Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

You're a card which will have to be dealt with.


interests / rec.games.backgammon / Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight

SubjectAuthor
* Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
+* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|`* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightAxel Reichert
| `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightStick Rice
|  `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightAxel Reichert
|   `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightStick Rice
|    `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightAxel Reichert
|     `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|      `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightAxel Reichert
|       `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|        `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|         +* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightTimothy Chow
|         |`* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|         | `* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightTimothy Chow
|         |  `- Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|         `- Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightAxel Reichert
+- Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
+- Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
+* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|+* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightMK
||+* Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
|||`* Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightMK
||| +- Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
||| `- Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightTimothy Chow
||`- Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightTimothy Chow
|`- Re: Reading Axel's paper on IsightAxel Reichert
+- Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com
`- Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isightpeps...@gmail.com

Pages:12
Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight

<t41osb$uvs$1@dont-email.me>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=8664&group=rec.games.backgammon#8664

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tchow12...@yahoo.com (Timothy Chow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 16:51:20 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 15
Message-ID: <t41osb$uvs$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ef0d51b0-acc7-47cc-b4dd-bc5fce6ab2e1n@googlegroups.com>
<50273372-f83c-439d-9c6e-54c94e5adc79n@googlegroups.com>
<87zgkho9jc.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<39c426ad-667d-400b-8e30-5e6f4d59da12n@googlegroups.com>
<87ilr3winw.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<c87cf9c7-2cbb-422b-8420-c028e0c16803n@googlegroups.com>
<87bkwuwb3a.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<d86dc6c6-7c36-4da5-98c8-de43c4c6debbn@googlegroups.com>
<877d7iw3q7.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<f96826fe-6c39-4672-81de-88d58e75020an@googlegroups.com>
<706fb283-3e76-4301-9854-f90752bf6debn@googlegroups.com>
<t41mum$f1b$2@dont-email.me>
<cb8f4dfc-186c-4ce7-9c7f-5a328444c33bn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 20:51:23 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="16f56c988cc5d641c4b5cc436b61b9d3";
logging-data="31740"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/IBeoF1rndo/oTlg7gwvThbhlP+/cFoMQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.8.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:LVTbYHTChCHNJsJMmj+AzFPepF8=
In-Reply-To: <cb8f4dfc-186c-4ce7-9c7f-5a328444c33bn@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Timothy Chow - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 20:51 UTC

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 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.

Fair enough; I agree.

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.

---
Tim Chow

Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight

<7ce93329-e7d8-417e-9179-bba9dff80099n@googlegroups.com>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=8670&group=rec.games.backgammon#8670

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:191:b0:2f1:ffe6:283c with SMTP id s17-20020a05622a019100b002f1ffe6283cmr7601000qtw.557.1650754629340;
Sat, 23 Apr 2022 15:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:181f:b0:322:3239:5539 with SMTP id
bh31-20020a056808181f00b0032232395539mr311501oib.1.1650754629113; Sat, 23 Apr
2022 15:57:09 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.misty.com!border2.nntp.dca1.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 15:57:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t41osb$uvs$1@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.155.59.144; posting-account=X1j9wgoAAADLt4UnZrIneT3jwl9HvLMd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.155.59.144
References: <ef0d51b0-acc7-47cc-b4dd-bc5fce6ab2e1n@googlegroups.com>
<50273372-f83c-439d-9c6e-54c94e5adc79n@googlegroups.com> <87zgkho9jc.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<39c426ad-667d-400b-8e30-5e6f4d59da12n@googlegroups.com> <87ilr3winw.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<c87cf9c7-2cbb-422b-8420-c028e0c16803n@googlegroups.com> <87bkwuwb3a.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<d86dc6c6-7c36-4da5-98c8-de43c4c6debbn@googlegroups.com> <877d7iw3q7.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<f96826fe-6c39-4672-81de-88d58e75020an@googlegroups.com> <706fb283-3e76-4301-9854-f90752bf6debn@googlegroups.com>
<t41mum$f1b$2@dont-email.me> <cb8f4dfc-186c-4ce7-9c7f-5a328444c33bn@googlegroups.com>
<t41osb$uvs$1@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7ce93329-e7d8-417e-9179-bba9dff80099n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight
From: pepste...@gmail.com (peps...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2022 22:57:09 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Lines: 19
 by: peps...@gmail.com - Sat, 23 Apr 2022 22:57 UTC

On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 9:51:25 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> 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 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.
> Fair enough; I agree.
>
> 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.

As far as I can tell, the debate between Axel and Stick goes like this:
Axel: If you stick to a racing algo and never vary it, that algo should be Isight.
Stick: The best approach, for experts, is to use the Keith count usually, but to vary it sometimes, according to intuition.

They could easily both be correct.

Paul

Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight

<8735i3vurd.fsf@axel-reichert.de>

 copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=8674&group=rec.games.backgammon#8674

 copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: mai...@axel-reichert.de (Axel Reichert)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Reading Axel's paper on Isight
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2022 08:51:50 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 39
Message-ID: <8735i3vurd.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
References: <ef0d51b0-acc7-47cc-b4dd-bc5fce6ab2e1n@googlegroups.com>
<50273372-f83c-439d-9c6e-54c94e5adc79n@googlegroups.com>
<87zgkho9jc.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<39c426ad-667d-400b-8e30-5e6f4d59da12n@googlegroups.com>
<87ilr3winw.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<c87cf9c7-2cbb-422b-8420-c028e0c16803n@googlegroups.com>
<87bkwuwb3a.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<d86dc6c6-7c36-4da5-98c8-de43c4c6debbn@googlegroups.com>
<877d7iw3q7.fsf@axel-reichert.de>
<f96826fe-6c39-4672-81de-88d58e75020an@googlegroups.com>
<706fb283-3e76-4301-9854-f90752bf6debn@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="787f47effe1c6cefd5e23a94cbc4813e";
logging-data="21040"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18M6WNhzQdrWqnfmcwTtudNN20GzMSKAsw="
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:lIE2y9rXZMQkxHum6WLkOHsRoBA=
sha1:yBvUyoG1hlGanhoVvEnxKM3KclY=
 by: Axel Reichert - Sun, 24 Apr 2022 06:51 UTC

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

> 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.

Good point.

> The problem is that it's hard to compare algos with the informal
> approach.

Indeed. I once prepared a quiz on racing doubles for my club members (20
positions). At that time, we had one guy who never, ever,
calculated/counted anything. He did quite well. My "algo X" did better
than all players, but of course we are far from Stick's level.

> 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).

And even if, say, algorithm x needs less "intuitive adjustments" than
algorithm y, it might need "less intuitive" adjustments, i. e., it might
be more error-prone to distinguish positions that need adjustments from
those that do not.

However, there is also inertia involved: If you have trained your
intuition over years of playing, a new (and let's assume very different)
algorithm requires retraining it (as long as you still feel the need for
intuitive adjustments). This incurs "transaction costs" and thus might
limit the willingness to go with the "new kid on the block". So probably
new kid on the block has to be considerably better than the old
veterans.

Best regards

Axel

Pages:12
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.7
clearnet tor