This testing may be conclusive. Or, it may not. For it to have general applicability the wastage for both players must be identical. I can't tell whether or not this is true just from looking. And, even if that is the case, it may be more appropriate to adjust both pip counts upwards on the existing N57 / gold standard table for wastage rather than adjusting the general formula.
For example, the position below is NOT a minimal wastage position. It is going to play longer than the Gold Standard would indicate. And, to properly use the Gold Standard and N57, one must adjust the length of the race. I don't know how much adjustment is needed, but I would guess approximately 3 pips. If any of the positions being rolled out have similar extra wastage, the results would not necessarily indicate a problem with N57 or the Gold Standard. It might indicate a problem with wastage evaluation. We will never know that for sure unless we know what the ideal position is for a given pip count. If we are going to try to be extremely precise, we must be careful that we understand the causes of observed variances.
The score (after 0 games) is: GNU_bg 0, user 0
Move number 3: user on roll, cube decision?
| GNU_bg | 57 |
|---|---|
| |
| user | 57 |
Position ID: 2+4OAADb7g4AAA Match ID: cAkAAAAAAAAA | |
• user doubles