|
From: | Ned Cross |
Subject: | Re: [Bug-gnubg] Bug in analysis - position enclosed - more details |
Date: | Mon, 28 Oct 2002 23:26:07 -0800 |
Hi,
New comments embedded below
(NC).
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Bug in analysis - position
enclosed - more details
> Ned Cross wrote:
> > > > Hi, > > I don't know the definition of "crashed" position. I used the term > > because "evaluate" prior to the roll gave the output below. > > > > Right. I see that I forgot to check in a fix for this. I am posting it now. > > The contact net shows 85.8% % 14.2% after 6/1 5/1 (NC) Good to know that perhaps GNU will
evaluate positions like this better in the future, since the
"contact" net is probably better trained to handle them. I
will rerun the analysis as soon as a new build is available.
> > > I'm wondering if there are two separate issues here: > > > > 1) That GNU doesn't understand this position. > > > > 2) That the reported 2-ply win % for the candidate move ("after the roll") > > does NOT equal the reported 2-ply win % for the position resulting from the > > candidate move ("before the next roll"). Right or wrong, shouldn't those two > > numbers be the same? > > > > Should be. Perhaps one is cubelss and the other cubefull? Are you sure the > parameters are the same? (NC) The output in my original post was generated from a GNU 2-ply analysis
(cubeful checker play) with 2-ply cube. The analysis parameters were the
same. After digging deeper, I have found the cause of the
discrepancy. The value for 2-ply analysis AFTER the move is the same as
the value for 1-ply analysis BEFORE the next move. (Similarly, a 3-ply
move analysis of the 6/1* 5/1 move predicts the same 82.2% wins as the 2-ply
cube analysis before the next roll). This does not seem correct to
me. Shouldn't 2-ply = 2-ply if there is no move in between?
>
> > Ned |
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |