EXPERIMENT 29:

These experiments are different ply versions of Experiments 27 and 28,
treated as a single experiment since they were run directly from the CLI
without scripts, thus without session and game files and/or stats.

In the first session, GnuBG 3-ply checker with 2-ply cube skill, (strong
bot), played 20,000 cubeful money games against GnuBG 0-ply checker
with also 2-ply cube skill (weak bot).

Strong bot won 24,141 (52.03%) and weak bot won 22,256 (47.97%) of
points, with a total of 46,397 points for both and an average of 2.3199
points per game. (Number of games won/lost weren't counted).

In the second one, GnuBG 3-ply checker skill, (strong bot), played 20,000
cubeless money games against GnuBG 0-ply checker skill (weak bot).

Strong bot won 13,536 (52.76%) and weak bot won 12,120 (47.24%) of
points, with a total of 25,657 points and an average of 1.2828 points
per game. (Number of games won/lost weren't counted).

These results are incredibly close to the ones in Experiments 27 and 28.
This time around, weak bot won 0.73% more points, (instead of winning
0.61% less points in Experiment 27), in cubeful games than in cubeless
games, even though the checker skill difference between the sides was
greater, i.e. 0-ply vs 3-ply instead of 1-ply vs 3-ply.

Here the weak bot performed better, even if by very little, in the cubeful
session than in the cubeless session. But the differences between plies,
either comparing cubeless to cubeless, cubeful to cubeful or cubeful to
cubeless, are so small that I find then inexplicable. Perhaps other people
can explain why?

These will most likely be my last experiments in the cubeful-vs-cubeless
series done to demonstrate that, contrary to the general "belief" in the
gamblegammon world, the doubling cube does not add any more skill
to the game but instead "magnifies luck", just as I argued since 1998
and previously could only try to demonstrate through my subjective
human-vs-bot experiments. I will write a summarizing essay about this
subject when I can make time for it.