a whole 1.000 point. > > Would you drop if you knew that the mutant would roll 77? You wouldn't. > (Just exaggerating to make a point, while reminiscing how Jellyfish was > not only rolling 77's but shamelessly playing them to escape 6-primes:) > > Once the mutant conditionally pre-doubles, (i.e. if rules allow it, in > case it wins the opening roll), you will become hostage to its strategy, > or in better sounding words, you will be dancing to its tune... ;) > > Reaching a D/P later won't help you either because the mutant will not > drop and will force you to keep playing until the last roll, perhaps > trading the cube more times back and forth. > > Letting the bot play for both side after the "opening double" actually > defeats the purpose of the experiment but since there is no "separately > existing, fully functional mutant bot (that would play like me;)" to > make it play against GnuBG 2-ply, this is the only way we can do it and > it's better than nothing. >
Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
Yes, I am referring to theoretical continuous model for the 20% value, and agree it would apply to any suitable game, not just backgammon. But backgammon isn't a continuous game. It has jumps in equity betewen one opportunity to double and the next. The concept of cube efficiency is the estimate to allow for this. What other approximations are there? If course, at deeper plies than 0, bots look at the outcomes of all possible sequences so the effect of the cube efficiency approximation diminishes. What would be your proposed structure for training a cubeful bot? What gains and obstacles do you foresee. If course I think similarly about your other insulting terminology. Speaking personally, it reduces the amount of pleasure I get from the discussion and therefore the amount of time I'm prepared to put in. From: MK Sent: Tuesday, April 2, 2024 11:43:40 AM To: Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug Subject: Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership On 3/31/2024 3:53 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: > I'm glad we agree on the basic 25% take point. Do you also agree on > the the theoretical 20% take point for perfect cube efficiency? If by "theoretical" you mean a purely mathematical proposition, i.e. not specifically related to cubeful backgammon, cubeful hopscotch, cubeful snakes and ladders, etc., or (to repeat myself) as applied in simple games where you can calculate those 25% and 20% accurately and consistently, then I would say I agree with you. > As far as I know, the only part of cube theory not calculated > mathematically is the estimate made for cube efficiency. But it's > a long time since I read Janowski so I may be wrong on that. Since no bot was ever trained through cubeful self-play, all cubeful calculations of all kinds are "mythematically" calculated, by using repeatedly adjusted constants to produce the results desired by the humans of faith... > (I think you are using "gamble gammon" as a pejorative. I suspect > that every time you do so, you lose credibility with anyone likely > to read this. You may wish to take this into account, bearing in > mind that most backgammon with the cube isn't played for money.) I like writing poems, coining new expressions, country music lyrics, word plays, puns, etc. and ta times I use them pejoratively but not so much with "gamblegammon", for which I used worse names. There was a game called "backgammon" before the "doubling cube" was introduced to it for gambling purposes, which changed it drastically enough for it to be considered a "variant" of backgammon, just like any other such variants. I have argued for over 20 years that the "cubeful backgammon variant" needs to be given a new name and I proposed "gamblegammon", which I thought was quite appropriate. I have been calling it "gamblegammon" in other forums like RGB ever since and invited others to suggest other names for it if they didn't like my "gamblegammon". Feel free to offer your suggestion. While on the subject, I'm surprised that you didn't catch on to many other expressions that I have been using pejoratively, such as my "fartoffski cube skill formula" against the "jackoffski cube skill formula", etc. Focus on understanding and refuting my arguments. If you (all) can't, then I really don't care about my credibility with people who can't understand my arguments, let alone rise up to defeat my arguments. MK > > *From:* MK > *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2024 4:34:39 AM > *To:* Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug > *Subject:* Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership > On 3/19/2024 7:44 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: > >> I don’t "divinely believe" in the current cube theory. I understand >> the maths behind it. If you have found errors in the maths, then I >> would be glad to re-evaluate. > >> Let's find out where you disagree by starting from the beginning. >> What is your analysis of the basic 25% takepoint calculation? > > > I'm not questioning whether a simple doubling theory, (assuming it > can be called a "theory"), can be applied in simple game where you > can calculate that 25% accurately and consistently. > > I'm questioning whether some doubling strategy can be applied in > gamblegammon, based on a jumble of incomplete/inaccurate empirical > statistics and mathematical calculation formulas that were several > times retrofitted to produce some expected results, and call it a > "cube skill theory". > > In RGB, some mathematicians had argued that it could be called a > "theory" because it was mathematically proven, which can not be > because the so-called "cube skill" is not a purely mathematical > proposition. > > In a game involving luck like gamblegammon, (more luck than skill > in my personal opinion), the proposition is necessarily statistical, > empirical one and thus needs to be empirically proven. > > You say "let's start from the
Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/31/2024 4:18 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: If the mutant strategy is always to take, then gnubg GAINS when > Mutant takes a D/P because that increases the points GnuBg wins. Yes, of course, but only and only if the GnuBG wins. Obviously you faithfully assume that GnuBG will always win and keep raking in the higher cube points but experiment like the ones I did may prove it otherwise. And this is only speaking about winning more than 50% of points. To this day, I have never been able get you guys to talk about mutant strategies winning more than what would be expected from their cube error rates, which is even more important in debunking the elaborate so-called "cube skill theory" a complete mound of cow pies... Currently, gnubg is assuming it is playing against a player using it's own cube strategy. And this is why they are as easy to derail as toy trains on tracks around the xmas tree and to beat even by people like me, who is a nobody compared to gamblegammon giants. See my 10-years old experiments against various bots at my site: https://montanaonline.net/backgammon/ I do however believe that future bots, trained through cubeful and matchful self-play, will come very close to "perfect" play that no human may possibly beat but current bots, including GnuBG, are not even worth a mention by that measure. It could be reprogrammed to take advantage of knowing that it's opponent would never pass. Okay, well, I'm daring to tell me how do you propose the bot could be reprogrammed to do that? You don't need to post the programming code here. Just explain how the bot would achieve that in plain language. I bet you won't be able to do. Empty talk is cheap... Let me hold your hand to make another baby step: even if you could reprogram a bot to to that, it would become just another version of the same toy train on tracks going in circles around the xmas tree, with the same weakness of exploitability by being totally predictable. After that, you would have to reprogram you bot by revising your jackoffski cube formulae again... Do you see your problem..? MK *From:* MK *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2024 2:28:09 AM *To:* Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug *Subject:* Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership On 3/19/2024 3:54 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: MK "Those numbers are based on how the bot would play against itself. If you accept the bot's decisions as best/perfect and if you try to play just like bot, assuming that your opponent will also try to play just like the bot, of course you wouldn't/shouldn't double." Agreed. Against a worse player, you can take with fewer winning chances. If your opponent will give up enough equity in errors to overcome the error of the bad take (and your own subsequent errors), then you should still come out ahead. I hope you are realizing that you are agreeing with the bot, not with me. What you quoted from me above was in response to your previously saying: "I wouldn’t double. As shown by the rollouts, I'd be giving "up 0.36 points per game, on average. Even if I knew you would "roll 66, I would still take, because the equity of -0.276 * 2 "is still better than giving up a whole 1.000 point. Would you drop if you knew that the mutant would roll 77? You wouldn't. (Just exaggerating to make a point, while reminiscing how Jellyfish was not only rolling 77's but shamelessly playing them to escape 6-primes:) Once the mutant conditionally pre-doubles, (i.e. if rules allow it, in case it wins the opening roll), you will become hostage to its strategy, or in better sounding words, you will be dancing to its tune... ;) Reaching a D/P later won't help you either because the mutant will not drop and will force you to keep playing until the last roll, perhaps trading the cube more times back and forth. Letting the bot play for both side after the "opening double" actually defeats the purpose of the experiment but since there is no "separately existing, fully functional mutant bot (that would play like me;)" to make it play against GnuBG 2-ply, this is the only way we can do it and it's better than nothing. So, this way the really "semi-mutant" play will lose but it still will not lose more than what would be expected from the cube error rate that the mutant incurs from this "opening double". This alone is enough to prove that the currently dogmatized "cube skill theory" is a jarful of cow chip cookies... MK
Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
On 3/31/2024 3:53 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: I'm glad we agree on the basic 25% take point. Do you also agree on the the theoretical 20% take point for perfect cube efficiency? If by "theoretical" you mean a purely mathematical proposition, i.e. not specifically related to cubeful backgammon, cubeful hopscotch, cubeful snakes and ladders, etc., or (to repeat myself) as applied in simple games where you can calculate those 25% and 20% accurately and consistently, then I would say I agree with you. As far as I know, the only part of cube theory not calculated mathematically is the estimate made for cube efficiency. But it's a long time since I read Janowski so I may be wrong on that. Since no bot was ever trained through cubeful self-play, all cubeful calculations of all kinds are "mythematically" calculated, by using repeatedly adjusted constants to produce the results desired by the humans of faith... (I think you are using "gamble gammon" as a pejorative. I suspect that every time you do so, you lose credibility with anyone likely to read this. You may wish to take this into account, bearing in mind that most backgammon with the cube isn't played for money.) I like writing poems, coining new expressions, country music lyrics, word plays, puns, etc. and ta times I use them pejoratively but not so much with "gamblegammon", for which I used worse names. There was a game called "backgammon" before the "doubling cube" was introduced to it for gambling purposes, which changed it drastically enough for it to be considered a "variant" of backgammon, just like any other such variants. I have argued for over 20 years that the "cubeful backgammon variant" needs to be given a new name and I proposed "gamblegammon", which I thought was quite appropriate. I have been calling it "gamblegammon" in other forums like RGB ever since and invited others to suggest other names for it if they didn't like my "gamblegammon". Feel free to offer your suggestion. While on the subject, I'm surprised that you didn't catch on to many other expressions that I have been using pejoratively, such as my "fartoffski cube skill formula" against the "jackoffski cube skill formula", etc. Focus on understanding and refuting my arguments. If you (all) can't, then I really don't care about my credibility with people who can't understand my arguments, let alone rise up to defeat my arguments. MK *From:* MK *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2024 4:34:39 AM *To:* Ian Shaw ; GnuBg Bug *Subject:* Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership On 3/19/2024 7:44 AM, Ian Shaw wrote: I don’t "divinely believe" in the current cube theory. I understand the maths behind it. If you have found errors in the maths, then I would be glad to re-evaluate. Let's find out where you disagree by starting from the beginning. What is your analysis of the basic 25% takepoint calculation? I'm not questioning whether a simple doubling theory, (assuming it can be called a "theory"), can be applied in simple game where you can calculate that 25% accurately and consistently. I'm questioning whether some doubling strategy can be applied in gamblegammon, based on a jumble of incomplete/inaccurate empirical statistics and mathematical calculation formulas that were several times retrofitted to produce some expected results, and call it a "cube skill theory". In RGB, some mathematicians had argued that it could be called a "theory" because it was mathematically proven, which can not be because the so-called "cube skill" is not a purely mathematical proposition. In a game involving luck like gamblegammon, (more luck than skill in my personal opinion), the proposition is necessarily statistical, empirical one and thus needs to be empirically proven. You say "let's start from the beginning". Yes, let's do so indeed. TD-Gammon v.1 was empirically trained through self-play of cubeless "money games", including gammons but not backgammons, and perhaps not enough trials. That's it. That's your beginning... To that, you use all kinds of "maths and mirrors" to add backgammon rates, cubeful equity formulas, cubeful matchful equity tables, etc. to "estimate" your winning chances, in order to apply to it what you a "basic 25% take point". And I'm questioning sanity of all this, in fact I'm arguing that it's all a pile of cow pies. Shortcuts was taken in the days of TD-Gammon because of not having enough CPU power, which is no longer true. Yet, there is no signs of any willingness out there to create cubefully, matcfully trained better gamblegammon bots. It's easier to destroy a falsely claimed "theory" by poking holes in it than to prove a proposition so that you can call it a theory, and this is what I'm trying to accomplish with my experiments. Since I can't single-handedly create a better bot, I'm trying what I can do to create a need for, thus an
