Snowie 4 Back to the 80s
by Albert Silver
The long-awaited Snowie 4is out now, and I'd like to share some first observations on its play ascompared to other bots, including most especially its older brother Snowie 3. Each new bot hasdebunked its predecessor, and improved the play and understanding of a wholegamut of positions. When Snowie 4 was announced itwas reported to have revolutionary knowledge in backgamesand prime vs. prime games. Levermann published acouple of articles at the Snowie site (http://www.bgsnowie.com) with manyexamples, and it was striking. Not only is its play much muchstronger in these phases, but so is its evaluation of such positions. Therepercussions of these changes in evaluation are so deep that it has evenchanged its evaluation of the opening role 21, and while no amount of rolloutsby the previous cyberkings would favor the 13/11 6/5slot, Snowie 4 favors it at almost any situationexcept when trying to more avidly avoid gammons due to the match score. Snowie 4 seems to slot far more often than Snowie 3, leading a friend to declare it the Mad Slotter and that it would bring back much of the older 80sstyle of play.
As it was, I still rather expected at least rolloutsby its predecessors to hold up better, but I am seeing the most impressivereversals in choices that I wonder how tough it must be for strong experiencedplayers. After all, me, I'm just starting out and make no claims to expertise,however, someone who has spent long hours rationalizing the results of previousbots will be forced to unlearn and re-learn presuming Snowie4 is right.
I was playing through the July 1999 annotated match publishedat GammonLine, which had the benefit of Jellyfishrollouts using no less than 1296 trials, and entered it into Snowie 4 to see what it said. Here is a sample of what Isaw:
1996 World Cup Final Match #2
Kit Woolsey 1 Malcolm Davis 0, Game 2, Move 3
White played 24/22 13/11* 6/4(2) and Jellyfishdeclared it only 3rd best (not by much it's true) saying:
13/11* 8/46/4 +0.370 (-0.000)
13/11(2)* 6/4(2) +0.368 (-0.002)
24/22 13/11*6/4(2) +0.354 (-0.016)
However, Snowie 4 at 3-plyPrecise, its strongest playing setting, says Jellyfish's top choice of the 3 isin fact the worst by a margin:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| 3
| 13/11*(2) 6/4(2)
| 0.525
|
|
|
| 1.4% 28.7% 59.5% 40.5% 11.3% 0.6%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
| *
| 2
| 3
| 24/22 13/11* 6/4(2)
| 0.504 (-0.021)
|
|
|
| 1.3% 27.6% 59.8% 40.2% 10.7% 0.5%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 3
| 3
| 13/11* 8/6 6/4(2)
| 0.474 (-0.050)
|
|
|
| 1.4% 28.7% 58.7% 41.3% 11.4% 0.6%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
Afew moves later White doubled in the following position:
and we are told that the Take was truly heroic due to thevery high gammon risk. There are no Jellyfish rollout equities provided, butone assumes it must be a close call. Snowie 4declares that not taking would be a huge blunder:
| Cube action equity
|
| 3-Ply
| Money equity:
| 0.495
|
|
| 1.8% 33.7% 62.3% 37.7% 9.9% 0.5%
|
| 1.
| Double, take
| 0.737
|
|
| 2.
| No double
| 0.612
| (-0.125)
|
| 3.
| Double, pass
| 1.000
| (+0.263)
|
| Proper cube action: Double, take
|
|
But ok, that's Jellyfish, a much older program, so comparingit is not completely fair. Snowie 3 should be adifferent story unless we actually talk about backgamesof course, which would present no surprise. I began doing the same with themore recent Special Annotated match (that I think wonderful by the way, in caseany should think I'm suggesting otherwise), played in 2001 and complementedwith Snowie 3 rollouts at 3-plies.
In Game 1 the two Snowiesbegin squabbling as of move 2 (I won't include the opening 21 slot):
2001 Pro-Am Doubles Tournament final
Woolsey/Arnold Ballard/Huie,Game 1, Move 2
The commentary explains that "Snowie's 3-ply opinion has 13/11, 6/5 out in front,the split a close second, and 11/9, 6/5 a distant third. It is interesting thatthe rollout shows just how strong the builder on the nine point really is."since the rollout said:
13/11 6/5 +0.134 (-0.000)
11/9 6/5 +0.133(-0.001)
24/22 6/5 +0.100(-0.034)
However, Snowie 4 has itsown opinion on the matter and says for both 3-Ply Precise and a rollout:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| 3
| 24/22 6/5
| 0.147
|
|
|
| 0.7% 15.4% 54.2% 45.8% 13.3% 0.7%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
| *
| 2
| 3
| 13/11 6/5
| 0.146 (-0.002)
|
|
|
| 0.8% 16.3% 53.8% 46.2% 13.3% 0.7%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 3
| 3
| 11/9 6/5
| 0.110 (-0.038)
|
|
|
| 0.7% 16.3% 52.5% 47.5% 13.3% 0.7%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
For the rollout, I set trucationto 13 which should be deep enough to see the resulting positions, furthermore,according to the Snowie people, Snowie4's 2-ply is slightly stronger than Snowie 3's 3-ply.Snowie 4 cannot play according to score in rolloutsunfortunately (no doubt it will be re-instated in a future patch), but at 0-0in a 21-point match, that should not be a factor. Did the rollouts change theevaluation any? You bet:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| R
| 24/22 6/5
| 0.175
|
|
|
| 0.8% 15.6% 55.0% 45.0% 12.9% 0.7%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.128 -0.007.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 13,
720 games (equiv. 103602 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
| *
| 2
| R
| 13/11 6/5
| 0.145 (-0.031)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 16.0% 54.0% 46.0% 13.7% 0.8%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.104 -0.008.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 13,
720 games (equiv. 105711 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 3
| R
| 11/9 6/5
| 0.123 (-0.053)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 16.7% 53.0% 47.0% 13.6% 0.8%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.090 -0.008.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 13,
720 games (equiv. 101478 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
Now what was merely a matter of preference is anerror, and 11/9 6/5 is considered to be even worse than at first sight. Astonishing.However, Snowie reserves some more surprises, andalso helps get a clearer picture in several positions where even Snowie 3's rollouts left one wondering.
Here Snowie3 spotted making the 8-point as best, unfortunately its indecisiveness even inits rollouts left one unsure as to how correct it was. The rollouts have making the eight point on top, although notconvincingly. Any of the approaches could work. Here were the results:
11/8 9/8 +0.503(-0.000)
11/8 6/5 +0.492(-0.011)
9/5 +0.456(-0.047)
6/5 6/3 +0.456(-0.047)
Snowie 4's 3-Ply Precise on the other hand had no doubts:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| 3
| 11/8 9/8
| 0.859
|
|
|
| 0.9% 19.6% 69.4% 30.6% 6.8% 0.3%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
| *
| 2
| 3
| 6/3 6/5
| 0.803 (-0.057)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 18.2% 68.5% 31.5% 6.6% 0.3%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 3
| 3
| 11/8 6/5
| 0.762 (-0.098)
|
|
|
| 1.0% 18.7% 68.2% 31.8% 6.6% 0.3%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 4
| 3
| 11/7
| 0.753 (-0.107)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 19.4% 66.7% 33.3% 6.8% 0.3%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 5
| 3
| 11/10 6/3
| 0.736 (-0.124)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 18.3% 66.4% 33.6% 7.2% 0.3%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 6
| 3
| 9/5
| 0.727 (-0.132)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 16.2% 67.8% 32.2% 6.6% 0.2%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
As neither the master commentatornor Snowie 4 thought 9/5 had any real merits, Iignored it and rolled out the top 3 moves just to be sure. Again Snowie 4 did not waiver and even accentuated thedifference:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| R
| 11/8 9/8
| 0.834
|
|
|
| 1.1% 18.8% 69.2% 30.8% 7.1% 0.3%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.509 -0.009.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 13,
720 games (equiv. 56762 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
| *
| 2
| R
| 6/3 6/5
| 0.760 (-0.074)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 17.7% 67.9% 32.1% 7.5% 0.4%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.466 -0.010.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 13,
720 games (equiv. 44655 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 3
| R
| 11/8 6/5
| 0.754 (-0.080)
|
|
|
| 0.9% 18.1% 68.1% 31.9% 6.9% 0.4%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.478 -0.009.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 13,
720 games (equiv. 63181 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
And as the game proceededthis position appeared at move 9:
where the move played was adamantly defended by thecommentator B/24*, 13/11 is moreconsistent with White's plan. despite the fact The rollout has getting the blot to safety better than B/24*, 14/12.Now human intuition and vision is shown to have been right on targetas Snowie 4 changes theverdict:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
| *
| 1
| 3
| bar/24* 13/11
| 0.541
|
|
|
| 2.3% 31.3% 69.1% 30.9% 7.5% 0.4%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 2
| 3
| bar/24* 14/12
| 0.529 (-0.012)
|
|
|
| 2.5% 32.0% 68.4% 31.6% 7.9% 0.5%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 3
| 3
| bar/24* 5/3
| 0.484 (-0.057)
|
|
|
| 2.4% 31.3% 67.1% 32.9% 8.5% 0.5%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
And again a rollout only served to confirm its judgement:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
| *
| 1
| R
| bar/24* 13/11
| 0.608
|
|
|
| 1.9% 33.4% 70.5% 29.5% 5.9% 0.3%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.701 -0.011.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
1080 games (equiv. 56067 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 2
| R
| bar/24* 14/12
| 0.584 (-0.024)
|
|
|
| 2.2% 34.8% 69.3% 30.7% 7.0% 0.4%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.682 -0.011.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
1080 games (equiv. 58105 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 3
| R
| bar/24* 5/3
| 0.584 (-0.024)
|
|
|
| 2.1% 35.2% 69.3% 30.7% 7.2% 0.4%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 0.683 -0.012.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
1080 games (equiv. 54185 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
|
|
|
And a few moves later, Snowie4 again disagrees with the assessments of its sibling:
Here,Snowie 3's rollouts presented the followingevaluations:
8/2(2)* +1.361 (-0.000)
11/2* 5/2 +1.348(-0.013)
11/8 10/7(2) 5/2* +1.346 (-0.015)
11/8(2) 10/7(2) +1.340(-0.021)
11/5 10/7(2) +1.327(-0.034)
14/8 10/7(2) +1.302(-0.059)
Clearly it wasn't very sure of itself withunconvincing rollout results and Woolsey comments I see that this play came out on top in the rollout, but I'm notinclined to believe it. 11/2*, 5/2 looks better to me. I think holding theeight point will turn out to be an asset, not a liability. Snowie 4 once more completely agrees, though with a farmore assertive evaluation than Snowie 3:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| 3
| 11/5 5/2*(2)
| 1.348
|
|
|
| 2.3% 52.2% 91.4% 8.6% 1.0% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 2
| 3
| 11/8(2) 10/7(2)
| 1.317 (-0.031)
|
|
|
| 1.9% 48.8% 91.7% 8.3% 1.1% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 3
| 3
| 8/2*(2)
| 1.314 (-0.034)
|
|
|
| 2.2% 51.5% 90.4% 9.6% 1.2% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 4
| 3
| 14/8 10/7(2)
| 1.308 (-0.040)
|
|
|
| 1.8% 47.1% 92.1% 7.9% 0.9% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 5
| 3
| 11/5 10/7(2)
| 1.292 (-0.056)
|
|
|
| 2.0% 49.0% 90.7% 9.3% 1.3% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
| *
| 6
| 3
| 11/8 10/7(2) 5/2*
| 1.278 (-0.070)
|
|
|
| 2.3% 48.9% 90.2% 9.8% 1.7% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
And once more the rollouts do not change thisverdict:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| R
| 11/5 5/2*(2)
| 1.349
|
|
|
| 1.0% 51.0% 92.2% 7.8% 0.6% 0.0%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.357 -0.009.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
900 games (equiv. 41308 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 2
| R
| 8/2*(2)
| 1.330 (-0.020)
|
|
|
| 1.2% 50.7% 91.4% 8.6% 0.6% 0.0%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.341 -0.008.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
900 games (equiv. 45180 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 3
| R
| 11/8(2) 10/7(2)
| 1.293 (-0.056)
|
|
|
| 1.2% 45.5% 92.1% 7.9% 0.6% 0.0%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.302 -0.008.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
900 games (equiv. 48549 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
| *
| 4
| R
| 11/8 10/7(2) 5/2*
| 1.276 (-0.074)
|
|
|
| 1.3% 47.8% 90.6% 9.4% 1.2% 0.1%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.291 -0.009.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
900 games (equiv. 46640 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 5
| R
| 14/8 10/7(2)
| 1.264 (-0.085)
|
|
|
| 0.7% 40.6% 93.0% 7.0% 0.5% 0.0%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.268 -0.008.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 17,
900 games (equiv. 48134 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
So what's the verdict? If we are to believe thecomparative results, Snowie 4 seems to be far surerof itself in many positonswhere Snowie 3 was unable to give a confidentevaluation. Is it the ultimate player then? Perhaps, as it is touted to bebetter than the best players on the planet according to its makers, and I haveno doubt it may very well be true, but that doesn't mean it is perfect, nor that it never makes any mistakes.
For example, the following positionoccurred in a game from a top final:
8th Japan OpenFinals (2002)
Frank Talbot - Nishikawa Kiyokazu 3-0/15
Snowie 4, at 3-ply Precisedeclares Talbot's move a blunder in no uncertain terms (thanks to Ilia Guzei for spotting it):
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| 3
| 24/23 11/5
| 1.346
|
|
|
| 2.9% 66.1% 86.2% 13.8% 1.5% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 2
| 3
| 24/23 14/8
| 1.341 (-0.005)
|
|
|
| 2.9% 65.9% 86.1% 13.9% 1.5% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 3
| 3
| 14/8 11/10
| 1.223 (-0.124)
|
|
|
| 2.7% 63.5% 82.4% 17.6% 1.7% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
| *
| 4
| 3
| 14/13 11/5
| 1.221 (-0.125)
|
|
|
| 2.7% 63.6% 82.3% 17.7% 1.7% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 5
| 3
| 14/7
| 1.218 (-0.128)
|
|
|
| 2.7% 63.5% 82.3% 17.7% 1.7% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
|
| 6
| 3
| 11/4
| 1.214 (-0.132)
|
|
|
| 2.7% 63.3% 82.2% 17.8% 1.7% 0.1%
|
|
|
| Speed Parameter: Precise.
|
Yet there is no logic in this. Right now, Talbot has13 shots to Move Up to the 20 point, all 4s and 31. By bringing up the rearmostchecker, Talbot would lose 2 more shots (the 31) and be left with only 11 shotsto try to move up before collapsing. The rollouts, set at a truncation depth of19 to avoid a horizon effect, bear this out completely and Talbot's move movesup the list whereas Snowie's previous favorite isshown to be a serious mistake:
| #
| Ply
| Move
| Equity
|
|
| 1
| R
| 11/4
| 1.355
|
|
|
| 2.0% 67.0% 87.0% 13.0% 1.1% 0.0%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.416 -0.015.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 19,
1296 games (equiv. 17503 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
|
| 2
| R
| 14/8 11/10
| 1.351 (-0.004)
|
|
|
| 1.9% 66.7% 87.0% 13.0% 1.1% 0.0%
|
|
|
| 95% confidence interval:
- money cubeless eq.: 1.416 -0.015.
Rollout settings:
Truncated rollout, depth 19,
1296 games (equiv. 17226 games),
played 2-ply,
random seed, with race database.
|
| *
| 3
| R
|
