Re: [Bug-gnubg] How fast can you cheat??

[Frank Berger]

> When youy train the NN< it is trained.  Whether your training  
> INTENDS to
> train it in that way does not change whether or not all or a portion  
> of that
> training is in fact DOEN by the training you select for another  
> purpose.
>
> So your arguemnt is again specious.

It may be specious for you but for me it's given that predicting MT is  
difficult from the dice alone (naturally if you know it is a MT and if  
you have a sequence you could find where you are, but a NN can't do  
that).

That an NN that should learn something BG should do learn to exploit  
irregularities in the RNG is to me a very remote possibility.

I don't know whether you know how a NN for BG is trained, but as I  
pointed out that in the case of TD(Lambda) the net sees only the  
resulting positions, not the dice. If the effect you suggest is so  
obvious just demonstrate it. I will happily send you a box of wine if  
you succeed. All what you suggest makes only sense if the RNG are crap  
and I don't believe in that.

What I do know is that the influence of the random initialization of  
the net at the start when using TD(Lambda) could easily be in the area  
of 0.005 in cubeless play. I would bet that a net trained to predict  
MT would fail to have 0.005 better prediction than random prediction  
(a long enough sequence for sure). Again I will happily send you a box  
of wine if you succeed in prediction of MT

In the gnubg training process, AFAIK the net is trained to approximate  
rollout results from a large number of positions. If I'm right with  
that, there would be no predictable influence of the RNG at all.

And finally, no bot I'm aware of adapts when delivered (for obvious  
reasons), so there is no cheating. There *is* the possibility to  
analyze the game of the opponent and to exploit his errors/style of  
play, but this wouldn't be cheating and would only weaken the game  
play overall.

ciao
Frank