> Hi Mochy,
>
> the winning chances reported by a rollout are in a sense cubeless.
What
> actually goes on is the following. If a game is played to the end
the
> actual result is recorded, i.e. 1 lost backgammon counts as one game
in
> that column. However, many games are truncated, either by using the
race
> database, or at cash point. In these cases the evaluation values at
the
> truncation point is added to the individual columns. For example,
> suppose that you double out when winning 60% games and 40% gammons.
Then
>
> 0.60 0.40 0.00 - 0.40 0.00 0.00
>
> would be added.
Hmmm I'm confused:
1- When you say "cubeless", do you mean
that the game will be truncated right after the very first double decision, if any?
I understand your example of a double/pass, but what about a double/take
situation?
2- At the end of the trials, the computed "cubeless"
figures will lead to a "cubeless" equity that will be
translated into a cubefull equity via the janowski formula, right? In Mochy's
example, the W/G/BG% are the "cubeless" results of the rollout,
the CL is the "cubeless" equity and CF is comuted via Janowski formula?
3- Any idea why a simple "full cubefull rollout"
approach is not implemented ? I mean letting gnubg play against himeself cubefull
and record the outcome. I suspect this comes from the fact that its result
would not be a W/G/BG% but more an equity (for money) or a MWC (for match),
but hey, these are what matters ... Another reason is that the current method, truncating
at double decisions, should/could "reduce the variance" (provided
the evaluation is good).