[Bug-gnubg] Re: Naw..panic or teach me what I am doing wrong !!

[Joseph Heled]

There seems to be a discrepancy. My code gives me consistently

0.54213905334472656, 0.34824475646018982, 0.08864891529083252, 0.0, 0.0

When I use gnubg, I get Neil numbers or worse.

Have no idea yet what is wrong.

Can gnubg log the rollouts? I would like to analyze them with fibs2html 
to see where the differences are?

-Joseph

Neil Kaz wrote:
> 0-ply 1296 games AWFUL -.8503 +/- .0327.
>
> Good night and I try again tomorrow :(
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Heled" <address@hidden>
> To: "Neil Kaz" <address@hidden>
> Cc: "gnubg" <address@hidden>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 07, 2003 10:26 PM
> Subject: Re: No more need to panic about backgame play anymore
>
>
>
> > Neil Kaz wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph wrote :
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > 2 ply
> > > >
> > > > filters are default.
> > > >
> > > > set evaluation movefilter 2  0  2 3 0.1
> > > > set evaluation movefilter 2  1  0 0 0
> > >
> > > Neil replies: I didn't know how to change the evaluation move filters.
>
> So I
>
> > > just ran it 2-ply default with the new version 13.  As I type this (800
> > > games), GNU is winning from the backgame side almost as much as Snowie 4
>
> 3
>
> > > ply did. And the cubeless equity for the backgame is -.576 (note SW4
> > > was -.554) This is about what I'd expect
> > > since I do feel SW4 plays it just a little bit better, noting that this
> > > really isn't enough games to be statistically certain.
> >
> > Perhaps, but this is the figure I got for the 0 ply. I feel the 2ply
> > should do better. My (very small) 96 games indicated a -0.50 figure, but
> > it might have been lucky. Will try to generate a larger sample later.
> >
> > Neil, what does your GNU 0ply rollout says. It should take only a few
> > minutes for a 12960 sample?
> >
> > -Joseph
> >
> >
> > > Also note that default settings don't have filters as large as SW 4.
>
> Mike
>
> > > Depreli told me the SW 4 filters and I'll match them exactly and run 50%
> > > speed tomorrow. (Should match SW 4 3-ply precise)
> > >
> > > Now that I know that GNU can now handle backgames, I'll take a look at
> > > several holding game reference positions I have where SW 4 is clearly
> > > overvaluing the defender's chances. SW 4 can be more than .100 cubeless
>
> in
>
> > > error in some holding games positions where the defender has a blot
>
> behind
>
> > > the advanced anchor. Let's hope GNU isn't making the same mistakes.
> > >
> > > Please forward this to the rest of the GNU team and thx for your help.
> > >
> > > ..neilkaz..