Start with the longest possible symmetrical race -- this means each
player has 15 checkers on on their 12 point -- and go ahead using the
normal rules of backgammon, treating the above position as the initial position.
Would such a test be fair, or would there be a legitimate objection
that Isight is trained on real positions and, with my artificial
opening position, there's no guarantee that the positions would be representative of normal play?
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
Start with the longest possible symmetrical
race -- this means each player has 15 checkers
on on their 12 point
Would such a test be fair, or would there be a
legitimate objection that Isight is trained on
real positions
Not only my Isight method is trained on real
positions, but humans and bots are as well.
GNU Backgammon evaluates the position as
follows:
0-ply: No double, take (12.6 % winning chances)
1-ply: Double, pass (88.8 % winning chances)
2-ply: No double, take (30.7 % winning chances)
3-ply: Double, pass (84.0 % winning chances)
4-ply: No double take (35.8 % winning chances)
Of course, even a weak (but untruncated) roll-out
gives the correct result that the player on roll is a
slight favorite.
To my surprise, the checker play of the bot was
weird in the beginning....
I will play around a bit, thanks for the idea!
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
Start with the longest possible symmetrical race -- this means each[...]
player has 15 checkers on on their 12 point -- and go ahead using the normal rules of backgammon, treating the above position as the initial position.
Would such a test be fair, or would there be a legitimate objectionNot only my Isight method is trained on real positions, but humans and
that Isight is trained on real positions and, with my artificial
opening position, there's no guarantee that the positions would be representative of normal play?
bots are as well. GNU Backgammon evaluates the position as follows:
0-ply: No double, take (12.6 % winning chances)
1-ply: Double, pass (88.8 % winning chances)
2-ply: No double, take (30.7 % winning chances)
3-ply: Double, pass (84.0 % winning chances)
4-ply: No double take (35.8 % winning chances)
Of course, even a weak (but untruncated) roll-out gives the correct
result that the player on roll is a slight favorite.
To my surprise, the checker play of the bot was weird in the beginning
as well (before the game reached more familiar positions), resulting in
a lot of unnecessary wastage. Together with the bot's premature doubles
on odd-ply settings (easy takes, and now the cube is on my side) it
might well be that a human has a good chance to make this a winning proposition against the bot.
I will play around a bit, thanks for the idea!
Best regards
Axel
To my surprise, the checker play of the bot was weird in the beginning
as well (before the game reached more familiar positions), resulting in
a lot of unnecessary wastage.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 297 |
Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
Uptime: | 15:41:13 |
Calls: | 6,667 |
Calls today: | 1 |
Files: | 12,216 |
Messages: | 5,336,693 |