bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: [Bug-gnubg] Measuring Complexity

 From: Joseph Heled Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Measuring Complexity Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 08:07:13 +1200

```If someone where to put several 10's of positions and remark on the
complexity we may have a better place to start discussing. I was
thinking about the moves being different, but it may be that positions
may work as well. Doubles are especially interesting because of the
greater number of possible moves.

-Joseph

On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Michael
> Yes I agree.
> Doesn't a neural net like a brain take in all the different aspects of a
> position and weight them and come up
> with equities and then rank them?
> So is there a way to extract from the weights of the net a measure of how
> many different factors make up the overall equity?
> In the old builds you used to be able to call up the evaluator for the
> contact net and it would show you all the weightings.
> Depending say how different these weightings were for plays that were close
> in equity could determine how complex a position was no?
> There are 22 different weights displayed when I call up the evaluator. (I
> hope I've got that techincally correct).
> Let's just say for simplicity sake for one position there are 2 moves and 20
> of the weights are identical and only 2 different and in another
> position 15 are identical and 7 different then that would be more complex.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:27:59 +1200
>> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Measuring Complexity
>>
>> I think it is not an easy one. My personal view is that a position is
>> "complex" if there are several *different* top moves which are very
>> close in equity. Now it all hangs on what "different" means :)
>>
>> -Joseph
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Michael
>> > I posted this on BGO:
>> > Has anyone ever tried to tackle the subject of measuring complexity in
>> > backgammon? Firstly you could take out moves / cube actions "that are
>> > completely unimportant". You include opening moves and maybe even
>> > replies
>> > amongst those? After that maybe you could use the move filters within BG
>> > software to assign a value. So let's say using gnubg analysis no plays
>> > get
>> > analysed at 2-ply as it's trivial then that move gets discarded. After
>> > that
>> > you could assign some kind of values based on how many moves and how big
>> > an
>> > equity difference they are away from the best play at 2-ply to reach a
>> > figure and divide it by the total plays. I'm no mathematician so
>> > wouldn't
>> > know how to weight these factors etc. Any thoughts or does no one really
>> > care?
>> >
>> > Michael
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>> > Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access
>> > both.
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Bug-gnubg mailing list
>> > http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>> >
>> >
>
> ________________________________
> Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.

```