Re: current development

[Timothy Y. Chow]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Joseph Heled wrote:
> I had the same idea the day I heard they cracked go, but just saying 
> something is a good idea is not helpful at all in my book.

Well, other people may have other books.

Also, it's my impression that many people *don't* think this is even a 
worthwhile idea to pursue.  Backgammon is already "solved," is what they 
will say.  It's true that "AlphaGammon" will surely not crush existing 
bots in a series of (say) 11-point matches.  At most I would expect a 
slight advantage.  But to me, that is the wrong way to look at the issue. 
I would like to understand superbackgames for their own sake, even though 
they arise rarely in practice.  Furthermore, if we know that bots don't 
understand superbackgames, then the closer a position gets to being a 
superbackgame, the less we can trust the bot verdict.

Some years ago, Paul Weaver created a "backgame quiz" with some 
interesting backgame problems.  Most were not what I would call 
superbackgames, though a couple were getting close.  The only rollouts I 
ever saw anyone else do were with standard rollout settings.  I have been 
running (eXtreme Gammon) rollouts with much stronger settings, and in at 
least one case I've gotten some noticeably different results.  I think 
this is interesting.  I also don't fully trust even the strong rollout 
settings that I'm currently using, and would welcome a bot that I would be 
more willing to trust.

This thread was asking about whether there is any current development of 
GNU.  If someone poses that question, and nobody even mentions that 
"AlphaGammon" would be of interest, then the impression can be created 
that nobody cares about that.  I want to combat that impression.  So just 
because I'm not prepared to invest in the supply side of the equation 
doesn't mean that it's of no value to exhibit the existence of the demand 
side of the equation.  In my book, at least.

Tim