RE: [Bug-gnubg] Permit GNU to consider deliberate cube errors

[Ian Shaw]

 From: Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:53
 
> > Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:11
> > > Ex:
> > >
> > > Move 1 - Correct Play: D/Take    Played: No double  My 
> Error: -0.048
> > > Move 2 - Correct Play: D/Pass    Played: No double  My 
> Error: -0.178
> > > Move 3 - Correct Play: too good  Played: D??/Take?? My 
> Error: -0.078
> > >
> > > In this case, the take was a (supposing) 0.560 mega blunder.
> > > It couldn't be much less for taking a double in a Too 
> Good position. 
> > > In this case, since there was a blunderous Take, not only is the 
> > > wrong double deducted from the equity lost by the take, but the 
> > > immediately preceding errors I made by not doubling are 
> also added 
> > > up. This gives 560 - 48 - 178 - 78 = a single 0.256 
> blunder for my 
> > > opponent.
> > 
> > This is simply wrong. Your opponent has made a 0.56 
> blunder, and must 
> > be charged for it irrespective of your errors.
> 
> The point is to balance out my error with his. If in absolute 
> terms, I did indeed sacrifice equity, to gain further equity, 
> then that sacrificed equity shouldn't be ignored, should it? 
> Since the idea is to not be punished for this, the only 
> logical way I see is to deduce it from larger equity loss of 
> my opponent.

His error is still 0.56. There is more of a case for adjusting your
error by:

-0.078 - -0.56 = +0.482 i.e. a positive blunder in your favour.

Do you go back to Move 1 and also adjust the -0/048 error? If Move 2's
correct action was ND/T, would move 1 still be re-evaluated? This is
what I was referring to when I talked about taking future moves into
account - future from the current move's POV.

I can understand the desire to reward error-inducing plays, but I think
that it is impossible to come up with a logical and consistent
framework. You are trying to analyse the meta-game, not the game itself.


-- Ian