[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: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 09:43:58 +1300

Of course you need to weight every position with the probability it occurs in actual play. (not that we know how to effectively compute it).

I don't think 2009 threads are a good indication. We need something with the current net, which I think is better.


On Sun, 8 Dec 2019 at 09:33, Timothy Y. Chow <address@hidden> wrote:
On Sun, 8 Dec 2019, Joseph Heled wrote:
> Yes. But there is the question of how easy it is to "navigate" to those
> positions. can you reliably get to those positions against a bot and win
> from their ignorance?I have my doubts.

I've done some experimentation of this sort, but rather than quote my own
experience, I'll point you to reports by people who have spent more time
on this than I have.  BGOnline is having some server problems, but I think
these links should work:


The upshot is that GNU 2-ply (version 0.xx) or XG 3-ply (version 1) is
reportedly exploitable in this manner, if you play money games with an
unlimited cube.  Stronger settings are reportedly harder to exploit, but
maybe not impossible.

In any case, as I said earlier, in my opinion this line of investigation
is not really the most interesting one.  IMO the closeness of a bot to
perfection should be measured not just by its performance from the
standard starting position, but from *any* position that could legally
arise in a game.  The reason is that in practice, bots are used to analyze
positions that arise in actual games.  It's obviously a logical error to
conclude that the bot's analysis of an arbitrary position is sound just
because it plays well from the starting position, but I'm surprised to see
how often I see people implicitly making this error.


reply via email to

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