Did anyone here compare in some more detail the above three approaches:
1. Fill the highest gap
2. Reduce the biggest stack difference
3. Minimize wastage according to some adjusted pip count
What techniques do you use over the board?
1. Playing 6/3 or 4/2 or 2/1 is usually an efficient use of a miss.
2. When I'm down to 2 checkers, it's best to keep them e =
2.718... pips apart
Less obviously, if I'm losing then I will fill high gaps and if I'm
way ahead then I will fill low gaps.
Are things like this covered in Michi's "Endgame Technique"? Any other comments on this book?
Here are some positions from my files. I have lots more if there are specific things you're looking for.
I think I would rather repurpose Tom Keith's database of endgame
positions. It should be easy to create tons of checker play problems
from it using GNU Backgammon's scripting/automation capabilities.
My gut feeling for such a project is that minimizing EPCs will be the
best strategy (with rare exceptions), which makes the heuristic of
minimizing an adjusted pipcount the favourite.
There is an advantage to examining hand-picked positions: those are
the positions where one is in most need of a heuristic. A
machine-generated list may contain a lot of positions which are "easy"
for a human in the sense that the correct move is what a human would naturally play anyway. Heuristic 1 might solve more positions in this
list than Heuristic 2, but Heuristic 2 might solve more of the
"difficult" positions.
Run your script and keep only the positions that H gets wrong. Then
study just these "hard" positions, and try to modify H to yield a more sophisticated, but still humanly usable, heuristic H+. Run H+ on the
whole corpus again
Mochy reported a rather large
error resulting from my Isight method "in a friendly chouette for not so friendly stakes" (whatever that means ...)...
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:30:52 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
Mochy reported a rather large
error resulting from my Isight method "in a friendly chouette for not so
friendly stakes" (whatever that means ...)...
To me, the meaning seems actually quite clear.
There are two aspects:
1) The chouette was friendly.
2) The stakes were not friendly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredkin%27s_paradox
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
On Saturday, April 16, 2022 at 8:30:52 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
Mochy reported a rather large
error resulting from my Isight method "in a friendly chouette for not so >> friendly stakes" (whatever that means ...)...
To me, the meaning seems actually quite clear.So far, so clear. But I would have been curious about the number
There are two aspects:
1) The chouette was friendly.
2) The stakes were not friendly.
quantifying aspect 2 ...
I think my ending post has been completely misunderstood.
If it were possible (to use an analogy from linear, structural dynamics)
to augment the "orthogonal base" of eigenvectors for a real world
transient dynamic process by a "residual mode" that improves precisely
on the stuff not captured by the orginal "orthogonal base", that would
be great. However, I do not see how to ensure this orthogonality, be it
for cubing or moving in non-contact positions.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 29:22:30 |
Calls: | 6,648 |
Calls today: | 3 |
Files: | 12,193 |
Messages: | 5,328,256 |