RE: [Bug-gnubg] Permit GNU to consider deliberate cube errors

[Ian Shaw]

Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:11
> Ex: 
> 
> Move 1 - Correct Play: D/Take    Played: No double  My Error: -0.048
> Move 2 - Correct Play: D/Pass    Played: No double  My Error: -0.178
> Move 3 - Correct Play: too good  Played: D??/Take?? My Error: -0.078
> 
> In this case, the take was a (supposing) 0.560 mega blunder. 
> It couldn't be much less for taking a double in a Too Good 
> position. In this case, since there was a blunderous Take, 
> not only is the wrong double deducted from the equity lost by 
> the take, but the immediately preceding errors I made by not 
> doubling are also added up. This gives 560 - 48 - 178 - 78 = 
> a single 0.256 blunder for my opponent. 

This is simply wrong. Your opponent has made a 0.56 blunder, and must be
charged for it irrespective of your errors.

> B) Suppose, just as above, the following happens:
> 
> Move 1 - Correct Play: D/Take    Played: No double  My Error:  -0.098
> Move 2 - Correct Play: D/Pass    Played: D/Take??   His Error: -0.178
> 
> I deliberately waited to double, not quite as extremely as 
> above, but enough so that the correct decision is a 
> Double/Pass now. As planned (hoped for), my opponent takes 
> this and commits a 0.178 blunder. Since my previous decision 
> to not double has been vindicated by an even larger take 
> decision by my opponent, my opponent is judged with a 0.080 
> bad move (178 - 98), and I am given nothing. 

Again, your opponent's error is simply 0.178. The cube is on the board
to be taken or dropped. It matters not to him WHY it is sitting there,
just as it is irrelevant whether it is an initial double or redouble.

You are asking gnubg to evaluate plays in the light of previous and
future plays. Where would one draw the line? Suppose you make a dubious
cube in game six to get your opponent steamed up. Do you want credit for
his dubious take in game 11?

I don't see any way to get a consistently meaningful evaluation of
induced errors. Judging intent is best left to humans.

-- Ian