1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.GAMES.BACKGAMMON

  • Because the drinks were way too expensive!

    From [email protected]@21:1/5 to All on Mon Sep 19 12:00:14 2022
    I was surprised that, in a near-perfect game with world-champ PR,
    the only move to be significantly criticised was 16/10 3/2.
    Why on earth concede the two indirects?
    What exactly am I paying for here??
    Admittedly, I haven't done a rollout.
    Is it that the gammon count is so close that I can't waste a pip.
    I don't get it -- an 11% hitting chance!

    Please explain why safety isn't feasible here.

    Thank You,

    Paul

    XGID=-bBCCCB---A-c---Abadc-----:1:-1:1:61:1:6:3:0:10
    X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon

    Score is X:1 O:6. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
    +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
    | X O O | | O O | +---+
    | O | | O O | | 2 |
    | | | O O | +---+
    | | | O |
    | | | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | O | | X X X |
    | O | | X X X X X O |
    | O X | | X X X X X O |
    +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
    Pip count X: 78 O: 149 X-O: 1-6
    Cube: 2, O own cube
    X to play 61

    1. XG Roller+ 16/9 eq:+1.007
    Player: 84.62% (G:34.93% B:2.54%)
    Opponent: 15.38% (G:0.41% B:0.01%)

    2. XG Roller+ 16/10 3/2 eq:+0.950 (-0.058)
    Player: 82.89% (G:32.76% B:2.61%)
    Opponent: 17.11% (G:0.16% B:0.01%)

    3. 4-ply 16/10 4/3 eq:+0.958 (-0.049)
    Player: 83.61% (G:32.00% B:2.66%)
    Opponent: 16.39% (G:0.29% B:0.01%)

    4. 4-ply 16/10 5/4 eq:+0.948 (-0.060)
    Player: 83.11% (G:32.03% B:2.80%)
    Opponent: 16.89% (G:0.33% B:0.01%)

    5. 1-ply 16/15 10/4 eq:+0.632 (-0.375)
    Player: 71.97% (G:28.85% B:2.15%)
    Opponent: 28.03% (G:1.84% B:0.03%)


    eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stick Rice@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Sep 19 14:16:23 2022
    On Monday, September 19, 2022 at 3:00:20 PM UTC-4, [email protected] wrote:
    I was surprised that, in a near-perfect game with world-champ PR,
    the only move to be significantly criticised was 16/10 3/2.
    Why on earth concede the two indirects?
    What exactly am I paying for here??
    Admittedly, I haven't done a rollout.
    Is it that the gammon count is so close that I can't waste a pip.
    I don't get it -- an 11% hitting chance!

    Please explain why safety isn't feasible here.

    Thank You,

    Paul

    XGID=-bBCCCB---A-c---Abadc-----:1:-1:1:61:1:6:3:0:10
    X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon

    Score is X:1 O:6. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
    | X O O | | O O | +---+
    | O | | O O | | 2 |
    | | | O O | +---+
    | | | O |
    | | | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | |
    | O | | X X X |
    | O | | X X X X X O |
    | O X | | X X X X X O |
    +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
    Pip count X: 78 O: 149 X-O: 1-6
    Cube: 2, O own cube
    X to play 61

    1. XG Roller+ 16/9 eq:+1.007
    Player: 84.62% (G:34.93% B:2.54%)
    Opponent: 15.38% (G:0.41% B:0.01%)

    2. XG Roller+ 16/10 3/2 eq:+0.950 (-0.058)
    Player: 82.89% (G:32.76% B:2.61%)
    Opponent: 17.11% (G:0.16% B:0.01%)

    3. 4-ply 16/10 4/3 eq:+0.958 (-0.049)
    Player: 83.61% (G:32.00% B:2.66%)
    Opponent: 16.39% (G:0.29% B:0.01%)

    4. 4-ply 16/10 5/4 eq:+0.948 (-0.060)
    Player: 83.11% (G:32.03% B:2.80%)
    Opponent: 16.89% (G:0.33% B:0.01%)

    5. 1-ply 16/15 10/4 eq:+0.632 (-0.375)
    Player: 71.97% (G:28.85% B:2.15%)
    Opponent: 28.03% (G:1.84% B:0.03%)


    eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

    The first question you must ask yourself is, if you leave those indirect shots and the opponent rolls a shot hitting number [63 62] are you sure he's supposed to hit? I can tell you I wasn't sure he was supposed to hit. (though I would have because...
    dmp so what are you going to do) The gain is your distribution for the bear off.

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to [email protected] on Mon Sep 19 20:03:06 2022
    On 9/19/2022 3:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
    I was surprised that, in a near-perfect game with world-champ PR,
    the only move to be significantly criticised was 16/10 3/2.
    Why on earth concede the two indirects?

    3/2 is horrible. I seem to recall discussing this point with you
    before, years ago...I think you underestimate how horrible 3/2 is.

    How horrible, you ask? Well, this position illustrates just how
    horrible it is.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From [email protected]@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Tue Sep 20 01:52:21 2022
    On Tuesday, September 20, 2022 at 1:03:07 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 9/19/2022 3:00 PM, [email protected] wrote:
    I was surprised that, in a near-perfect game with world-champ PR,
    the only move to be significantly criticised was 16/10 3/2.
    Why on earth concede the two indirects?
    3/2 is horrible. I seem to recall discussing this point with you
    before, years ago...I think you underestimate how horrible 3/2 is.

    How horrible, you ask? Well, this position illustrates just how
    horrible it is.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    Thanks to Tim and Stick.
    A number of points come to mind here:
    1) This is a rare (and interesting) case where Stick says he's not sure about a backgammon play (though I think he
    (and all good players) is sure about the play under discussion).
    2) The world's greatest expert on the deficiencies of 3/2 is actually Axel, who knows the exact penalty for two point stacks in non-contact bearoffs.
    Stacks of 3 or higher on the 2 point get penalised a lot. Of course, this is far from the non-contact case but our knowledge about the racing game
    can and should be applied. This reinforces a point that I've made time and time again about Axelisation. Axelisation isn't just a cube action guide.
    When we see what does and doesn't get penalised, we can use the info to guide our checker play -- this can really help.
    3/2 is a major reason why my play got dinged. And Stick makes a great point too about distribution flexibility.
    3) Impressed that you recall our discussion. Now, finally I understand how you came to be better than me at both maths and backgammon -- a great memory.
    The number of people who are both better than me at maths and better than me at backgammon must be small. I'd be surprised if this is more than 10.
    I'd estimate 5.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to All on Tue Sep 20 08:06:47 2022
    On 9/20/2022 4:52 AM, [email protected] wrote:> 2) The world's greatest
    expert on the deficiencies of 3/2 is actually Axel, who knows the exact
    penalty for two point stacks in non-contact bearoffs.
    In the current position, the main problem with 3/2 is that
    it creates shot jeopardy later on.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Nasti Chestikov@21:1/5 to Stick Rice on Tue Sep 20 10:07:08 2022
    On Monday, 19 September 2022 at 22:16:24 UTC+1, Stick Rice wrote:

    I don't get it -- an 11% hitting chance!

    Yeah, go and play AI Factory Backgammon and the 1-in-18 rolls happen 1-in-3 times.

    Their employed stooges on the Play Store respond to criticism of their dice that they don't cheat.

    So that's ok. They refuse to provide a means to replicate the dice (via reproducing the RNG method and seed) so AI Factory Backgammon dice must be fair because their staff say so.

    FFS. You couldn't make it up.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)