EXPERIMENT 17:

As I commented in Experiment 16, I ran this one to see if more conservative
cube points can achieve better results against the same plies of GnuBG.

cubepoints = [0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75]
takepoints = [0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35]
beaverpoints = [0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55]

I merely added 0.05 to all of the above numbers like this:

cubepoints = [0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75, 0.80]
takepoints = [0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35, 0.40]
beaverpoints = [0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55, 0.60]

After 20,000 games bot won 23,373 (51.77%) and mutant won 21,779 (48.23%)
of points; bot won 9,773 (48.86%) and mutant won 10,227 (51.14%) of games.

The mutant won merely 0.55% less points but won 1.12% more games. What's
really striking is that the total number of points went from 73,754 to 45,152 by a
whopping 40%. Obviously ppg went down accordingly by 40% from 3.69 to 2.26

It's ineresting to see that when the mutant cubes conservatively, GnuBG dances
to his tune and that only 20% less total cube actions, (going down from 15,821
to 12,574), causes twice as much, (i.e. 40%), difference in total points and ppg's.

With these last two experiments, total number of games/trials in my "fartoffski"
mutant cube skill experiments reached 140,000 which I believe makes the results
significant and conclusive enough, that the "jackoffski cube skill theory" is just a
pile of cow pies and that even an arbitrarily fabricated simple cube strategy based
on "game stages" and roughly approximate, evenly incremented, round number
cube points based on GWC's alone, can perform as good as GnuBG 3-ply (maybe
even 4-ply which is not yet tested).