On November 12, 2021 at 12:22:44 PM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:
> MK <
mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>> How about we go by the Gnubg rollouts
> As I wrote, this will not matter. Your thinking seems to be
> that as soon as you are even a tiny favourite, you should
> raise the stakes. This is correct if you cannot get redoubled.
> .....
In your experiment, the mutant plays normally after the first
cube. In my proposal, the mutant never drops except when
it has no chance of winning. Thus, it tries to turn the games
into "cubeless" games as much as it can, by forcing then to
be played out to the last roll. I propose that this will counter
the value of cube ownership. This has been one of my many
arguments for 20 years.
> So it does not matter whether you have 49.89 % according to
> bot A or 50.03 % according to bot B
I didn't put much importance on this. I only proposed using
the numbers from that link since Gnubg has no opening book.
> since this difference will be dwarfed by the difference between
> having access to the cube or not.
That's where we differ. I'm not so sure about the value of cube
ownership and I believe it can be overcome or even surpassed
by the strategy I proposed above.
I guessed so but wasn't sure because I had the impression that
it was more complicated. I never even took a casual look at it,
as part of my trying to not keep my bg brain uninfected and to
not mutate into one of you flock. This seems to be a harmless
clever shorthand but I probably will keep avoid using it.
>> I don't understand why the 49.48% to 50.16% range
> These are the winning chances after said rolls according to ...
Okay. One thing I find very interesting, intrigueing is tha XGR++
slots with opening 41, as was TD-G v1 doing. At the time it was
considered "misplayed" by the human experts, along with the
other "bad" opening roll 63. I find it curious that the mother of
all later bg bots, and the only one without human bias! would
misplay the two worst opening rolls. I wonder if time may prove
otherwise...?
>> I thought the common teaching of "cube skill" was that it was
>> better used to maximize your winning and not necessarity to
>> double your opponent out.
> Precisely. And because you give away the powerful weapon of
> the cube you should not double to early, even if you are a favourite.
> Please read
https://bkgm.com/articles/Kleinman/FootballFields
This and its variations, as well as other analogies have been used
many times here in the past. To me, resorting to such analogies
only shows a person's inability make his mathematical argument
strictly related to bg alone.
I myself sometimes use analogies but not to sustitute facts, such
as likening your guys' elaborate yet inapplicable equity, skill, etc.
calculations to pre-Copernican astronomy when they had refined
their formulas to calculate and predict some planets' retrograde
movements exactly, even though planets never moved backwards.
So now, let's assume Jeffrey Epstein is playing against Mocky,
for stakes high enough for Mocky but peanuts for Jeffy. I and
John Wayne are advising him, looking over his shoulder. When
Mocky rolls and opening 63 and splits, I urge him to immediately
double. He does. Mocky beavers. Jeffy raccoons. Mocky now has
"the powerful weapon of the cube" ownership.
Later, Mocky get a chance to redouble. Oops. But Duke says:
"Damn to torpedos! Full speed ahead!". After all, losing a few
million bucks would only be a mosquito byte for Jeffy... So, in
short, it's all relative and unverified, unproven.
>> not because I want to reinvent any such "mathematical concepts",
>> but to debunk them alltogether.
> I know. But it won't be easy. (-:
Yes, but I stuck to my guns (and my puns) as a Lone Ranger for 20
years. Lately I feel like I'm finally getting some traction. If you can
hang in there, in the end you may get some credit as Tonto. :)
>> And I have no idea what Petersburg Paradox has anything to do with
>> the subject
> See below.
>> winning the opening roll gives an advantage (according to the link
>> above +.0393 on average).
> Sure, but this is not enough to give the weapon away.
How do you know? Have you tested and verified how much is the
weapon worth?
>> What I'm interested in is to find out if luck+checker skills are equal,
>> how much does the so called "cube skill" matter after 4 billion games?
> This can be answered as long as you can put numbers on the value
> of a position. If you run into a Petersburg Paradox you cannot do this
> any more, so at that point discussions about the pros and cons of
> particular cube strategies become meaningless, because there are no
> numbers to compare. Now if your cube strategy turns backgammon
> into a Petersburg Paradox than you can neither claim that your cubing
> is better than the bot's nor could someone else claim that it is worse
> than the bot's. It cannot be proven any more.
My argument goes back to the stage before the "numbers" are
calculated. I propose that even the cubeless equity calculations
after TD-G v.1 are human biased and inaccurate by an unknown
magnitute. Thus, cube double/take points, etc. calculated based
on those equities are also inaccurate, in addition to being plain
wrong for other reasons and to being partially inapplicable to bg.
Have you read my discussions with Chow about HypestGammon?
It's a variant that I created to isolate the cube skill, in oder to test,
quantify and define it. Since it's played with only one die, there is
zero checker skill involved. It's pure cube skill game.
Chow claimed he could calculate the equities for all possible
positions and shared his findings. Since there are only a small
number possible positions, even with desktop CPU power, we
could create an alpha-bot that would be trained through "cubeful
self-play" and then we could compare the calculated equities to
the statistical equities, in order to see if the formulas used in the
calculations were accurate. For reasons/excuses, questionable
to me, he never finished the experiment.
If the numbers matches, it wouldn't necessarily prove anything
about "real bg" but if they didn't match, it would mean that further,
more complex expriments would be needed and be worth doing
to test the accuracy of Jackoffsky, etc. formulas used in "real bg".
My opening 63 proposal was an alternative, a substite test that
we could do with limited CPU power, just to get a glipse of what
may be a much bigger problem to investigate. And this is where
you came into the picture, offering to do an experiments but I
don't think it was what I had proposed to begin with and then
further deviated into something else completely.
> If, on the other hand your cube strategy does not turn backgammon
> into a Petersburg Paradox (e.g., because it is too timid for this, or
> because it is prevented by rules, be it match play, a cap on the cube
> in money sessions, forbidding beavers, ...), then there exists a number
> for the value of a position, and so immediately one can debunk one
> strategy or the other, even if it takes lots of games.
As I had said, I don't think the Petersburg Paradox applies here
and don't understand your arguments related to it. But I think I
understand part of what you are saying above.
Yes, after the opening 63 and split, for example, we need to
play lots of games, i.e. the proverbial 4 billion games, and just
count potatoes... But the mutant needs to play as I descibed
above, trying to minimize and ideally surpass any value of cube
ownership.
Deciding most games by checker play is very inportant to my
proposed experiment. In fact, I had dome my own personal
experiment by playing against the bot with me making the worst
first turn move in each game but to play normally after that, and
especially trying to recover from the huge blunder.
See the first experiment (with real-time Youtube videos and all) at:
https://www.montanaonline.net/backgammon/xg.php
I was surprised that I wasn't totally decimated by the bot as I had
expected to happen.
What that experiment proved to me that checker errors early in the
games are not as important as errors in late stages of games.
I propose that the same applies to cube errors also and that they
should be rated on a sliding scale of some sort. (This doesn't mean
that I acknowledge their accuracy but just saying that even as they
are wrong, they should be still wrongly calculated by differently.)
> This would mean that the mutant strategy can be debunked in the
> beavers-only case by spending more CPU time....
But your mutant is not mutated enough to match the experiment
I had proposed. Cubing early aggressively at 50%+, only to drop it
later according to Jackoffsky's take/drop points is meaningless...
> If so, there is an easy explanation for your success against the
> bot's in a particular session of only 100 games
> (not your mistake, of course, I do understand the reasons).
I don't know what you are insinating but this is experiment is apart
from my a few dozen short sessions of 100 games.
If there is any link at all, it may be that I raised the question and
proposed various experiments indeed because I myself had no
clear explanation (which I admitted openly in the past) for my
"success". And also, even if I had, the overall total number of
games I had played wasn't statistically sicnificant enough for
most of you. And since I couldn't play 4 billion games myself,
I proposed that we make the bots do it instead.
From my stand, I too do understand the reasons for your resistance
or reluctance, and I do give you credit for having tried this much,
(which is more than anyone else has done), and I hope that you will
keep doing more logical experiments. Because, you know, it's just a
matter of time...
MK