EXPERIMENT 16:

After my mutant in Experiment 14 came within 2.5% of GnuBG 2-ply checker
and 3-ply cube, I wanted to see if I could further simplify my mutant keeping
it achieve similar results. I took the following formulas from Experiment 14:

cubepoints = [0.55, 0.60, 0.65, 0.70, 0.75]
takepoints = [0.15, 0.20, 0.25, 0.30, 0.35]
beaverpoints = [0.39, 0.41, 0.43, 0.44, 0.47]

And only changed the beaver points to be also be in 5% increments, like this:

beaverpoints = [0.35, 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55]

As well as setting the too-good point to 0.85.

The first points in the three sets are 0.15, 0.35 and 0.55 in 0.20 increments and
the following points are in 0.05 increments. So, all one needs to memorize are
3 numbers: the 0.15 first take point with 0.20 and 0.05 increments. Oh, and the
too-good point. Nothing can be simpler.

I don't know if the checker ply effects the cube ply but this time I set it to 3-ply
for both sides anyway. Surprisingly, this simpler mutant performed even better.
In games, it was just as good as GnuBG 3-ply checker and 3-ply cube; in points,
it was just 1.32% shy of it.

After 20,000 games bot won 37,854 (51.32%) and mutant won 35,900 (48.68%)
of points; bot won 10,003 (50.02%) and mutant won 9,997 (49.99%) of games.

I don't think I can simplify my mutant any further but I may try to see if more
conservative cube points can achieve better results against the same or higher
plies of GnuBG.