[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

this should be easy.. - ROLLOUT

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Saturday, 28 June 2014, at 1:18 p.m.

In Response To: this should be easy.. - ROLLOUT (Bob Koca)

Bob Koca wrote:

That is inconsistent with XG thinking a cubeless RO is one using defn 1. It is consistent with it using defn 2 with the checker play as though the cube is out of play for just that game.

Yes, I agree. This of course does not mean that the algorithm is not meant as an approximation to Definition 1. It just means that the algorithm is imperfect, and sometimes gives results that are inconsistent with its intent.

As I understand it, you're trying to argue for:

Definition 3. Cubeless equities/gammons/etc. refer to equities/gammons/etc. that would be obtained if the cube were frozen at its current value for the remainder of the game but reinstated afterwards.

The main objection I have to this definition is that it is not historically what "cubeless" has meant. But let me give you the benefit of the doubt; let's argue that the bots have evolved since Snowie, e.g., by playing checkers ATS, so that the traditional definition of "cubeless" needs to be revised to reflect current realities. Then my objection to Definition 3 is that the numbers reported by the bot rollout are consistent with it only if the cube actually is dead. If the cube is live, then recall another feature of modern bot rollouts: the cube actually gets turned during the rollout. So the rollout results will be inconsistent with Definition 3 whenever the cube is not actually frozen anyway. For example, suppose we roll out a cube decision by the leader at 2a4a. The D/T statistics will be DMP statistics because of the autorecube, but according to Definition 3, the cube is frozen at 2, creating a game state that is je ne sais quoi. It's not what you want, it's not what you get, so why give it a name?

In other words, Definition 3 does not reflect what the bot is doing any more accurately than Definition 1 does, except at scores when there is no need to refer to the cube anyway, so what's the point?

In any case, let's say I even grant you, for the sake of argument, that Definition 3 makes more sense than Definition 1. Then that just reinforces my inclination to avoid the term "cubeless" entirely in favor of "pseudocubeless," just to to underline how confused and messed-up the definition of "cubeless" is.

Messages In This Thread


Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:

If necessary, enter your password below:




[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.