Hint:
1. Cubeful 0-ply 8/5 6/5 Eq.: +0.218
5. Cubeful 0-ply 13/9 Eq.: -0.026 (-0.244)
Analysis after play:
Luck total EMG (Points) +0.000 ( +0.000) +0.218 ( +0.218)
Luck rate mEMG (Points) n/a +218.2 ( +0.218)
Luck rating n/a Go to Las Vegas
## Gnubg doesn't subract the average eqity from the opening roll
## Luck should be +0.218 - +0.0543 = +0.1637
## So far so good except that Player1's total luck is off by +0.0543
## which is the average equity of opening rolls, excluding doubles
## This error will perpetuate in all subsequent luck calculations, in
## other related calculations or decisions related to it, based on it
At this point, we have recycled back to opening position
## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening position/roll...!
The average equity from the opening roll is zero, because it's +0.0543
half the time (when I win the opening roll) and -0.0543 half the time
(when I lose the opening roll).
On 12/26/2022 6:30 AM, MK wrote:
## Gnubg doesn't subract the average eqity
from the opening roll
## Luck should be +0.218 - +0.0543 = +0.1637
The average equity from the opening roll
is zero, because it's +0.0543 half the time
(when I win the opening roll) and -0.0543
half the time (when I lose the opening roll).
I suppose you could redefine "MK luck" to be
the same as luck, except that you subtract
0.0543 when you win the opening roll and
you add 0.0543 when you lose the opening
roll, but that seems confusing and pointless.
It would make it seem that winning the
opening roll is less lucky than it actually is.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
## So far so good except that Player1's total luck
is off by +0.0543
## which is the average equity of opening rolls,
excluding doubles
Tim (and myself) already corrected you on this one.
## This error will perpetuate in all subsequent luck
calculations, in
## other related calculations or decisions related
to it, based on it
Apart from it being no error,
I am not aware where GNU Backgammon might
use this further downstream.
It is just output for someone interested in dice
statistics.
This typically holds true for weak wetware, not
strong software.
At this point, we have recycled back to opening
position
## Gnubg stil thinks this is the openingposition/roll...!
Read the source, Luke. analysis.c, function
"LuckAnalysis"
Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> writes:
The average equity from the opening roll is zero,
because it's +0.0543 half the time (when I win
the opening roll) and -0.0543 half the time
(when I lose the opening roll).
Yes.
And by the way, GNU Backgammon allows for
more than 0-ply analysis of luck, .....
Try to understand it this way: Players toss a
coin to decide who goes first. The winner of
the opening roll is sitting there, shaking the
dice in his cup. His *average* equity at that
moment is +0.0543 before he even rolls the
dice. It should be easy to understand this...
On 12/26/2022 4:14 PM, MK wrote:
Try to understand it this way: Players toss a
coin to decide who goes first. The winner of
the opening roll is sitting there, shaking the
dice in his cup. His *average* equity at that
moment is +0.0543 before he even rolls the
dice. It should be easy to understand this...
Yes, of course that's true.
But luck isn't calculated for "the winner of the
opening roll." If Alice plays Bob ... Half the time,
Alice is the winner of the opening roll, and ... her
average equity is +0.0543, but the other half of
the time, Alice is the *loser* of the opening roll,
and her average equity is -0.0543.
You might object, "No, look, we're talking about .....
On December 28, 2022 at 8:16:32 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
But luck isn't calculated for "the winner of the
opening roll." If Alice plays Bob ... Half the time,
Alice is the winner of the opening roll, and ... her
average equity is +0.0543, but the other half of
the time, Alice is the *loser* of the opening roll,
and her average equity is -0.0543.
Yes and I've never said anything different. You may
have misunderstood because in this thread we are
talking about Gnubg which tallies luck equities of
the players separately and would add/subtract the
average equity, (if it were correctly to do so), to the
column of the winner of the opening roll each game.
On 12/28/2022 11:53 PM, MK wrote:
On December 28, 2022 at 8:16:32 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
Half the time, Alice is the winner of the opening
roll, and ... her average equity is +0.0543, but the
other half of the time, Alice is the *loser* of the
opening roll, and her average equity is -0.0543.
Yes and I've never said anything different. You
may have misunderstood because in this thread
we are talking about Gnubg which tallies luck
equities of the players separately ...
No, I haven't misunderstood anything.
Winning the opening roll is a lucky event (to the
tune of +0.0543).
What GNUBG and XG are doing is tallying up all
these lucky events. Here's the main point: *They are
including the luckiness of winning the opening roll*.
What you're saying is that since the reporter chose
to interview the winner of the opening roll, we should
ignore the luckiness of winning the opening roll when
tallying up the luck.
Reporter: How lucky were you?
Me: I was very lucky! First, I won the opening roll. Then...
Reporter: Stop. Don't count the luckiness of winning the
opening roll. Don't you realize that I chose to interview
you precisely because you won the opening roll? I want
to know how lucky you were *after* that.
In short, there's certainly nothing wrong with what
GNUBG and XG are doing,
and it's a much more natural way to calculate luck
than what you're proposing.
I'm not trying to redefine "luck rate". I'm going by you
folks' definition that "luck "rate" is the "Deviation of
equity from average Roll"! And I'm demonstrating to
you folks that your garbage bots are implementing it
incorrectly!
Player1
T-map for 31: +0.218 - +0.106 = +0.112
Luck total EMG (Points) +0.000 ( +0.000) +0.218 ( +0.218)
.....
## Gnubg doesn't subract the average eqity from the opening
## Luck should be +0.218 - +0.0543 = +0.1637
.....
Luck total EMG (Points) +0.407 ( +0.407) +0.378 ( +0.378)
.....
At this point, we have recycled back to opening position
.....
## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening position/roll...!
On 12/29/2022 6:56 PM, MK wrote:
I'm not trying to redefine "luck rate". I'm going by you
folks' definition that "luck "rate" is the "Deviation of
equity from average Roll"! And I'm demonstrating to
you folks that your garbage bots are implementing it
incorrectly!
Let me try one more angle. To make the numbers
easier to grasp, let's pretend that on the opening
roll, we throw three-sided dice, A, B, C, so that .....
The way GNUBG calculates the luck is that is notes
that the equity before the roll is 0.0, and it ....
What MK is suggesting is this: we note that, .....
One can, of course, compute such a number, but .....
Whatever flaws the GNUBG definition of luck has are
not as absurd as the flaws in the MK definition of luck.
I'm not offering any new definition of luck. Gnubg's luck
definition is fine with me. I'm exposing that the flaw is
in Gnubg's implementing its own definition of luck.
GNUBG is correctly implementing its own definition of luck.
The problem is that you don't understand that definition.
---
Tim Chow
No, not landing an 11-in-36 chance is entirely probable by definition. All you bad actors here *can* see that can't you?
On 12/31/2022 6:59 AM, MK wrote:
I'm not offering any new definition of luck.
Gnubg's luck definition is fine with me. I'm
exposing that the flaw is in Gnubg's
implementing its own definition of luck.
GNUBG is correctly implementing its own
definition of luck. The problem is that you
don't understand that definition.
I bothered to give you, (and all the bozos here),
a step by step proof of it because you sounded
like you were trying to understand it. If you are
unwilling or unable to follow my demonstration,
it's your loss and no amount of unsubstantiated,
inconsequential assertions will make up for it. :(
On 1/2/2023 8:43 PM, MK wrote:
I bothered to give you, (and all the bozos here),
a step by step proof of it because you sounded
like you were trying to understand it. If you are
unwilling or unable to follow my demonstration,
it's your loss and no amount of unsubstantiated,
inconsequential assertions will make up for it. :(
LOL. You wouldn't know a proof if it hit you in the face.
On December 26, 2022 at 4:30:49 AM UTC-7, MK wrote:
Luck total EMG (Points) +0.407 (+0.407) +0.378 (+0.378)
At this point, we have recycled back to opening position
3- Calculating luck equities for recycled positions ...
Gnubg fails to realize that it's not the initial opening
position and thus fails again to adjust for average
equity, (as a separate error than for #2 above).
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening position/roll...!
Read the source, Luke. analysis.c, function "LuckAnalysis"
On December 26, 2022 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening position/roll...!
Read the source, Luke. analysis.c, function "LuckAnalysis"
I was too lazy to do and I thought you would quote
from it here for everyone's convenience but I wish
I had listened to you. I had assumed I knew what
would be in there but I just found out what I have
been missing.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
On December 26, 2022 at 9:21:03 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening position/roll...!
Read the source, Luke. analysis.c, function "LuckAnalysis"
I was too lazy to do and I thought you would quote
from it here for everyone's convenience but I wish
I had listened to you. I had assumed I knew what
would be in there but I just found out what I have
been missing.
I learned that the luck calculation fails (for a recycled
initial position) from this very comment in analysis.c
and wanted you to do your own research, which by
now you finally did.
I never managed to return to the initial position in real
play, hence I do not care about this exotic scenario.
Otherwise, GNU Backgammon's luck calculations are
fine, though not conforming to your own, personal
definition of luck, but rather to a definition that makes
perfect sense from a mathematical or game-theoretical
point of view, see Tim's nice explanations.
And if I were Philippe Michel, I would be terribly motivated
to fix something that bothers someone with your always
polite, friendly and almost courteous behaviour.
"if (is_init_board && n0 != n1)"
If the dice are doubles and you are at the initial position, it means
that you are at a recycled initial position. But if not, you can't
tell if you are at the first initial position or at a recycled initial position. Thus the comparison fails at differentiating between the
two.
In any case, Gnubg should calculate luck rate according to its
definition of it
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
"if (is_init_board && n0 != n1)"
If the dice are doubles and you are at the initial
position, it means that you are at a recycled
initial position. But if not, you can't tell if you
are at the first initial position or at a recycled
initial position. Thus the comparison fails at
differentiating between the two.
This is clear from the code and means that the
luck calculations are off IFF the game returns to
the initial positions AND a non-doublet is rolled.
So the "bug" (I am tempted to call this a limitation)
frequency is reduced by another 25/36.
In any case, Gnubg should calculate luck rate
according to its definition of it
I agree. Please let us know once you encounter
this in real play.
What we refer to as initial position is a position like any other,
with Position ID: 4HPwATDgc/ABMA and has an average equity of +0.106
or +0.0543 based on when it occurs during a game.
Since you can't paste just a position ID to Gnubg, add to it an
opening Match ID: cAkAAAAAAAAE and paste.
MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
Since you can't paste just a position ID to Gnubg, add
to it an opening Match ID: cAkAAAAAAAAE and paste.
... which is not the Match ID at the start of a money
session, but the Match ID during play.
To see the difference, start new money sessions until
you (the player at the bottom) get the first roll. Then
click twice on the "Go to previous roll" button (blue left
arrow). By then the dice roll has vanished.
You will notice that the Position ID is the same as
mentioned by you above, but the Match ID is
cAgAAAAAAAAA
not
cAkAAAAAAAAE
See .....
I suspect that bits 9 to 11 will be responsible for the
difference (000 versus 001, but I did not check).
Notice also that then no temperature map is available.
On January 3, 2023 at 6:37:05 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
On 1/2/2023 8:43 PM, MK wrote:
I bothered to give you, (and all the bozos here),
a step by step proof of it because you sounded
like you were trying to understand it. If you are
unwilling or unable to follow my demonstration,
it's your loss and no amount of unsubstantiated,
inconsequential assertions will make up for it. :(
LOL. You wouldn't know a proof if it hit you in the face.
What if I stuffed it in your inferiority complexed stupid
ass..? Would you know it then..? Here, (lines 243-246):
https://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnubg/gnubg/analysis.c?r1=1.240&r2=1.241
After you enjoy it awhile, wipe it and hand it to Axel...
On 1/3/2023 5:08 PM, MK wrote:
On January 3, 2023 at 6:37:05 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
LOL. You wouldn't know a proof if it hit you in the face.
What if I stuffed it in your inferiority complexed stupid
ass..? Would you know it then..? Here, (lines 243-246):
https://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnubg/gnubg/analysis.c?r1=1.240&r2=1.241 >> After you enjoy it awhile, wipe it and hand it to Axel...
Ah, now *that* is interesting! Of course, it has nothing
to do with your "proof."
On January 5, 2023 at 6:13:14 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
On 1/3/2023 5:08 PM, MK wrote:
On January 3, 2023 at 6:37:05 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
LOL. You wouldn't know a proof if it hit you in the face.
What if I stuffed it in your inferiority complexed stupid
ass..? Would you know it then..? Here, (lines 243-246):
https://cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/gnubg/gnubg/analysis.c?r1=1.240&r2=1.241
After you enjoy it awhile, wipe it and hand it to Axel...
Ah, now *that* is interesting! Of course, it has nothing
to do with your "proof."
As you have done dozens, if not hundreds of times
before, when your math leaves you with nothing to
say about the issue on hand, you switch to teaching
English, correcting gammar and pucntuation errors
of errors and such... :(
Okay, start by explaining why you put the word proof
in quotation marks and teach me/us all the different
usages/meanings of "proof" prof...
For once, it has nothing to do with grammar.
What you were initially complaining about, and
claimed to have a "proof" of, had nothing to do
with the "FIXME" that you later found.
Your own suggested "bug fix" does not implement
the FIXME. You were suggesting subtracting 0.0543
from the luck of the winner of the opening roll. This
has nothing to do with the FIXME bug, which concerns
what to do should the opening position happen to
arise again in the course of the game.
On January 6, 2023 at 5:43:00 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
What you were initially complaining about, and
claimed to have a "proof" of, had nothing to do
with the "FIXME" that you later found.
Not true. Look at my ariginal post and find where I
had said: "## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening
position/roll...!" (about 10 lines from the end). So, I
already knew that Gnubg was calculating luck rate
wrong during the game, in addition my argument
that it was calculating wrong during the opening roll.
On 1/6/2023 2:08 PM, MK wrote:
On January 6, 2023 at 5:43:00 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
What you were initially complaining about, and
claimed to have a "proof" of, had nothing to do
with the "FIXME" that you later found.
Not true. Look at my ariginal post and find where I
had said: "## Gnubg stil thinks this is the opening
position/roll...!" (about 10 lines from the end).
Ah, I see it now. You are correct.
I didn't get as far as that because I was focusing
on the part of your "proof" that was wrong.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 18:36:19 |
Calls: | 6,667 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,216 |
Messages: | 5,336,949 |