On 2/8/2024 1:38 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
> MK <
playb...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> ... mutant that randomly doubles and/or takes but never drops,
>> It can recycle the 4,096 cube limit multiple times In my first
>> session of 100 games the cube got as high as 2^34 = 17,179,869,184
> Welcome to St. Petersburg! I assume that you also allowed beavers,
> possibly unlimited?
Only 2 consecutive beavers, (Noo-BG default setting), but with
cube recycling beyond the 4096 limit and games lasting longer
due to mutant not dropping, beaver-raccoon sequences happened
enough time to end up in Petropavlovsk, Kamchatskly... :)
>> guesses from you guys about what percentage of the games the
>> mutant will win and how many points each side will win
> The percentage will be below 50 %, probably below 40 %.
If you are talking about the number of games won/lost, I didn't
count since that doesn't matter at all in money games, where the
object is to win more points (money) than games, by demonstrating
better "cube skill".
>> The points won will be essentially large random numbers due to
>> the Petersburg paradox.
The equities aren't undefined, if that's what you are getting at,
but humanly incomprehensible because of astronomical cube values.
When I posted about this in Noo-BG group, I was told I may need
to run hundreds of thousand or even a million games, in order to
get meaningful results but now I'm thinking if ten million will
be enough.
I run my experiments in chunks of 1,000 games so that I can save
them in reasonable sgf file sizes. For this experiment, I ran
30,000 games with mutant winning 549,877,108,651 against bot's
55,937,020,736, i.e. 90.7666365% in one batch and 80,937,311
against bot's 18,014,435,569,901,100, i.e. 0.0000004%
This is not an experiment I originally intended to do bot done
anyway just out of curiosity. Mutant winning as little as 2-3%
would help my argument but there is no practical way to finish
this experiment. I'm a potato counter. I don't trust math and
mirrors extrapolations. Thus, I will abandon this experiment
and won't spend anymore time on it.
It was fun and interesting to see how high the cube could go in
a single game if it wasn't arbitrarily limited at 1,024 or 4,096.
>> And also this will not stabilize if you run longer sessions,
>> but only get worse.
I don't agree but maybe I don't understand what you mean? I'd
argue that it will eventually stabilize but I have no idea of
how long of a session may be needed for that to happen.
I'm continuing with my other experiments and truly enjoying the
process. In fact, while doing the ones I originally wanted to
do, I came up with new ideas and have been squeezing them in
as well. Stay tuned. I think we all will learn from them...
MK