I can't help going back to somethings said in the thread
"Some thought on the fascinating and elusive luck".

https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.backgammon/c/eIKGjPQXISU/m/rzpNtdqUAAAJ

On August 28, 2022 at 6:41:02 AM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

> I found some old "mutant" session results with expert
> checker play mimicking GNU Backgammon and random
> cube play (double, hold, beaver, take, pass). After 1000
> games the mutant was trailing with 17394 points versus
> gnubg's 114822.

As I had indicated before, that is 15% win rate for the
"mutant" with "zero cube skill".

I wanted to know the "cube error rate" for the mutant
which would be easy to figure out, if Axel shared his
game files, by just letting XG or Gnubg analyse them.

Since he will neither share the game files or help with
calculating it, I'm trying to do it myself by deriving it
from the "overall/average error rates" by XG or Gnubg.

With combined checker and cube error rate, 15%-85%
win rates require between 415 to 575 ELO difference
between the players. For example, to win 15% against
a bot of "supernatural" level, a player would need to be
between "advanced" and "intermediate" level. See:

http://www.columbusbg.org/Ratings/

http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=53409

https://www.gnu.org/software/gnubg/manual/html_node/Overall-rating.html

In Axel's experiment against "expert" (checker) level,
the "random player" would have to be of about 1,500
ELO, i.e. "casual player" which is higher than "beginner"
and "distracted/awful".

If the same holds true also for cube error alone, I think
it would be quite telling about the so-called "cube skill".

I'm assuming that if I can eliminate the checker skill
from the equation, I should be able deduct the cube
skill from the bot's overall/average error rate number.

I looked but could find any documentation on how the
bots use the checker and cube error rates to come up
with an overall/average error rate. Does anyone know
how XG or Gnubg figures it out?

XG also calculates "expected win percent" based on
the overall error rate. I couldn't find anything about how
it calculates that either. I would appreciate any direct
answers or links to relevant documentations.

As you may have guessed, what I'm after is to show
that if there was as much cube skill as hyped, random
cube player could not achieve a 15% win rate...

MK

MK <murat@compuplus.net> writes:

> if there was as much cube skill as hyped, random cube player could not
> achieve a 15% win rate...

Try to estimate how often a game will be played to conclusion and then
think about what this amounts to with equal checker play. No surprise
here.

Axel

On November 19, 2022 at 1:32:07 AM UTC-7, Axel Reichert wrote:

> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:

>> if there was as much cube skill as hyped, random
>> cube player could not achieve a 15% win rate...

I'm so elated to see you take interest in this
2.5 months old thread that nobody else had
anything to contribute thus far.

> Try to estimate how often a game will
> be played to conclusion

I wouldn't know how to do this estimate. Can
you explain how can it be done, if you know?

> and then think about what this amounts
> to with equal checker play.

Even after you will give me your estimate of
the rate of games being played to conclusion,
I still wouldn't know how to calculate what win
rate it would amount to. As a mathematician,
can you explain to me how one could do that,
if you know?

> No surprise here.

You (and your certain mathematician ilk) keep
making such dismissive statements without
offering any predictions, for us to later see if
the results should or shouldn't "surprise" us...

MK