On 3/31/2024 4:18 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
> If the mutant strategy is always to take, then gnubg GAINS when > Mutant takes a D/P because that increases the points GnuBg wins.
Yes, of course, but only and only if the GnuBG wins. Obviously you
faithfully assume that GnuBG will always win and keep raking in the
higher cube points but experiment like the ones I did may prove it
otherwise.
And this is only speaking about winning more than 50% of points. To
this day, I have never been able get you guys to talk about mutant
strategies winning more than what would be expected from their cube
error rates, which is even more important in debunking the elaborate
so-called "cube skill theory" a complete mound of cow pies...
> Currently, gnubg is assuming it is playing against a player using
> it's own cube strategy.
And this is why they are as easy to derail as toy trains on tracks
around the xmas tree and to beat even by people like me, who is a
nobody compared to gamblegammon giants.
See my 10-years old experiments against various bots at my site:
https://montanaonline.net/backgammon/
I do however believe that future bots, trained through cubeful and
matchful self-play, will come very close to "perfect" play that no
human may possibly beat but current bots, including GnuBG, are not
even worth a mention by that measure.
> It could be reprogrammed to take advantage of knowing that it's
> opponent would never pass.
Okay, well, I'm daring to tell me how do you propose the bot could
be reprogrammed to do that?
You don't need to post the programming code here. Just explain how
the bot would achieve that in plain language.
I bet you won't be able to do. Empty talk is cheap...
Let me hold your hand to make another baby step: even if you could
reprogram a bot to to that, it would become just another version of
the same toy train on tracks going in circles around the xmas tree,
with the same weakness of exploitability by being totally predictable.
After that, you would have to reprogram you bot by revising your
jackoffski cube formulae again... Do you see your problem..?
MK
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* MK <playbg-rgb@yahoo.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 29, 2024 2:28:09 AM
> *To:* Ian Shaw <Ian.Shaw@riverauto.co.uk>; GnuBg Bug <bug-gnubg@gnu.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Interesting question/experiment about value of cube ownership
> On 3/19/2024 3:54 AM, Ian Shaw wrote:
>
>> MK "Those numbers are based on how the bot would play against itself.
>> If you accept the bot's decisions as best/perfect and if you try to
>> play just like bot, assuming that your opponent will also try to play
>> just like the bot, of course you wouldn't/shouldn't double."
>
>> Agreed. Against a worse player, you can take with fewer winning chances.
>> If your opponent will give up enough equity in errors to overcome the
>> error of the bad take (and your own subsequent errors), then you should
>> still come out ahead.
>
> I hope you are realizing that you are agreeing with the bot, not with me.
> What you quoted from me above was in response to your previously saying:
>
> "I wouldn’t double. As shown by the rollouts, I'd be giving
> "up 0.36 points per game, on average. Even if I knew you would
> "roll 66, I would still take, because the equity of -0.276 * 2
> "is still better than giving up a whole 1.000 point.
>
> Would you drop if you knew that the mutant would roll 77? You wouldn't.
> (Just exaggerating to make a point, while reminiscing how Jellyfish was
> not only rolling 77's but shamelessly playing them to escape 6-primes:)
>
> Once the mutant conditionally pre-doubles, (i.e. if rules allow it, in
> case it wins the opening roll), you will become hostage to its strategy,
> or in better sounding words, you will be dancing to its tune... ;)
>
> Reaching a D/P later won't help you either because the mutant will not
> drop and will force you to keep playing until the last roll, perhaps
> trading the cube more times back and forth.
>
> Letting the bot play for both side after the "opening double" actually
> defeats the purpose of the experiment but since there is no "separately
> existing, fully functional mutant bot (that would play like me;)" to
> make it play against GnuBG 2-ply, this is the only way we can do it and
> it's better than nothing.
>
> So, this way the really "semi-mutant" play will lose but it still will
> not lose more than what would be expected from the cube error rate that
> the mutant incurs from this "opening double". This alone is enough to
> prove that the currently dogmatized "cube skill theory" is a jarful of
> cow chip cookies...
>
> MK