Re: [Bug-gnubg] Unexpected results Gnu vs Gnu

[Peter Carlson]

Ian,

Thanks for the reply.  However maybe I didn't pose my original question 
correctly.  I dont think the problem is cli vs gui.  I think the problem 
is in how we use the cli.

The gui plays the whole game as such has complete game history.
The cli only has a snapshot (we paste in the positionid) and ask for a hint.

Is it possible that the fact the cli doesn't have the full game history 
somehow put it at a disadvantage?

Peter
PS.  We are now up to about 150 games and are seeing the same lopsided 
results.  I realize that we need to play many more games to get a "true" 
statistical pool, however 150 *should* start to see an equalizing of the 
statistics.

Ian Shaw wrote:
> Peter Carlson wrote:
> > Am up to 20 games with the same results.
> > Peter
> It sounds like a laborious process. You would need more like 2000 
> games to get a meaningful result with your method.
>
> If you want to compare the two, try this.
>
> Open a gui and cli copy.
> Set them both to use the same settings, which they should be when you 
> open the program.
> Make gnubg the player for all four players, at the same skill level.
> Set both to use manual dice.
> Enter the rolls and see what each plays.
>
> Note the positions where the cli play is different from the gui play.
>
> Even faster.
> Let the gui play itself for a session using automatic dice.
> Save the session
> Open the session with the cli.
> Analyse the session with the cli.
> Note the positions where the cli disagrees with the gui.
>
> You will have to check that the analysis settings are the same as the 
> evaluation settings.
>
> -- Ian

--
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.