Should announcers see bot results/ HUGE hedge hog weakness

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

BGonline.org Forums

Should announcers see bot results/ HUGE hedge hog weakness

Posted By: Bob Koca
Date: Friday, 28 August 2026, at 5:48 p.m.

This position was from the Jansari - Tamagi match. The roll and announcer discussion starts at about 2:30:00 left in the video at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUP1oxxi5Ps
It brings up two issues.
1) Should the announcers be seeing bot analysis? In general, I think it influences what they say in a bad way, I would rather hear how they think through a position than hear their justifications for the bot play. Perhaps, look at the bot analysis after giving their thoughts. Here someone, I think Mochi, says how the player made a triple blunder.
Which brings up the second issue.
2) I have heard good things about Hedge Hog but it is extremely wrong here. It thinks hitting has equity of .316 and any other play is a triple blunder, but a rollout indicates it has equity about -.200 and is an extremely close decision.
Was it only using 0 ply analysis? If so, that was just a stupid choice but it explains how it got it so wrong. The cube going to 2 after the hit (a very clear double) has tremendous impact at score when the play you make both wins and loses you a lot of gammons. If it was a 2 ply or better analysis being used, there is something very wrong with how it combines cube play with checker play which is of course an essential skill for top level play. I had heard that the program was very strong but this position alone shows that claim to be dubious. Maybe it is equal or better with other bots at 0 ply, but who cares?

White is Player 2

score: 6
pip: 111

13 point match

pip: 111
score: 11

Blue is Player 1

XGID=-B-aBCBBa-A--A--Acbd-Abb--:0:0:1:13:11:6:0:13:10
Blue to play 13

1. Rollout¹ 7/3* eq: -0.1996
Player:
Opponent: 57.40% (G:24.57% B:0.50%)
42.60% (G:23.23% B:5.32%) Conf.: ą0.0086 (-0.2082...-0.1910) - [90.3%]
Duration: 2 minutes 45 seconds
2. Rollout¹ 16/15 13/10 eq: -0.2062 (-0.0066)
Player:
Opponent: 47.35% (G:12.33% B:0.44%)
52.65% (G:14.95% B:0.45%) Conf.: ą0.0052 (-0.2114...-0.2011) - [9.6%]
Duration: 2 minutes 48 seconds
3. Rollout² 21/20 13/10 eq: -0.2190 (-0.0194)
Player:
Opponent: 47.04% (G:12.27% B:0.52%)
52.96% (G:14.97% B:0.41%) Conf.: ą0.0102 (-0.2292...-0.2088) - [0.1%]
Duration: 43.1 seconds
4. Rollout² 13/10 5/4 eq: -0.2694 (-0.0698)
Player:
Opponent: 46.25% (G:11.96% B:0.47%)
53.75% (G:15.44% B:0.41%) Conf.: ą0.0104 (-0.2798...-0.2590) - [0.0%]
Duration: 41.9 seconds
5. Rollout² 16/13 5/4 eq: -0.2979 (-0.0983)
Player:
Opponent: 46.72% (G:13.81% B:0.57%)
53.28% (G:17.32% B:0.42%) Conf.: ą0.0096 (-0.3076...-0.2883) - [0.0%]
Duration: 42.9 seconds

¹ 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

² 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2