Does anyone know an example of an important bg match where Mochy
both had a worse PR than his opponent, and also lost?
Paul
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:09:21 PM UTC-7, paul wrote:
Does anyone know an example of an important bg match where Mochy
both had a worse PR than his opponent, and also lost?
Paul
I don't know about Mochy but here
http://greedygammon.com/support/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=358
is a 3 pt match I just now played against GreedyG (the GreedyGammon old version gnubg based bot) and lost, but my gnubg analysis error rate was actually lower than the bot
supernatural 0.6 vs world class 1.0
On 10/1/2021 7:38 PM, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:09:21 PM UTC-7, paul wrote:
Does anyone know an example of an important bg match where Mochy
both had a worse PR than his opponent, and also lost?
Paul
I don't know about Mochy but here
http://greedygammon.com/support/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=358
is a 3 pt match I just now played against GreedyG (the GreedyGammon old version gnubg based bot) and lost, but my gnubg analysis error rate was actually lower than the botThis, of course, is not what Paul asked for, even if we ignore
supernatural 0.6 vs world class 1.0
the bit about Mocy. Read again what Paul wrote.
---
Tim Chow
On 10/1/2021 7:38 PM, tetraHydro saved my life wrote:
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 12:09:21 PM UTC-7, paul wrote:
Does anyone know an example of an important bg match where Mochy
both had a worse PR than his opponent, and also lost?
Paul
I don't know about Mochy but here
http://greedygammon.com/support/viewtopic.php?f=31&t=358
is a 3 pt match I just now played against GreedyG (the GreedyGammon old version gnubg based bot) and lost, but my gnubg analysis error rate was actually lower than the botThis, of course, is not what Paul asked for, even if we ignore
supernatural 0.6 vs world class 1.0
the bit about Mocy. Read again what Paul wrote.
Given that Mochy is a world class player, known to have a consistent low error rate, it would be expected that on matches that he lost, he would still likely show a better PR than his opponent. This is the case with bots or human world class players,even when they lose, they still usually show world class or supernatural rating. In my example, if we substitute Mochy for the bot, he would have lost and shown a lower PR as well. Which is rare.
If Mochy had worse PR than his opponent in a match,
that also doesn't prove much because he could have
been intentionally sacrificing PR for tactical reasons.
the point of my posting is to find an example of where Mochy lost in the competitive sense.
Sort of along the lines of a "Mochy is human" example.
A loss by Mochy in itself usually just means Mochy's opponent was luckier.
If Mochy had worse PR than his opponent in a match, that also doesn't prove much because he could
have been intentionally sacrificing PR for tactical reasons.
But if he had worse PR and also lost, then that seems like a real loss to me. (But I don't know any such examples).
On 2021-10-02, peps...@gmail.com <peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
the point of my posting is to find an example of where Mochy lost in the competitive sense.
Sort of along the lines of a "Mochy is human" example.
A loss by Mochy in itself usually just means Mochy's opponent was luckier. >> If Mochy had worse PR than his opponent in a match, that also doesn't prove much because he could
have been intentionally sacrificing PR for tactical reasons.
But if he had worse PR and also lost, then that seems like a real loss to me.
(But I don't know any such examples).
This site: http://itikawa.com/kifdb/herodb.cgi?table=bg with 81 matches
by Mochy, would be a good place to start.
This one: http://itikawa.com/kifdb/bg/bin/yoshi-Mochy%2025%20point%20match%202019-10-05_1570420955.mat
qualifies, at least according to a quick 2-ply GNUbg analysis.
I suppose this is an example of a match that Mocky had a lower PR than his opponent and lost at the same time?
If so, what would be so special about that at all? Unless Mocky made "PR sacrificing moves for tactical reasons"!!
Can someone highlight such moves by Mocly in the above example match?
On 2021-10-13, MK <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
I suppose this is an example of a match that Mocky had a lower PR
than his opponent and lost at the same time?
I suppose you mean worse PR (higher, then) ?
If so, what would be so special about that at all? Unless Mocky
made "PR sacrificing moves for tactical reasons"!!
Can someone highlight such moves by Mocly in the above example
match?
I don't think there is anything special in it, except maybe that Mochy
being outplayed PR-wise is uncommon, but as this example shows,
it happens.
Anyway, it certainly wouldn't support the cause of someone claiming he
can consistently beat entities even stronger and more equanimous than
Mochy with some mysterious style of play everyone else is too dumb to
grasp.
.Paul claims...
that even a clown like Tim could exploit Jim by sacrificing PR.
And lastly, there is nothing "mysterious" about the "style" or "strategy" I used because I explained it openly in detail, such as my doubling right
after XG++'s opening with a 63 and its playing the way it does.
My reasoning is simple: the first version of TD-Gammon was an "alpha"
bot even if limited to playing 1-pointers. According to it, opening 63 is a bad roll.
To that, I added my argument that the player who first gains an
equity adge in a game will never lose statistically based on a significant number of trials like 4 billion games.
On 2021-10-14, MK <mu...@compuplus.net> wrote:
And lastly, there is nothing "mysterious" about the "style" or "strategy" I >> used because I explained it openly in detail, such as my doubling right
after XG++'s opening with a 63 and its playing the way it does.
My reasoning is simple: the first version of TD-Gammon was an "alpha"
bot even if limited to playing 1-pointers. According to it, opening 63 is a >> bad roll.
This is an example of why you are mocked here.
You make extraordinary claims but support them with reasons ranging
from weak to patently wrong.
Here, you simply neglect the fact that, even if opening with 63 with the
cube centered were sligthly below average, opening with 63 *and holding
the cube* is very different, and a lot better.
To that, I added my argument that the player who first gains an
equity adge in a game will never lose statistically based on a significant >> number of trials like 4 billion games.
Unhelpful argument again. This implicitely assumes that the players
are equal.
In every game the player who gets the opening roll "first gains
an equity edge" (on average, there are a few bad rolls,
although it is not clear 63 belongs to them).
If we play a variation where one of the players always rolls first
(but doublets are rerolled for the first move), he won't always win
very long sessions if he is not, at worst, only slightly weaker than
his opponent.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 292 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 186:48:14 |
Calls: | 6,616 |
Files: | 12,165 |
Messages: | 5,314,904 |