Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership

[MK]

On 3/19/2024 7:44 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:

> I don’t "divinely believe" in the current cube theory. I understand
> the maths behind it. If you have found errors in the maths, then I
> would be glad to re-evaluate.

> Let's find out where you disagree by starting from the beginning.
> What is your analysis of the basic 25% takepoint calculation?


I'm not questioning whether a simple doubling theory, (assuming it
can be called a "theory"), can be applied in simple game where you
can calculate that 25% accurately and consistently.

I'm questioning whether some doubling strategy can be applied in
gamblegammon, based on a jumble of incomplete/inaccurate empirical
statistics and mathematical calculation formulas that were several
times retrofitted to produce some expected results, and call it a
"cube skill theory".

In RGB, some mathematicians had argued that it could be called a
"theory" because it was mathematically proven, which can not be
because the so-called "cube skill" is not a purely mathematical
proposition.

In a game involving luck like gamblegammon, (more luck than skill
in my personal opinion), the proposition is necessarily statistical,
empirical one and thus needs to be empirically proven.

You say "let's start from the beginning". Yes, let's do so indeed.

TD-Gammon v.1 was empirically trained through self-play of cubeless
"money games", including gammons but not backgammons, and perhaps
not enough trials. That's it. That's your beginning...

To that, you use all kinds of "maths and mirrors" to add backgammon
rates, cubeful equity formulas, cubeful matchful equity tables, etc.
to "estimate" your winning chances, in order to apply to it what you
a "basic 25% take point". And I'm questioning sanity of all this, in
fact I'm arguing that it's all a pile of cow pies.

Shortcuts was taken in the days of TD-Gammon because of not having
enough CPU power, which is no longer true. Yet, there is no signs
of any willingness out there to create cubefully, matcfully trained
better gamblegammon bots.

It's easier to destroy a falsely claimed "theory" by poking holes in
it than to prove a proposition so that you can call it a theory, and
this is what I'm trying to accomplish with my experiments.

Since I can't single-handedly create a better bot, I'm trying what
I can do to create a need for, thus an incentive for the creation of
such a bot, "from scratch".

My "fartoffski mutant cube strategy", (based on arbitrary stages of
game and double/take points), in my experiments 11 and 12 came within
margin of error of beating GnuBG 2-ply. Folks, it's time for better
gamblegammon bots...

MK