t be the biggest possible cube
error), will achieve? Any guesses by anyone..?
MK
base
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
ot 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
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
ying what
I can do to create a need for, thus an incentive for the creation of
such a bot, "from scratch".
My "fartoffski mutant cube strategy", (based on arbitrary stages of
game and double/take points), in my experiments 11 and 12 came within
margin of error of beating GnuBG 2-ply. Folks, it's time for better
gamblegammon bots...
MK
On 3/19/2024 7:37 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
MK: This is why I am doing my various experiments. One of which
that I had previously mentioned in this very thread involves a
"mutant cubestrategy" of doubling at GWC > 50% and taking at
GWC > 0%. In that experiment of 20,000 money games
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 wou
hrough 13,
feel free to offer your comments and arguments on the subject.
MK
PS: I will reply to Ian's last posts soon also.
Cat got your tongues?
Meow... ;)
MK
On 3/4/2024 5:26 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
Since at least you care to continue this discussion, I will invest
more of my time and effort mainly for the sake of improving GnuBG.
Sorry, MK, I didn't read back over the old threads,
It was in my a previous post in this current thread here but it's
On 3/3/2024 8:16 PM, MK wrote:
The next day after that, I checked it in Snowie and I
posted a comprehensive recap about the subject. See:
Sorry I forgot to give the link. Here it is:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/rFZyUcg8IPQ/m/gxuWiERmCAAJ
MK
he starting position if
it occurred multiple times. I guess I just like to not
stop until I get to the bottom of things...
MK
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 (
x86)\gnubg\ or C:\Users\***\.gnubg
This may be why some do, some don't experience the bug??
MK
On 2/11/2024 6:01 AM, EDWARD GOLDBERG wrote:
Can I be removed from this email list please?
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/options/bug-gnubg/
===
So, again, what I would like to know is if I run 10,000 games from
each of the above three positions, what results should I expect?
In other words, which one of these many different equity numbers
(with no obvious correspondences for me) do I use to multiply by
10,000 to predict by how much the mutant will win or lose?
MK
;) 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
d, thus don't know if I need
to use the normalized or un-normalized error rate but I hope
I will figure it out while the session is running. Any help
with this will be appreciated.
Also, I have no idea about how to calculate a "should have
won" number like in XG. Can you or someone else here help me
with that by chance..?
MK
. There may be some
insane and not so busy ones who may want to do so.
MK
Python interface is not the only tool I can use to
do my experiments. So, don't dump too much credit on
yourself. In fact, GnuBG isn't the only bot I can use
for my experiments either. (Just trying to help you get
over it faster...;)
MK
atchful" (a term
I coined) self-play, instead of extrapolating cubeful equities
by applying "untested" formulas to cubeless equities and
extrapolating matchfull equities by applying MET's to cubeless
equities...
I only want better bots. But to create a need for them, I must
first try to destroy the mediocre offsprings of TD-Gammon v2.
(TD-Gammon v1 was okay. It became human-biased later).
MK
let's start with this one from the very bottom.
MK
sults will be quite unsettling to most of
you. Please share any results that you may get.
MK
any script that
uses those needs to swap them back (see the script I will share).
Okay, enough for now with these issues. I will soon send a new
post about my improved script with links to files and results.
MK
On 1/20/2024 10:44 PM, MK wrote:
All auto roll/play settings are off. I wonder if the > script gets ahead of or
lags behind the bot or such..?
Bot was set to world-class and analysis set to 4-ply.
After setting analysis to world-class also, it did
run without errors a few times. Do I n
in the GUI also. If interested
you guys can look at this thread in RGB for example:
https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/ikCPgBiZHvs/m/SW66d7ZACAAJ
Thanks for your trying to help. You did at least motivate me.
MK
On 1/18/2024 2:22 PM, MK wrote:
On 1/18/2024 6:31 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
You can’t make the gnubg engine only be itself
for some moves, and ask you to make the choices
for other moves.
There is no reason for this arbitrary, unnecessary
limitation. Bot can wait to roll and/or move until
it's
ontribute efforts towards this.
It’s interesting that you think the cube decision
can be improved upon. ... What’s your algorithm?
I will reply to this separately in order to not
talk about too many subjects in a single thread.
MK
that both sides will make checker moves
per the same player settings, without worrying if hints
based on analysis settings will exactly match those.
I hope I explained clearly. I will appreciate any further
suggestions and even an existing similar script that I
can modify instead of inventing the wheel from scratch.
MK
situations).
This most likely very simple to fix bug was discussed in
RGB probably more than once over the past years but I'm
not sure if it was ever reported here. So, I'm doing it
now and hoping that it will be fixed soon.
MK
ant to abuse this mailing list too much; if you are interested please
join this Discord server:
https://discord.gg/Ckvf7y8nGz
Can you allow read-only access for the general public without having to create
an account?
MK
On 9/29/2022 3:35 PM, Philippe Michel wrote:
On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 04:21:52PM -0600, MK wrote:
I'm sending you files that should help you even better. [...]
Indeed, the session sgf file you attached explains the issue
The latter isn't good, but what makes it worse
this?
Are you going to just ignore it without further testing?
MK
On 9/18/2022 2:26 PM, playbg-...@yahoo.com wrote:
Very strange. I just tested again with gnubg-1.06.002-dev-20220908
Same thing, running money session of 10 games, first with GUI then
with CLI (after verifying player settings are the same
ch were countered by purely divine revelations that it
decreases the luck factor.
The purpose of the experiment I proposed is to settle this
debate.
MK
> On Mon, 19 Sept 2022 at 08:06, mailto:playbg-...@yahoo.com>> wrote:
> If only the predefined setting is selected, then in
34 matches
Mail list logo
