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

BGonline.org Forums

rambiz would try to get more checkers sent back; would you?

Posted By: rambiz
Date: Saturday, 22 June 2024, at 9:40 p.m.

In Response To: rambiz would try to get more checkers sent back; would you? (Timothy Chow)

I think 4-2* (trying to get more checkers hit) 6-5 (avoiding deep crunch if things go tits up) and 24-23 (making the 3rd anchor) is the move. And I think XG also will get it right.

I am happy you brought the theme up again. I almost forgot about it, that is I was procrastinating as ususal. IMnsHO XG gets these sort of moves right when it is kind of obvious that it is stuck in a backgame. However, XG tries to run out of a backgame when it "sees" the slightest chance of switching into a forward game. To me it is not clear at all that XG "understands" the containment game thoroughly, I do not understand the containment game at all but that's not a reason to believe in XG's ablilities, either.

Furthermore, if for a given move during a proto backgame the 4-ply evaluation does not agree with a full roll-out, the whole roll-out is in question in the first place, since it consists of many 4-ply steps. (assuming we use a 4-ply roll-out, let alone a 3-ply one). I will now go to your examples of Xg getting it right and check again if the 4-ply evaluation agrees with the full roll-out result.

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.