[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: current development

From: Joseph Heled
Subject: Re: current development
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2019 11:23:04 +1300

I googled and found this:


Seems very much like GNUBG, only a smaller net. No way to tell how it compares to (say) GNUBG.


On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 11:12, Joseph Heled <address@hidden> wrote:
A link to something? article? software? did they use alpha-like strategies?


On Thu, 5 Dec 2019 at 11:04, Philippe Michel <address@hidden> wrote:
On Wed, Dec 04, 2019 at 02:07:18PM -0500, Timothy Y. Chow wrote:

> Also, it's my impression that many people *don't* think this is even a
> worthwhile idea to pursue.  Backgammon is already "solved," is what they
> will say.  It's true that "AlphaGammon" will surely not crush existing
> bots in a series of (say) 11-point matches.  At most I would expect a
> slight advantage.  But to me, that is the wrong way to look at the issue.
> I would like to understand superbackgames for their own sake, even though
> they arise rarely in practice.  Furthermore, if we know that bots don't
> understand superbackgames, then the closer a position gets to being a
> superbackgame, the less we can trust the bot verdict.

I'm not sure how related it may be, but there is a group of Greek
academics that have published some articles on their work on a bot,
Palamedes, that plays backgammon but also variants that have different
rules and starting positions and lead to positions that would be very
uncommon in backgammon.

reply via email to

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