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

BGonline.org Forums

Non-doublet Replies: Rules for beginners

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Monday, 15 May 2017, at 4:28 a.m.

In Response To: Non-doublet Replies: Rules for beginners (Axel Reichert)

Well, thanks to your constant insisting, I took the pain on a rainy weekend to check the roll-out data for the replies recommended by my rule set. ALL of the suggested reply moves AND the corresponding best reply moves HAVE been rolled out (NOT evaluated by XGR, XGR+, or XGR++). And NONE of the differences between my suggestions and the best replies is larger than 0.06.

That's great news. I frankly didn't expect you would but I'm glad you did, kudos. At the same time, I hoped that such pains (if you did take them), would give you an idea how easy or not it might be to reduce worst case (to .05 or whatever) later. At the least, you now have a comprehensive list of which plays for a given rule set are worst and by how much. For example, maybe an equivalent revamp or even one little change in wording can bring worst case from .059 to .053 and you're no longer wildly guessing -- the effort is meaningful.

If it makes you feel all the better about your additional work, note that the difference between a .07 error and a .05 error is just as great in terms of cost or improvement as the difference between a .03 error and a .01 error (for an expert or anyone else).

I have added a [hit on highest point] comment in my heading for the "Hitting" section.

Yes, I think that's a good idea in many cases, to add a supplemental rule or corollary, perhaps in a different color typeface (e.g., I used gray to proximally handle if-blocked situations.)

You implied that you're going to have the hit-most-6 rule guide the three 43U-xxK cases yet (of course) you'll still need to ban weak double-hits. Whether or not you use "H" (which refers to a play that hits only one checker and uses a down convention) to accomplish this, I'll be interested to see what your explanation will look like. I was not so courageous (or foolhardy?), which is why I excluded 43U.

Good luck!

Nack

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

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

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