Re: [Bug-gnubg] Measuring performance levels 2

[Joseph Heled]

Morten Wang wrote:
> 
> * Douglas Zare
> > I look forward to seeing gnu 2-ply rollout data, to see if gnu 2-ply
> > plays this one better than Snowie 3.
> 
> after having checked both the position and my settings to make sure
> they were all correct I can now post the 2-ply rollout results:
> 
> Win     (g)     (bg)    L(g)    L(bg)   Cubeless        Cubeful
> 0.1621  0.0000  0.0000  0.0652  0.0123  -0.7533         n/a
> 0.0011  0.0000  0.0000  0.0006  0.0002   0.0022         n/a
> 
> (21600 trials, no truncation, seed 11, w/rotate rolls & variance
> reduction, world class settings w/o cubeful chequer eval, cubeless
> rollout and the Jacoby rule turned off)
> 
> Morten!
> 
> --
> "...a liquid which was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."
>   My opinions are not necessarily those of my provider,
>   not necessarily mine, and probably not necessary.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg

This is absolutely, positively spooky. It must be because Halloween in only 2
days away (here).

Why would 2ply play worse? Why would it get gammoned for cristsake? 
When I play it via my script I never see a gammon. Then I realized my script
uses my own best move function, and the rollout uses GNUbg one. 
Now I, for 2ply, filter only using 0ply. GNU filters using 1ply as well on the
way. My bet is that 1ply throws out the good moves, and 2ply is forced to play
horror moves. If this is the case I think GNUbg should follow suit on what I am
doing for a long time now.

-Joseph