EXPERIMENT 26:

This experiment is a "double mutants" version of the cubeful Experiment 24.
It was done without a strong expectation but for the possibility that it may
support one of my arguments to debunk a certain "cube skill" fallacy.

Unlike bot making cube decisions for both players as in Experiment 24, in
this one the checker play mutant also makes the mutant cube decisions as
in Experiment 16, based on the same game stages formulas.

In Experiment 16, after 20,000 games bot won 37,854 (51.32%) and mutant
won 35,900 (48.68%) of points, i.e. 2.65% less; bot won 10,003 (50.02%) and
mutant won 9,997 (49.99%) of games, i.e. only 0.03% less.

In Experiment 24, after 20,000 games bot won 32,208 (57.85%) and mutant
won 23,467 (42.15%) of points, i.e. 15.70% less; bot won 11,949 (59.75%) and
mutant won 8,051 (40.26%) of games, i.e. 19.49% less.

In this experiment, it would be expected to see mutant lose the combined
amounts of those two experiments. That is, 2.65% + 15.70% = 18.35% less
of points and 0.03% + 19.49% = 19.52% less of games.

After 20,000 games bot won 47.912 (59.44%) mutant won 32,687 (40.56%)
of points, i.e. 18.89% less; bot won 11,530 (57.65%) and mutant won 8,470
(42.35%) of games, i.e. 15.30% less.

These results mean that, contrary to what would be expected, mutant lost
only 18.89% of points instead of 19.52% expected and only lost 15.30% of
games instead of 19.52% expected.

The mutant had already performed better in cubeful Experiment 24 than
in cubeless Experiment 25, which means that it also performed better in
this cubeful experiment than the cubeless experiment. But what's really
striking is that the "double mutant" in this experiment performed best.

I will add some conclusion drawing comments here after doing more
experiments along the same lines.