Do some rolls generate more tough decisions?
What do you say? So far lets stay away from doubles, of course when you need to move 4 times, there is even a greater chance for mistake.
So, just staying with no doubles - I have a feeling that some rolls are typically tougher to play than others - like for example 2-1 gives many times a lot of options so it is more likely to choose a wrong one.. Or is it completely position dependent and what I am saying is close to a blunder potential?
You maybe know if eXtremeGammon has an option to see on which rolls player is making the most mistakes?
4 Replies
I think it's mainly position dependent.
As uberkber pointed out, it strongly depends on the position. What I am interested in is: what makes a position difficult (at least for humans):
Two things I thnk are:
- in the alternatives you have exchange wins against gammons
- the resultng game types are different
what else and what game type you identify?
As uberkber pointed out, it strongly depends on the position. What I am interested in is: what makes a position difficult (at least for humans):
Two things I thnk are:
- in the alternatives you have exchange wins against gammons
- the resultng game types are different
what else and what game type you identify?
We humans have developed heuristics to help with checker play (since we can’t do the complex math required in all cases). Things like “hit more aggressively when behind in the race” or “ hit less aggressively when your opponent has a stronger board”. But what happens when we get in positions where the heuristics contradict each other, such as we are behind in the race AND our opponent has a better board? We have to figure out which heuristic takes priority, and at least for me, those are the most difficult positions.
That's in line with my experience. I guess we (as community) could get some new insights if we succeed to have a way to measure difficulty somehow.
Imagine a bot that gives up moderate equity to steer in more complex positions...
