Re: [Bug-gnubg] Question on Luck Analysis

[Christian Anthon]

Two things explains this result:

a) the neuralnet is not perfect and hence the luck evaluation is not
perfect. For example consider a really bad neuralnet that always
returned an equity of zero. The luck would be evaluated as zero as
well. The luck evaluation is constructed in a way that ensures zero
bias in an infinite number of games, but not in a single game.

b) The summed luck is 1.133 point (in a perfect world this number
would be 1)  which means that Blue has gained 1.133 point by luck (his
luck and whites bad luck here) and white has lost 1.133 (his bad luck
and Blues good luck here). In reality Blue won one point and his luck
adjusted result is -0.133 pont (0 in a perfect world). White lost one
point and his luck adjusted result is 0.133 (also 0 in a perfect
world). If you set 0-ply to play against 2-ply in a high number of
1-point matches you should see that the summed luck averaged by the
number of games is zero but that the Luck adjusted result averaged by
the number of matches is not zero.

Hope this explains your observations.

Christian.

> Luck total EMG (Points)                    +0.270 ( +0.270)      -0.863
> ( -0.863)
> Actual result                          +1.000               -1.000
>
> Luck adjusted result                   -0.133               +0.133
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ian Shaw
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>