I am on holiday from now (actually before now but I can't change the past)
to Wednesday, with very few time commitments.
So I'm deciding to read Axel's stuff on Isight.
Part of the point of this posting is to motivate myself to do it.
My technique for getting the material will be to google
"Isight backgammon Axel". Let's see what turns up.
It turns up this URL: https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/insights-with-isight.pdf
If this is the wrong reference, please let me know.
I will add future posts to this thread if I find I have any constructive observations. However, my definition of "constructive" differs
from that of many people. For example, I like the part of
the first hundred or so places in the decimal expansion of pi where
it goes 062862089986280. But many people might think memorizing
pi is a waste of time.
Paul
I am on holiday from now (actually before now but I can't change the past)
to Wednesday, with very few time commitments.
So I'm deciding to read Axel's stuff on Isight.
Part of the point of this posting is to motivate myself to do it.
My technique for getting the material will be to google
"Isight backgammon Axel". Let's see what turns up.
It turns up this URL: https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/insights-with-isight.pdf
If this is the wrong reference, please let me know.
I will add future posts to this thread if I find I have any constructive observations. However, my definition of "constructive" differs
from that of many people. For example, I like the part of
the first hundred or so places in the decimal expansion of pi where
it goes 062862089986280. But many people might think memorizing
pi is a waste of time.
Paul
I am on holiday from now (actually before now but I can't change the past)
to Wednesday, with very few time commitments.
So I'm deciding to read Axel's stuff on Isight.
Part of the point of this posting is to motivate myself to do it.
My technique for getting the material will be to google
"Isight backgammon Axel". Let's see what turns up.
It turns up this URL: https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/insights-with-isight.pdf
If this is the wrong reference, please let me know.
I will add future posts to this thread if I find I have any constructive observations. However, my definition of "constructive" differs
from that of many people. For example, I like the part of
the first hundred or so places in the decimal expansion of pi where
it goes 062862089986280. But many people might think memorizing
pi is a waste of time.
Paul
I am on holiday from now (actually before now but I can't change the past)
to Wednesday, with very few time commitments.
So I'm deciding to read Axel's stuff on Isight.
Part of the point of this posting is to motivate myself to do it.
My technique for getting the material will be to google
"Isight backgammon Axel". Let's see what turns up.
It turns up this URL: https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/insights-with-isight.pdf
If this is the wrong reference, please let me know.
I will add future posts to this thread if I find I have any constructive observations. However, my definition of "constructive" differs
from that of many people. For example, I like the part of
the first hundred or so places in the decimal expansion of pi where
it goes 062862089986280. But many people might think memorizing
pi is a waste of time.
I am on holiday from now (actually before now but I can't change the past)
to Wednesday, with very few time commitments.
So I'm deciding to read Axel's stuff on Isight.
Part of the point of this posting is to motivate myself to do it.
My technique for getting the material will be to google
"Isight backgammon Axel". Let's see what turns up.
It turns up this URL: https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/insights-with-isight.pdf
If this is the wrong reference, please let me know.
I will add future posts to this thread if I find I have any constructive observations. However, my definition of "constructive" differs
from that of many people. For example, I like the part of
the first hundred or so places in the decimal expansion of pi where
it goes 062862089986280. But many people might think memorizing
pi is a waste of time.
I am on holiday from now (actually before now but I can't change the past)
to Wednesday, with very few time commitments.
So I'm deciding to read Axel's stuff on Isight.
Part of the point of this posting is to motivate myself to do it.
My technique for getting the material will be to google
"Isight backgammon Axel". Let's see what turns up.
It turns up this URL: https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/insights-with-isight.pdf
If this is the wrong reference, please let me know.
I will add future posts to this thread if I find I have any constructive observations. However, my definition of "constructive" differs
from that of many people. For example, I like the part of
the first hundred or so places in the decimal expansion of pi where
it goes 062862089986280. But many people might think memorizing
pi is a waste of time.
Paul
On April 18, 2022 at 5:10:07 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesus Christ, man! I felt so bad about following up
to my own post once. Don't you feel any shame in
being the only one to follow up to your own post
four times in a row?! Stop fucking yourself in public!
MK
On April 18, 2022 at 5:10:07 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Jesus Christ, man! I felt so bad about following up
to my own post once.
I don't know Axel personally (beyond reading some of his posts here)
and know nothing about his career. But I believe that, if he wants to
(or does) work in areas related to non-linear parameter optimization
or similar areas of maths and data science, the Isight paper could
make a great marketing tool for career development.
board games are often seen as frivolous
So there could be another "career" version where the title is
(something like): "A surprising application of
non-linear parameter optimization"
Also, not sure why the Keith count gets mentioned so much in the
abstract, whereas other standard methods get mentioned only once.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
Also, not sure why the Keith count gets mentioned so much in theBecause the Keith count was the best so far (and by far, see table
abstract, whereas other standard methods get mentioned only once.
9). Also, because I built heavily on Tom's outstanding work and really
felt obliged to mention his outstanding work.
Axel
if you use the Keith Count on the regular and apply known fixes to
some of its common problems.
On 4/18/2022 7:23 AM, MK wrote:
Jesus Christ, man! I felt so bad about following up
to my own post once.
Ah, so that's why you use sock puppets!
It's not ideal, but if I don't do it this way, my comments
simply won't get done.....
Realistically, the choice is probably between this tedious
series of solipsistic posts, and not posting on this topic at all.
I'm sure Axel is interested, and probably Tim, too.
You would probably prefer the no-posting option,
but I'm sure Axel would probably prefer the post-obsessively
option. Tim probably prefers the post-obsessively option too.
On April 18, 2022 at 8:16:01 AM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:I don't see it that way. I'm somewhat negatively surprised at myself,
On 4/18/2022 7:23 AM, MK wrote:
I quoted this to refer to it in my reply to Paul below.Jesus Christ, man! I felt so bad about following upAh, so that's why you use sock puppets!
to my own post once.
-------------------------------------------------------
On April 18, 2022 at 5:37:53 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
It's not ideal, but if I don't do it this way, my commentsOkay, sorry. :( I misjudged where you were going with it.
simply won't get done.....
Realistically, the choice is probably between this tedious
series of solipsistic posts, and not posting on this topic at all.
I'm sure Axel is interested, and probably Tim, too.I think you are overesteeming Tim. As you can see from
his comment above, when he doesn't have or runs out of
anything of substance to say, he starts with his stupid
one-liners (as he started doing in the other thread also).
Yes, as far as I can tell, Tim and I are strikingly similar in many ways.You would probably prefer the no-posting option,No, I do, in fact, prefer to read and participate in lengthy
discussions with detailed posts also.
but I'm sure Axel would probably prefer the post-obsessivelyWe all often argue obsessively, in trying to be right and
option. Tim probably prefers the post-obsessively option too.
can't just let go of it but that's okay with me as long as
we make efforts to offer arguments backed up data and
logic, even if they gradually become scattered/diluted
and any progress made becomes incrementally small.
It's very visible how Tim and you are two peas in a pod
but I won't put Axel in the same basket with you two yet.
Especially Tim, for me, acts like an inferiority complexed
little a piece of greasy turd who always needs to float to
the top, not realizing how pathetic he sounds, still talking
about my sock puppets, etc... :(
MK
Stick Rice <bananab...@gmail.com> writes:
if you use the Keith Count on the regular and apply known fixes toIf you care to let me know the common problems and its fixes, it is
some of its common problems.
likely a simple task to run my slightly augmented script over both
databases (the one I used for calibrating and the one I later used for verifying).
Best regards
Axel
I think you are overesteeming Tim. As you can see from
his comment above, when he doesn't have or runs out of
anything of substance to say, he starts with his stupid
one-liners (as he started doing in the other thread also).
Stick Rice <bananab...@gmail.com> writes:
Keith Count ~80 to ~100 pips can double when leading by 5Thanks.
Keith Count ~100 pips to 120pips can double when leading by 6
Keith Count 120 pips + can double when leading by 7
I take this to mean said number of pips *before* increasing by 1/7. Also
you meant probably (corresponding to Tom's original wording):
A player should double if his count exceeds the opponent's count by no
more than 5 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 6 and 7 with your brackets given above. I also assumed
that redoubling occurs 1 pip later:
A player should redouble if his count exceeds the opponent's count by no
more than 4 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 5 and 6 for the longer races.
This helps a bit, shaving off 5 % from the total error. Playing around
with the numbers manually, I could improve still a little bit, but my
method is still considerably better:
| Count | Tom's Database | Axel's Database | |------------------------+----------------+-----------------|
| Original Keith | 1262 | 1165 |
| Stick's Modified Keith | 1204 | 1202 |
| Axel's Modified Keith | 1182 | 1176 |
| Axel's Isight Method | 1064 | 965 |
Best regards
Keith Count ~80 to ~100 pips can double when leading by 5
Keith Count ~100 pips to 120pips can double when leading by 6
Keith Count 120 pips + can double when leading by 7
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:22:20 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
A player should double if his count exceeds the opponent's count by
no more than 5 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 6 and 7 with your brackets given above. I also assumed
that redoubling occurs 1 pip later:
A player should redouble if his count exceeds the opponent's count by
no more than 4 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 5 and 6 for the longer races.
I could improve still a little bit, but my method is still
considerably better
I think his claim is that he can improve on Isight by using the Keith
count as his main algo but then using some type of adjustment in some
cases.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:22:20 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:[...]
A player should double if his count exceeds the opponent's count by
no more than 5 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 6 and 7 with your brackets given above. I also assumed
that redoubling occurs 1 pip later:
A player should redouble if his count exceeds the opponent's count by
no more than 4 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 5 and 6 for the longer races.
[...]I could improve still a little bit, but my method is still
considerably better
I think his claim is that he can improve on Isight by using the KeithAfter all my work, I am quite confident that *within my parameterized framework* the Isight method is the optimum one (without getting too technical here). This of course leaves plenty of room for even better
count as his main algo but then using some type of adjustment in some cases.
method *outside* this framework.
Stick essentially proposed to distinguish between 4 different race
lengths, while my framework caters for only 2. Accompagning these 2 additional thresholds (say, 100 and 120 pips) with their "bandwidths"
for the size of the doubling window introduces 4 new parameters in
total.
Adding this complexity and mental overhead barely halves the performance
gap to my method, which does not even consider different race lengths.
Since I am currently reading "Life is simple" about Occam's Razor, this reminds me on Ptolemy's epicycles. (-;
My gut feeling says that any major improvement on race cube decisions
will not be based on adding this feature or that (at considerable cost!)
to my (quite general) framework, but rather on something fundamentally different, namely EPCs along with a doubling criterion matched to them.
But this will be tricky, as mentioned already years back in my
article. Last year I played around with Jean-Luc Seret's "pipples",
which are supposed to give a very accurate estimate of the EPC, see https://www.bkgm.com/articles/GOL/Dec00/pipples.htm:
"for 85% of the positions the error is smaller than 10 pipples"
Since 1 pipple is 1/100 of a roll, 10 pipples are worth 0.816 pips. From Table 6 in my article I expected a total error on Tom Keith's database roughly in the range of the Keith count, which was confirmed by my test.
And to my surprise, even when I eliminated all positions from Tom's
database that did not stick (no pun intended) to Seret's many (and quite limiting!) restrictions (
- No checkers outside
- At least 7 checkers
- At most 7 checkers on any single point
- Pipcount from 30 to 70
), on this much smaller database (it was designed for these positions!) Seret's method still had a total error about 25 % higher than my Isight method. I combined Trice's EPC doubling criterion with Seret's pipple calculation. Trice's criterion is not the culprit, see the last row of
table 6 in my article. It is the lack of accuracy of the EPC
approximations.
So currently I am running out of ideas for races. (-;
Best regards
Axel
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 10:01:24 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
On Thursday, April 21, 2022 at 7:22:20 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:[...]
A player should double if his count exceeds the opponent's count by
no more than 5 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 6 and 7 with your brackets given above. I also assumed
that redoubling occurs 1 pip later:
A player should redouble if his count exceeds the opponent's count by
no more than 4 (for his count >80 and <=100)
Similarly for 5 and 6 for the longer races.
[...]I could improve still a little bit, but my method is still
considerably better
I think his claim is that he can improve on Isight by using the Keith count as his main algo but then using some type of adjustment in some cases.After all my work, I am quite confident that *within my parameterized framework* the Isight method is the optimum one (without getting too technical here). This of course leaves plenty of room for even better method *outside* this framework.
Stick essentially proposed to distinguish between 4 different race
lengths, while my framework caters for only 2. Accompagning these 2 additional thresholds (say, 100 and 120 pips) with their "bandwidths"
for the size of the doubling window introduces 4 new parameters in
total.
Adding this complexity and mental overhead barely halves the performance gap to my method, which does not even consider different race lengths. Since I am currently reading "Life is simple" about Occam's Razor, this reminds me on Ptolemy's epicycles. (-;
My gut feeling says that any major improvement on race cube decisions
will not be based on adding this feature or that (at considerable cost!)
to my (quite general) framework, but rather on something fundamentally different, namely EPCs along with a doubling criterion matched to them.
But this will be tricky, as mentioned already years back in my
article. Last year I played around with Jean-Luc Seret's "pipples",
which are supposed to give a very accurate estimate of the EPC, see https://www.bkgm.com/articles/GOL/Dec00/pipples.htm:
"for 85% of the positions the error is smaller than 10 pipples"
Since 1 pipple is 1/100 of a roll, 10 pipples are worth 0.816 pips. From Table 6 in my article I expected a total error on Tom Keith's database roughly in the range of the Keith count, which was confirmed by my test.
And to my surprise, even when I eliminated all positions from Tom's database that did not stick (no pun intended) to Seret's many (and quite limiting!) restrictions (
- No checkers outside
- At least 7 checkers
- At most 7 checkers on any single point
- Pipcount from 30 to 70
), on this much smaller database (it was designed for these positions!) Seret's method still had a total error about 25 % higher than my Isight method. I combined Trice's EPC doubling criterion with Seret's pipple calculation. Trice's criterion is not the culprit, see the last row of table 6 in my article. It is the lack of accuracy of the EPC approximations.
So currently I am running out of ideas for races. (-;
Best regards
AxelI think you and Stick are both right.
If we stick to an algo with clear params, your method wins.
Stick is pointing out that, as one of the very greatest players in the world, he can outperform your algo.
How does he do this?
He has heuristics that say things like (and these are just examples):
"Here we have a strange position which is flat and smooth from points 1 to 4 but with large
stacks on the low points. For this type of position, [some count] does best." (I found a position with that characteristic where Isight didn't seem to work well -- admittedly just one position).
Or "Here, we have a strange race where the pip count is even but X has many fewer checkers. In this situation, I do..."
With such an intuitive way of thinking, combined with experience, I'm sure that Stick (or any of the top ten players in the world) can outperform a
simple parameterised algo.
Now, if you agree with me on the above, then it's also likely that the best approach for top players might be "Use X algo as a base but vary heuristically
and intuitively according to experience."
If you accept the above (which seems totally plausible), there is no reason to assume that if you replace X by Isight, you do better than replacing X by the Keith
count. The way to test such hypotheses is to see how popular Isight becomes among the top players.
The problem is that it's hard to compare algos with the informal approach.
I think Stick's method is [Keith Count + informal intuitive adjustments] There's no evidence that Isight beats this (or matches this) and there's also no evidence that [Isight + informal intuitive adjustments] beats Stick's method (or matches it).
On 4/22/2022 9:32 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The problem is that it's hard to compare algos with the informal approach. I think Stick's method is [Keith Count + informal intuitive adjustments] There's no evidence that Isight beats this (or matches this) and there's also no evidence that [Isight + informal intuitive adjustments] beats Stick's method (or matches it).With a player who is sufficiently active, and whose matches are
recorded, one could accumulate some evidence. But I gather that
Stick doesn't play a lot of tournament backgammon nowadays.
No, I think that, once you accept that strong players are using intuitive adjustments of known algos, hypotheses about
which algos form the base are untestable in principle.
For example, suppose Isight recommends D/P in a position where Keith Count recommends D/T, and a player passes.
We can't know whether the player is adjusting the Keith Count to a pass or using Isight.
On 4/23/2022 4:31 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
No, I think that, once you accept that strong players are using intuitive adjustments of known algos, hypotheses aboutFair enough; I agree.
which algos form the base are untestable in principle.
For example, suppose Isight recommends D/P in a position where Keith Count recommends D/T, and a player passes.
We can't know whether the player is adjusting the Keith Count to a pass or using Isight.
Some such players might claim that they use (say) the Keith Count as
their base. But such claims might not be literally true even if they
are approximately true, and that would vitiate any kind of formal
analysis.
take the informal approach: "Use [algo X] as an initial approx and
adjust using experience and intuition." Even if algo X is the best
when used in an automated botlike fashion (and there's strong evidence
that X = Isight), this by no means indicates that algo X is the best
for the informal approach.
The problem is that it's hard to compare algos with the informal
approach.
I think Stick's method is [Keith Count + informal intuitive
adjustments] There's no evidence that Isight beats this (or matches
this) and there's also no evidence that [Isight + informal intuitive adjustments] beats Stick's method (or matches it).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 495 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 46:46:31 |
| Calls: | 9,745 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 13,742 |
| Messages: | 6,184,379 |