EXPERIMENT 14-d:

Since my mind won't stop wondering, after getting pretty decent results in
Experiments 14-a, 14-b and 14-c against GnuBG 3-ply and 4-ply, I wanted to
see if my tweaked formulae would now perform better against GnuBG 2-ply.

So, I ran 20,000 games with double points [0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75] take
points [0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35] beaver points [0.53, 0.56, 0.59, 0.62, 0.65]
and too good point 0.85 against 2-ply.

Compared to bot's 37,077 (52.70%) the mutant won 33,278 (47.30%) points
and to bots 10,086 (50.43%) the mutant won 9,914 (49.57%) of the games.

Wait a minute. These aren't any better than the 3-ply or even the 4-ply results.
The results of the last six experiments are all within less than 2% of each other,
even though some of their formulae are quite different as their opponents are.
This is getting beyond just interesting. What's going on here?

At least the results of the same mutant playing against 2-ply and 3-ply should
be noticeably different, no?

Hmm. Will there be a noticeable difference if I make GnuBG 2-ply play against
GnuBG 3-ply? I ran the next and last Experiment 15 in this series, exactly to find
out the answer to this question. Check it out.