---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
<address@hidden>Date: Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM
Subject: The results of your email commands
To:
address@hiddenThe results of your email command are provided below. Attached is your
original message.
- Results:
Ignoring non-text/plain MIME parts
- Unprocessed:
I'd like to correct a statement I made several months ago on this matter. It
then appeared to me (and I was certainly not one of the first to note it)
that 2-ply cube decision evaluations were better than those of 3-ply -
according to rollouts.
Now, at any rate with GNU 4/2009 version, on the basis of systematic
checking of very many positions (with the help of 0-ply-RO, 1-ply-RO,
2-world class-ply-RO and 2-supremo-ply-RO), I think otherwise: 2-ply cube
decision evalutaions are definitely better than 3-ply's in openning
positions and relatively simple middle-game positions. (3-ply is too
"daring" in declaring Doubles, Passes and Too Goods.) But as the game
prgresses or becomes more complicated, the tendency lessens and finally
turns around: 3-ply is superior particularly in positions where the side
trailing in the race nevertheless has the advantage; in those endings where
one side primes or closes out the other with most of the other's checkers
already borne out; and more types of complicated middle-game or endgame.
(There, 2-ply is too "caucious-conservative" in declaring Doubles, Passes
and Too Goods).
I should point out that a similar state of things seems to prevail (though
it was not as systematically checked) comparing in general odd-ply versus
even-ply cube decision evalutaions.
- Ignored:
-- Adi
- Done.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Adi Kadmon <
address@hidden>
To:
address@hidden,
address@hiddenDate: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 11:31:44 +0200
Subject: Cube decisions - 3-ply versus 2-ply
Hello all,
I'd like to correct a statement I made several months ago on this matter. It then appeared to me (and I was certainly not one of the first to note it) that 2-ply cube decision evaluations were better than those of 3-ply - according to rollouts.
Now, at any rate with GNU 4/2009 version, on the basis of systematic checking of very many positions (with the help of 0-ply-RO, 1-ply-RO, 2-world class-ply-RO and 2-supremo-ply-RO), I think otherwise: 2-ply cube decision evalutaions are definitely better than 3-ply's in openning positions and relatively simple middle-game positions. (3-ply is too "daring" in declaring Doubles, Passes and Too Goods.) But as the game prgresses or becomes more complicated, the tendency lessens and finally turns around: 3-ply is superior particularly in positions where the side trailing in the race nevertheless has the advantage; in those endings where one side primes or closes out the other with most of the other's checkers already borne out; and more types of complicated middle-game or endgame. (There, 2-ply is too "caucious-conservative" in declaring Doubles, Passes and Too Goods).
I should point out that a similar state of things seems to prevail (though it was not as systematically checked) comparing in general odd-ply versus even-ply cube decision evalutaions.
-- Adi