I'll try not to refer to the paper and just use my memory.
There are two sensible ways to apply Isight here.
(I got confused here around l and delta l so I had to cheat to refer
to the paper. Now I understand the problem and, unfairly as usual,
I'm going to blame Axel for my confusion! The problem is that we use
the raw pip count l/3 but use "l" which reminds me of "lead". A bit
too inconsistent for my tastes. Maybe p for the pip count and l for
the lead.)
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
I'll try not to refer to the paper and just use my memory.You better had. Page 28: "Add 2 pips for each checker more than 2 on
point 1." You just added 2 pips in total, not per "additional" checker.
There are two sensible ways to apply Isight here.I my opinion, there is no sensible way to apply the Isight method
here. Acepoint stacks are about the only position where even I do not
use my own method. Because I know them by heart:
- Less than 4 rolls: D/P
- Exactly 4 rolls: R/T
- More than 4 rolls: D/T
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 4:05:25 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
- Less than 4 rolls: D/P
- Exactly 4 rolls: R/T
- More than 4 rolls: D/T
I don't think so. 6 or 7 rolls each is ND/T, I think.
I meant the situation where only one player has an acepoint stack.
For example, player A has 6 on the acepoint. Player B has 5 on the
acepoint and one on the three point. This is R/T if B is on roll.
It's a good paper.
not enough discussion (if any) is contained on separating the
in-sample results from the out-of-sample results.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
On Monday, April 18, 2022 at 4:05:25 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
- Less than 4 rolls: D/P
- Exactly 4 rolls: R/T
- More than 4 rolls: D/T
I don't think so. 6 or 7 rolls each is ND/T, I think.No, I just looked it up in Danny Kleinman's "Vision laughs at counting"
("The complete ace-point bear-off". Even 8 rolls (15 checkers each on
point 1) is D/T. A rollout confirms these results. My list above is
correct.
I meant the situation where only one player has an acepoint stack.I understand now. I did nothing specific for these kind of positions,
but there should be a bunch of these positions in Tom's database. Hence
these cases were part of the fit and I would apply the method literally.
For example, player A has 6 on the acepoint. Player B has 5 on the... which my method gives correctly if taken literally.
acepoint and one on the three point. This is R/T if B is on roll.
It's a good paper.Thank you.
not enough discussion (if any) is contained on separating theThis is correct. We discussed this already, and my main reply was this
in-sample results from the out-of-sample results.
one from Message-ID: <m28s4vi...@axel-reichert.de>:
[snip]
Thanks for your principled remarks. In theory this is of course correct
best practice, but I have some doubts that an essentially linear
"Ansatz" with 23 parameters is able to overfit a database with more than 50000 positions involving nonlinear effects.
Having said this, precisely this concern was raised shortly after I
published my paper 7 years ago. So I had GNU Backgammon generate another database of 50000 pure race positions (similar to Tom Keith's data
gathered from FIBS). The results:
1. Again, the Isight count fared best on this database compared to other counts and combinations of adjustments and decision criteria.
2. Again, later tuning to this new database yielded exactly the same parameter values that were published.
[snip]
And, by the way, in November 2020 you already pointed out the "optional
pass" error. I commented on this in Message-ID: <m2ft4sn...@axel-reichert.de>.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 296 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 63:59:59 |
Calls: | 6,654 |
Files: | 12,200 |
Messages: | 5,331,761 |