is Player 2 score: 0 pip: 60  
Money session Jacoby Beaver  
pip: 330 score: 0 is Player 1  
XGID=eEeEeE:0:0:1:D:0:0:3:0:10  
double to 2 take ? 
Analyzed in Rollout  
No Double  
Player Winning Chances:  83.98% (G: 56.17% B: 30.61%) 
Opponent Winning Chances:  16.02% (G: 0.01% B: 0.00%) 
Double/Take  
Player Winning Chances:  81.40% (G: 69.01% B: 39.53%) 
Opponent Winning Chances:  18.60% (G: 0.14% B: 0.00%) 
Cubeless Equities  
No Double:  +0.680 
Double:  +3.424 
Cubeful Equities  
No Double:  +1.024 
Double/Take:  +3.257 (+2.233) 
Double/Drop:  +1.000 (0.024) 
Best Cube action: Too Good to Double / Drop  
Rollout details  
1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction. Dice Seed: 1341 Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply  
Confidence No Double:  ± 0.017 (+1.007...+1.041) 
Confidence Double:  ± 0.136 (+3.121...+3.392) 
Double Decision confidence:  99.7% 
Take Decision confidence:  100.0% 
Duration: 20 minutes 42 seconds 
eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.21
This is a last problem of "100 backgammon puzzles" written by Paul Lamford. Paul says it is very easy take there fore nodoulbe is proper cube action. XG rollout (3ply full) is strongly against it.However, I coudn't trust bot's recommendation of "too good to double" with Jacoby rule, centerd cube. Who is wrong, bot or Paul?
I set up XG playing each other to see how bot plays. I understand why it was too good. 3ply bot will take the bad cube later, so that doubler can gain by waiting one more roll.
Also, 3ply can't handle the outside prime("snake") properly. As a result, take side simply wasting TOO MUCH equity in the process.
The position below is ending scene of rollout and good sample of how bad bot plays. Human wouldn't stack 7 checkers on the 18point in this game.
is eXtremeGammon score: 0 pip: 10  
Money session Jacoby Beaver  
pip: 242 score: 0 is Masayuki Mochizuki  
XGID=BCGAacB:1:1:1:66:0:0:3:0:10  
to play 66 
* 1.  3 ply  4/0ff 2/0ff(3)  eq: +3.000  

eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.21
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿