Thanks, Mike, for the great analysis in this thread.
1. | Rollout1 | 21/11 | eq: +0.2715 |
| Player: Opponent: | 68.72% (G:9.11% B:0.26%) 31.28% (G:11.54% B:0.26%) | Conf.: ¡Ó0.0024 (+0.2690...+0.2739) - [100.0%] Duration: 8 minutes 38 seconds |
|
2. | Rollout1 | 10/6 7/1* | eq: +0.1807 (-0.0908) |
| Player: Opponent: | 64.76% (G:8.86% B:0.16%) 35.24% (G:9.29% B:0.15%) | Conf.: ¡Ó0.0030 (+0.1776...+0.1837) - [0.0%] Duration: 7 minutes 02 seconds |
|
3. | Rollout1 | 21/15 7/3 | eq: +0.1365 (-0.1350) |
| Player: Opponent: | 63.08% (G:7.14% B:0.19%) 36.92% (G:6.82% B:0.12%) | Conf.: ¡Ó0.0030 (+0.1335...+0.1395) - [0.0%] Duration: 7 minutes 11 seconds |
|
4. | Rollout1 | 21/15 10/6 | eq: +0.1139 (-0.1576) |
| Player: Opponent: | 62.87% (G:8.05% B:0.21%) 37.13% (G:11.18% B:0.20%) | Conf.: ¡Ó0.0027 (+0.1112...+0.1166) - [0.0%] Duration: 7 minutes 01 second |
|
|
1 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 7671034 Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
Above is Mike's rollout of the original position.
Below is a contrasting variant. (Sorry to use an XGR++ eval instead of a rollout, but I've been falling behind.) After playing A (Attack, 10/6 7/1*), the same four cracking numbers (44, 42 and 22) exist as in the original position -- thought you might find it interesting.
Nack
1. | XG Roller++ | 10/6 7/1* | eq: +0.356 |
| Player: Opponent: | 71.65% (G:9.97% B:0.18%) 28.35% (G:7.08% B:0.05%) | |
|
2. | XG Roller++ | 21/11 | eq: +0.322 (-0.034) |
| Player: Opponent: | 71.01% (G:10.10% B:0.31%) 28.99% (G:10.78% B:0.12%) | |
|
3. | XG Roller++ | 21/15 7/3 | eq: +0.230 (-0.126) |
| Player: Opponent: | 66.41% (G:8.08% B:0.21%) 33.59% (G:5.70% B:0.06%) | |
|
4. | XG Roller++ | 21/15 10/6 | eq: +0.197 (-0.159) |
| Player: Opponent: | 66.43% (G:8.41% B:0.23%) 33.57% (G:9.71% B:0.08%) | |
|