[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: current development
From: |
Timothy Y. Chow |
Subject: |
Re: current development |
Date: |
Sat, 7 Dec 2019 16:15:09 -0500 (EST) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01) |
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Joseph Heled wrote:
Of course you need to weight every position with the probability it
occurs in actual play.
You say "of course," but I don't agree. Weighting things in that way
amounts to demanding perfection only from the starting position. In my
book, perfection means perfection from any legal position. This is
sometimes referred to as "strongly solving" a game as opposed to "weakly
solving" or simply "solving" it.
I don't think 2009 threads are a good indication. We need something with
the current net, which I think is better.
This is fair. I would guess that GNU 2-ply (version 1.xx) and XG 3-ply
(version 2.xx) are still susceptible to the tactic, though less so than
earlier versions. But this is just speculation; the only way to find out
is for someone experienced with the relevant tactics to try it out.
I think that XG won't let you turn the cube past 1024 in actual play, so
that might be an obstacle. What typically happens in a money session is
that the human loses a long string of games and then makes up for it in a
favorable game, when the bot will beaver and redouble when it is losing.
If you can get the bot to do this a few times in a row then you can win
thousands of points in a single game. If your goal is simply to come out
ahead at the end of the session, then you might need to win just one such
super-favorable game, since then you can protect your lead by dropping all
doubles in all subsequent games, and refusing to double yourself until
you're sure it's a drop.
Of course any computer is going to have *some* limit on the cube but I
doubt that a cap of 2^30 or even 2^20 will be a serious limitation.
Tim
- Re: current development, (continued)
- Re: current development, Timothy Y. Chow, 2019/12/05
- Re: current development, Nikos Papachristou, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Joseph Heled, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Timothy Y. Chow, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Joseph Heled, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Timothy Y. Chow, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Joseph Heled, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development,
Timothy Y. Chow <=
- Re: current development, Joseph Heled, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Timothy Y. Chow, 2019/12/07
- Re: current development, Philippe Michel, 2019/12/08
Re: current development, Myshkin LeVine, 2019/12/04