XG's 3-ply and 4-ply evaluations say that everything but 6/4 2/1 is a blunder. I included the rollout because it shows what one would expect; all moves have equities close to each other.
I wonder why XG evaluates 6/4 2/1 as so much stronger than the other moves?
| 1. | 3-ply | 6/4 2/1 | eq: +0,090 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 68,07% (G:2,36% B:0,02%)
31,93% (G:1,94% B:0,04%) | |
|
| 2. | 3-ply | 4/1 | eq: +0,006 (-0,084) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 64,86% (G:1,03% B:0,01%)
35,14% (G:1,39% B:0,01%) | |
|
| 3. | 3-ply | 5/3 2/1 | eq: +0,006 (-0,085) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 64,89% (G:1,18% B:0,01%)
35,11% (G:1,43% B:0,01%) | |
|
| 4. | 3-ply | 3/1 2/1 | eq: -0,002 (-0,092) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 64,56% (G:0,96% B:0,01%)
35,44% (G:1,37% B:0,01%) | |
|
| 5. | 3-ply | 6/3 | eq: -0,003 (-0,093) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 64,62% (G:0,96% B:0,01%)
35,38% (G:1,47% B:0,01%) | |
|
| 1. | Rollout1 | 4/1 | eq: +0,004 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 65,27% (G:0,73% B:0,00%)
34,73% (G:1,12% B:0,02%) | Conf.: ± 0,006 (-0,002...+0,010) - [59,5%]
Duration: 3 minutes 12 seconds |
|
| 2. | Rollout1 | 5/3 2/1 | eq: +0,003 (-0,001) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 65,24% (G:0,71% B:0,01%)
34,76% (G:1,16% B:0,03%) | Conf.: ± 0,006 (-0,003...+0,009) - [40,3%]
Duration: 2 minutes 59 seconds |
|
| 3. | Rollout1 | 3/1 2/1 | eq: -0,007 (-0,011) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 65,01% (G:0,69% B:0,00%)
34,99% (G:1,22% B:0,03%) | Conf.: ± 0,006 (-0,013...0,000) - [0,2%]
Duration: 2 minutes 46 seconds |
|
| 4. | Rollout1 | 6/4 2/1 | eq: -0,017 (-0,021) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 65,09% (G:0,86% B:0,01%)
34,91% (G:1,68% B:0,05%) | Conf.: ± 0,007 (-0,024...-0,010) - [0,0%]
Duration: 3 minutes 32 seconds |
|
| 5. | Rollout1 | 6/3 | eq: -0,022 (-0,026) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 64,88% (G:0,87% B:0,01%)
35,12% (G:1,48% B:0,05%) | Conf.: ± 0,006 (-0,028...-0,016) - [0,0%]
Duration: 1 minute 40 seconds |
|
| |
1 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
