>
> If someone where to put several 10's of positions and remark on the
> complexity we may have a better place to start discussing. I was
> thinking about the moves being different, but it may be that positions
> may work as well. Doubles are especially interesting because of the
> greater number of possible moves.
>
> -Joseph
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:59 AM, Michael
> Depreli<
address@hidden> wrote:
> > Yes I agree.
> > Doesn't a neural net like a brain take in all the different aspects of a
> > position and weight them and come up
> > with equities and then rank them?
> > So is there a way to extract from the weights of the net a measure of how
> > many different factors make up the overall equity?
> > In the old builds you used to be able to call up the evaluator for the
> > contact net and it would show you all the weightings.
> > Depending say how different these weightings were for plays that were close
> > in equity could determine how complex a position was no?
> > There are 22 different weights displayed when I call up the evaluator. (I
> > hope I've got that techincally correct).
> > Let's just say for simplicity sake for one position there are 2 moves and 20
> > of the weights are identical and only 2 different and in another
> > position 15 are identical and 7 different then that would be more complex.
> >
> > Michael
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From:
address@hidden> >> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 2009 07:27:59 +1200
> >> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Measuring Complexity
> >> To:
address@hidden> >> CC:
address@hidden> >>
> >> I think it is not an easy one. My personal view is that a position is
> >> "complex" if there are several *different* top moves which are very
> >> close in equity. Now it all hangs on what "different" means :)
> >>
> >> -Joseph
> >>
> >> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 11:13 PM, Michael
> >> Depreli<
address@hidden> wrote:
> >> > I posted this on BGO:
> >> > Has anyone ever tried to tackle the subject of measuring complexity in
> >> > backgammon? Firstly you could take out moves / cube actions "that are
> >> > completely unimportant". You include opening moves and maybe even
> >> > replies
> >> > amongst those? After that maybe you could use the move filters within BG
> >> > software to assign a value. So let's say using gnubg analysis no plays
> >> > get
> >> > analysed at 2-ply as it's trivial then that move gets discarded. After
> >> > that
> >> > you could assign some kind of values based on how many moves and how big
> >> > an
> >> > equity difference they are away from the best play at 2-ply to reach a
> >> > figure and divide it by the total plays. I'm no mathematician so
> >> > wouldn't
> >> > know how to weight these factors etc. Any thoughts or does no one really
> >> > care?
> >> >
> >> > Michael
> >> >
> >> > ________________________________
> >> > Have more than one Hotmail account? Link them together to easily access
> >> > both.
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Bug-gnubg mailing list
> >> >
address@hidden> >> >
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> > ________________________________
> > Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps. Find out how.
Add other email accounts to Hotmail in 3 easy steps.
Find out how.