bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Trouble calculating fully live take points


From: Lasse Hjorth Madsen
Subject: Re: Trouble calculating fully live take points
Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2023 20:55:43 +0200

Hmm ... you may be on to something. To clarify:

1. I use the Analyze|Market Window dialog box to generate take points via GNU.
2. I think the dead cube take points reported here must be gammon adjusted -- they clearly depend on the value that you put in the "gammon rate" window.
3. Yes, the values that I or GNU get are not for a specific position, only a specific match score -- and specific gammon rates.
4. Yes, I also take "for this position" to mean "for those gammon rates".

The only GNU generated take point I can't reproduce is the live one, *when gammons are included*. Worse, I've run out of ideas of how to reverse engineer their calculation -- except maybe for examining the source code (thank you for that suggestion).

/Lasse



Den søn. 11. jun. 2023 kl. 19.12 skrev Timothy Y. Chow <tchow@math.princeton.edu>:
On Sun, 11 Jun 2023, Lasse Hjorth Madsen wrote:
> Thanks, Tim. I don't think the problem is simply that I fail to factor
> gammons in, because my dead-cube take points agree with GNU, also for
> gammonish positions. It is only when I try to *both* account for gammons
> and a fully live cube, that I see a discrepancy.

But it could be that GNU's dead-cube take point is *not* gammon-adjusted,
while the "live-cube" take point *is* gammon-adjusted.  There's wide
consensus on what the dead-cube take point should mean, but there's much
less consensus on how to define the "live-cube" take point.

Another small thing to note is that the dead-cube take point doesn't
depend on the specific position; it depends only on the match score.  But
in the GNU documentation, when it quotes a live-cube take point, it says
that it's the live-cube take point *for that position*.  If the live-cube
take point depended only on the match score, then why would they say that
it's for that *position* as opposed to for that *match score*?  That they
say it's for the position is (to me) some weak evidence that they're
taking into account gammons (which of course vary from position to
position).

Tim


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]