• Don't you hate backgames?

    From Zorba@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jan 3 19:52:38 2022
    Note the score, it's Gammon-Go for X. Clockwise play (of course!).

    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford

    X to play 53


    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to Stick Rice on Mon Jan 3 20:52:22 2022
    On 3-1-2022 20:30, Stick Rice wrote:

    You should really provide an XG ID or GNU ID when posting here. Certain people of which I know one well won't even look at the problem otherwise. (because of how it's displayed)

    Stick


    Yeah Google Groups sucks. Things look so much better in a proper newsreader!

    XGID=---a-aBaBA--dB---b-bbbBBCA:0:0:1:53:5:6:1:7:10


    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stick Rice@21:1/5 to Zorba on Mon Jan 3 11:30:39 2022
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 1:52:41 PM UTC-5, Zorba wrote:
    Note the score, it's Gammon-Go for X. Clockwise play (of course!).

    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford

    X to play 53


    --
    Zorba

    You should really provide an XG ID or GNU ID when posting here. Certain people of which I know one well won't even look at the problem otherwise. (because of how it's displayed)

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Axel Reichert@21:1/5 to Stick Rice on Mon Jan 3 21:36:19 2022
    Stick Rice <bananaboater315@gmail.com> writes:

    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 1:52:41 PM UTC-5, Zorba wrote:
    Note the score, it's Gammon-Go for X. Clockwise play (of course!).

    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford

    X to play 53


    --
    Zorba

    You should really provide an XG ID or GNU ID when posting here.
    Certain people of which I know one well won't even look at the problem otherwise. (because of how it's displayed)

    ... which happens only after your reply. Zorba's original post still was perferctly fine. d-:

    Axel

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Zorba on Mon Jan 3 15:56:19 2022
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 6:52:41 PM UTC, Zorba wrote:
    Note the score, it's Gammon-Go for X. Clockwise play (of course!).

    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford

    X to play 53

    I'll play 23/18 but with no analysis, confidence, conviction, or poetry,
    like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Mon Jan 3 22:58:13 2022
    On 1/3/2022 6:56 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    I'll play 23/18 but with no analysis, confidence, conviction, or poetry,
    like a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there.

    I would try 23/18 as well. X's timing isn't great and if O makes her
    bar point then he will be in trouble. If X can make that point instead
    then it will greatly help him recirculate his checkers if necessary.
    Of course X is not afraid of getting hit per se, nor is O going to want
    to make her 2pt any time soon.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to Axel Reichert on Mon Jan 3 23:12:09 2022
    On 1/3/2022 3:36 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
    Stick Rice writes:
    You should really provide an XG ID or GNU ID when posting here.
    Certain people of which I know one well won't even look at the problem
    otherwise. (because of how it's displayed)

    ... which happens only after your reply. Zorba's original post still was perferctly fine. d-:

    My understanding is that Stick doesn't like ASCII art even when
    it's properly displayed.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J R@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Wed Jan 5 13:13:12 2022
    On Monday, January 3, 2022 at 11:12:11 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 1/3/2022 3:36 PM, Axel Reichert wrote:
    Stick Rice writes:
    You should really provide an XG ID or GNU ID when posting here.
    Certain people of which I know one well won't even look at the problem
    otherwise. (because of how it's displayed)

    ... which happens only after your reply. Zorba's original post still was perferctly fine. d-:
    My understanding is that Stick doesn't like ASCII art even when
    it's properly displayed.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    You would be correct when speaking of backgammon positions. Why would I want to look at that when with one ctrl C + ctrl V I could be looking at it on XG? ASCII art was just great back in 1995.

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Zorba on Sat Jan 8 07:42:28 2022
    On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 3:22:18 PM UTC, Zorba wrote:
    It's a close call between the first two plays and the hit is not that
    far behind.

    XG's reliability for such a position (8 backcheckers) is probably not up
    to its usual quality.

    1. Rollout¹ Bar/22 9/4 eq:-0,174
    Player: 38,03% (G:3,29% B:0,37%)
    Opponent: 61,97% (G:44,28% B:21,04%)
    Confidence: ±0,008 (-0,182..-0,165) - [84,2%]
    Duration: 8 hours 38 minutes

    2. Rollout¹ Bar/22 23/18 eq:-0,180 (-0,006)
    Player: 37,87% (G:3,14% B:0,27%)
    Opponent: 62,13% (G:45,82% B:23,66%)
    Confidence: ±0,009 (-0,189..-0,171) - [15,8%]
    Duration: 7 hours 49 minutes

    3. Rollout¹ Bar/22 8/3* eq:-0,205 (-0,031)
    Player: 37,10% (G:2,68% B:0,22%)
    Opponent: 62,90% (G:47,27% B:25,56%)
    Confidence: ±0,011 (-0,216..-0,193) - [0,0%]
    Duration: 7 hours 57 minutes

    ¹ 11664 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
    Dice Seed: 48563399
    Cubeless
    First 6 moves: 4-ply
    Remaining moves: 3-ply
    Search interval: Large
    XGID=---a-aBaBA--dB---b-bbbBBCA:0:0:1:53:5:6:1:7:10
    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford
    Cube: 1
    X to play 53

    The title doesn't fit the post.
    Here, you can't lose much equity, no matter what you do
    so the back game player doesn't really need to worry.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jan 8 16:22:14 2022
    It's a close call between the first two plays and the hit is not that
    far behind.

    XG's reliability for such a position (8 backcheckers) is probably not up
    to its usual quality.

    1. Rollout¹ Bar/22 9/4 eq:-0,174
    Player: 38,03% (G:3,29% B:0,37%)
    Opponent: 61,97% (G:44,28% B:21,04%)
    Confidence: ±0,008 (-0,182..-0,165) - [84,2%]
    Duration: 8 hours 38 minutes

    2. Rollout¹ Bar/22 23/18 eq:-0,180 (-0,006)
    Player: 37,87% (G:3,14% B:0,27%)
    Opponent: 62,13% (G:45,82% B:23,66%)
    Confidence: ±0,009 (-0,189..-0,171) - [15,8%]
    Duration: 7 hours 49 minutes

    3. Rollout¹ Bar/22 8/3* eq:-0,205 (-0,031)
    Player: 37,10% (G:2,68% B:0,22%)
    Opponent: 62,90% (G:47,27% B:25,56%)
    Confidence: ±0,011 (-0,216..-0,193) - [0,0%]
    Duration: 7 hours 57 minutes

    ¹ 11664 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
    Dice Seed: 48563399
    Cubeless
    First 6 moves: 4-ply
    Remaining moves: 3-ply
    Search interval: Large

    XGID=---a-aBaBA--dB---b-bbbBBCA:0:0:1:53:5:6:1:7:10

    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford
    Cube: 1
    X to play 53

    eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2


    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Sat Jan 8 17:50:28 2022
    On 8-1-2022 16:42, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

    The title doesn't fit the post.
    Here, you can't lose much equity, no matter what you do
    so the back game player doesn't really need to worry.

    You can still hate backgames though, whether you worry or not ;-)

    The title is ironic. I played 8/3*.
    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J R@21:1/5 to Zorba on Sun Jan 9 09:13:33 2022
    On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 10:22:18 AM UTC-5, Zorba wrote:
    It's a close call between the first two plays and the hit is not that
    far behind.

    XG's reliability for such a position (8 backcheckers) is probably not up
    to its usual quality.

    1. Rollout¹ Bar/22 9/4 eq:-0,174
    Player: 38,03% (G:3,29% B:0,37%)
    Opponent: 61,97% (G:44,28% B:21,04%)
    Confidence: ±0,008 (-0,182..-0,165) - [84,2%]
    Duration: 8 hours 38 minutes

    2. Rollout¹ Bar/22 23/18 eq:-0,180 (-0,006)
    Player: 37,87% (G:3,14% B:0,27%)
    Opponent: 62,13% (G:45,82% B:23,66%)
    Confidence: ±0,009 (-0,189..-0,171) - [15,8%]
    Duration: 7 hours 49 minutes

    3. Rollout¹ Bar/22 8/3* eq:-0,205 (-0,031)
    Player: 37,10% (G:2,68% B:0,22%)
    Opponent: 62,90% (G:47,27% B:25,56%)
    Confidence: ±0,011 (-0,216..-0,193) - [0,0%]
    Duration: 7 hours 57 minutes

    ¹ 11664 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
    Dice Seed: 48563399
    Cubeless
    First 6 moves: 4-ply
    Remaining moves: 3-ply
    Search interval: Large
    XGID=---a-aBaBA--dB---b-bbbBBCA:0:0:1:53:5:6:1:7:10
    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X X X O O O | | O X |
    | X | | |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | | | O |
    | | | O |
    | X | | X O |
    | O O X | | O X X O |
    +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford
    Cube: 1
    X to play 53

    eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2


    --
    Zorba

    Glad you put on a hefty rollout. My rollout had the other two plays as whoppers!

    Stick

    XGID=---a-aBaBA--dB---b-bbbBBCA:0:0:1:53:5:6:1:7:10

    X:Player 1 O:Player 2
    Score is X:5 O:6 7 pt.(s) match.
    +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
    | X O | | O O O X X X |
    | X O | | O O O X X X |
    | | | X |
    | | | |
    | | X | |
    | |BAR| |
    | | | |
    | O | | |
    | O | | |
    | O X | | X |
    | O X X O | | X O O |
    +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
    Pip count X: 250 O: 158 X-O: 5-6/7 Crawford
    Cube: 1
    X to play 53

    1. Rollout¹ Bar/22 8/3* eq:-0.201
    Player: 37.85% (G:2.10% B:0.01%)
    Opponent: 62.15% (G:42.92% B:22.27%)
    Confidence: ±0.077 (-0.278..-0.124) - [60.2%]
    Duration: 59.7 seconds

    2. Rollout¹ Bar/22 9/4 eq:-0.225 (-0.024)
    Player: 37.34% (G:1.40% B:0.11%)
    Opponent: 62.66% (G:45.13% B:20.46%)
    Confidence: ±0.077 (-0.288..-0.162) - [26.2%]
    Duration: 56.3 seconds

    3. Rollout¹ Bar/22 23/18 eq:-0.251 (-0.050)
    Player: 36.07% (G:1.40% B:0.19%)
    Opponent: 63.93% (G:46.69% B:23.23%)
    Confidence: ±0.088 (-0.338..-0.163) - [13.6%]
    Duration: 57.0 seconds

    ¹ 108 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
    Dice Seed: 36723464
    Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

    eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to J R on Sun Jan 9 22:20:47 2022
    On 1/9/2022 12:13 PM, J R wrote:
    Glad you put on a hefty rollout. My rollout had the other two plays as whoppers!

    Stick

    You're giving Murat a run for his money in terms of humor value!

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J R@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Sun Jan 9 23:02:29 2022
    On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 10:20:49 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 1/9/2022 12:13 PM, J R wrote:
    Glad you put on a hefty rollout. My rollout had the other two plays as whoppers!

    Stick
    You're giving Murat a run for his money in terms of humor value!

    ---
    Tim Chow

    Why don't you rewrite the definition of whopper for everyone so that it makes sense then and submit it to bkgm.com.

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to J R on Mon Jan 10 21:36:36 2022
    On 1/10/2022 2:02 AM, J R wrote:
    Why don't you rewrite the definition of whopper for everyone so that it makes sense then and submit it to bkgm.com.

    The definition as it stands is fine. What's at issue are the
    conditions under which one is justified in *calling* something
    a whopper.

    I'm inferring that you're operating under something like the
    following conditions: One is justified in calling a play a whopper
    if and only if the results of a rollout (by a reputable backgammon
    bot, with rollout settings that are generally considered to be
    adequate) have been exhibited, and the EMG deficit of the play in
    question (as compared to the top play of the rollout) as estimated
    and displayed by the bot, is at least 0.1.

    Notice that under these conditions, it's still possible to make
    a "mistake" in the sense of *calling* something a whopper when it
    isn't. The bkgm.com definition of a whopper refers to the *actual*
    EMG deficit, under the assumption that equities exist and that
    both players adopt an equilibrium strategy (commonly known as
    "perfect play"). The actual EMG deficit in the vast majority of
    situations is unknown, because backgammon has not been solved. So
    whether something is actually a whopper is also unknown. Moreover,
    even if we accept a hypothetical "infinitely long rollout" as a
    surrogate for actual perfect play, we still don't have direct access
    to it; all we have are finite rollouts. When one calls something
    a whopper under the above conditions, one is making a judgment call
    that the evidence is "good enough" to justify the claim.

    The only difference between my operating conditions and yours is
    that at the end of the last sentence, I say, "is at least 0.1, or
    is very close to 0.1." The reason I do this is, in part, to remind
    people of the above approximations and uncertainties. We use words
    like "whopper" to convey approximate judgments; while we define them
    in terms of numerical criteria for the sake of concreteness, it's
    always a good idea to remind ourselves not to fall into the trap of
    false precision.

    For comparison, let's look at Ballard and Weaver's book on the
    openings. They define terms like "very close" and "marginally
    correct" and "blowout" and so forth, and then in the text, they
    use only these words and don't display rollout results. Behind
    the scenes, they're doing some rollouts and using certain cutoff
    values, but they're deliberately hiding the rollouts because they know
    that all we can realistically do is talk in terms of approximate
    judgments, and they don't want readers to get hung up on whether
    some rollout did or did not cross some arbitrary numerical borderline.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J R@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Tue Jan 11 09:24:09 2022
    On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:36:40 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 1/10/2022 2:02 AM, J R wrote:
    Why don't you rewrite the definition of whopper for everyone so that it makes sense then and submit it to bkgm.com.
    The definition as it stands is fine. What's at issue are the
    conditions under which one is justified in *calling* something
    a whopper.

    I'm inferring that you're operating under something like the
    following conditions: One is justified in calling a play a whopper
    if and only if the results of a rollout (by a reputable backgammon
    bot, with rollout settings that are generally considered to be
    adequate) have been exhibited, and the EMG deficit of the play in
    question (as compared to the top play of the rollout) as estimated
    and displayed by the bot, is at least 0.1.

    Notice that under these conditions, it's still possible to make
    a "mistake" in the sense of *calling* something a whopper when it
    isn't. The bkgm.com definition of a whopper refers to the *actual*
    EMG deficit, under the assumption that equities exist and that
    both players adopt an equilibrium strategy (commonly known as
    "perfect play"). The actual EMG deficit in the vast majority of
    situations is unknown, because backgammon has not been solved. So
    whether something is actually a whopper is also unknown. Moreover,
    even if we accept a hypothetical "infinitely long rollout" as a
    surrogate for actual perfect play, we still don't have direct access
    to it; all we have are finite rollouts. When one calls something
    a whopper under the above conditions, one is making a judgment call
    that the evidence is "good enough" to justify the claim.

    The only difference between my operating conditions and yours is
    that at the end of the last sentence, I say, "is at least 0.1, or
    is very close to 0.1." The reason I do this is, in part, to remind
    people of the above approximations and uncertainties. We use words
    like "whopper" to convey approximate judgments; while we define them
    in terms of numerical criteria for the sake of concreteness, it's
    always a good idea to remind ourselves not to fall into the trap of
    false precision.

    For comparison, let's look at Ballard and Weaver's book on the
    openings. They define terms like "very close" and "marginally
    correct" and "blowout" and so forth, and then in the text, they
    use only these words and don't display rollout results. Behind
    the scenes, they're doing some rollouts and using certain cutoff
    values, but they're deliberately hiding the rollouts because they know
    that all we can realistically do is talk in terms of approximate
    judgments, and they don't want readers to get hung up on whether
    some rollout did or did not cross some arbitrary numerical borderline.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    Your argument is a whopper.

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to J R on Tue Jan 11 18:05:33 2022
    On 1/11/2022 12:24 PM, J R wrote:
    Your argument is a whopper.

    Sorry you can't understand it. I tried to make it as
    simple as possible.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Wed Jan 12 03:32:02 2022
    On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 11:05:35 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 1/11/2022 12:24 PM, J R wrote:
    Your argument is a whopper.
    Sorry you can't understand it. I tried to make it as
    simple as possible.

    I liked your posting and argument.
    But your conclusion that Stick "can't understand it" is unwarranted (and actually a bit unlikely in my opinion).
    Some alternatives are:
    1) He feels a psychological need to insult you.
    2) He has spotted an error in your reasoning, that has eluded both you and me, but doesn't want to invest the
    time in explaining it.
    3) You are/were making some error or misconception in some related area of backgammon, that isn't 100%
    relevant to your point here. He (rightly) objects to this error but won't point it out because he knows it's not fully relevant.

    I'd vote for 3) because I've seen this type of Stick and Tim discussion before. Tim: Adages like "make the 5 point...", "make the DMP play..." etc. are not helpful (except to beginners of course).
    Stick: Well, you're obviously doing something wrong because you're not a good player.

    Paul
    ..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to J R on Wed Jan 12 18:28:44 2022
    On 9-1-2022 18:13, J R wrote:

    Glad you put on a hefty rollout. My rollout had the other two plays as whoppers!

    Stick
    I think those are called Whoppers with approximate cheese.
    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Thu Jan 13 09:54:09 2022
    On 1/12/2022 6:32 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    Some alternatives are:
    1) He feels a psychological need to insult you.
    2) He has spotted an error in your reasoning, that has eluded both you and me, but doesn't want to invest the
    time in explaining it.
    3) You are/were making some error or misconception in some related area of backgammon, that isn't 100%
    relevant to your point here. He (rightly) objects to this error but won't point it out because he knows it's not fully relevant.

    I'd vote for 3) because I've seen this type of Stick and Tim discussion before.
    Tim: Adages like "make the 5 point...", "make the DMP play..." etc. are not helpful (except to beginners of course).
    Stick: Well, you're obviously doing something wrong because you're not a good player.

    The trouble with 3) is that the present discussion has nothing to do
    with backgammon strategy. It's purely about linguistics and numbers.

    I do think that the distinction between what something is in actuality (metaphysics) and our justification for calling it that (epistemology)
    is highly relevant to the discussion, but it's a subtle distinction
    that is difficult to grasp. You've mentioned Gettier counterexamples
    before, so you're familiar with the distinction, but if one has not
    studied the topic before, it isn't easy to understand upon first
    exposure.

    If someone (and many people fall into this category, not just Stick)
    is in the habit of declaring something to be a whopper if and only if
    they see a number >= .1 in a rollout result, then it can be difficult
    to see the distinction between their chosen epistemological criterion
    for declaring something to be a whopper, and the property of actually
    being a whopper.

    The other tricky point is that if we have a vague concept that we want
    to make more precise, then often we are forced to introduce a definition
    that is *too* precise, with artificially sharp boundaries, and that
    being too procrustean about respecting those sharp boundaries can do
    violence to the intended concept. A real-life example is a speed limit
    on driving. In practice, a sharp cutoff has to be defined, but what
    society really wants is an approximate cutoff. So in many
    jurisdictions, they have a practice of not punishing offenders unless
    they are *way* over the speed limit. Of course, this ends up just
    creating a new problem---what exactly is "way over"? 10 mph? 15 mph?
    As soon as you make a sharp cutoff, you run into difficulties again.

    Stick's behavior is akin to that of a policeman who tickets a driver
    for going 57 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph. So maybe we should
    add to your list:

    4) Stick has a quota of how many people he needs to ticket this month.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Thu Jan 13 08:14:41 2022
    On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 2:54:13 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 1/12/2022 6:32 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    Some alternatives are:
    1) He feels a psychological need to insult you.
    2) He has spotted an error in your reasoning, that has eluded both you and me, but doesn't want to invest the
    time in explaining it.
    3) You are/were making some error or misconception in some related area of backgammon, that isn't 100%
    relevant to your point here. He (rightly) objects to this error but won't point it out because he knows it's not fully relevant.

    I'd vote for 3) because I've seen this type of Stick and Tim discussion before.
    Tim: Adages like "make the 5 point...", "make the DMP play..." etc. are not helpful (except to beginners of course).
    Stick: Well, you're obviously doing something wrong because you're not a good player.
    The trouble with 3) is that the present discussion has nothing to do
    with backgammon strategy. It's purely about linguistics and numbers.

    I do think that the distinction between what something is in actuality (metaphysics) and our justification for calling it that (epistemology)
    is highly relevant to the discussion, but it's a subtle distinction
    that is difficult to grasp. You've mentioned Gettier counterexamples
    before, ...

    Yes, but I had never heard of Gettier before googling him just now, so thanks for the reference.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to Timothy Chow on Thu Jan 13 19:48:31 2022
    On 13-1-2022 15:54, Timothy Chow wrote:

    Stick's behavior is akin to that of a policeman who tickets a driver
    for going 57 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph.

    As compared to traffic cop T. C. who epistemologically tickets drivers
    for going 53mph when the speed limit is 55mph.

    Tough call.
    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to Zorba on Fri Jan 14 08:51:12 2022
    On 1/13/2022 1:48 PM, Zorba wrote:
    On 13-1-2022 15:54, Timothy Chow wrote:

    Stick's behavior is akin to that of a policeman who tickets a driver
    for going 57 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph.

    As compared to traffic cop T. C. who epistemologically tickets drivers
    for going 53mph when the speed limit is 55mph.

    Say what? You're saying that I have complained when people call
    something with a displayed rollout value of > .1 a whopper?

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to Timothy Chow on Sun Jan 16 00:26:56 2022
    On 14-1-2022 14:51, Timothy Chow wrote:
    On 1/13/2022 1:48 PM, Zorba wrote:
    On 13-1-2022 15:54, Timothy Chow wrote:

    Stick's behavior is akin to that of a policeman who tickets a driver
    for going 57 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph.

    As compared to traffic cop T. C. who epistemologically tickets drivers
    for going 53mph when the speed limit is 55mph.

    Say what?  You're saying that I have complained when people call
    something with a displayed rollout value of > .1 a whopper?

    ---
    Tim Chow

    No, I'm saying you call something with a calculated rollout value that's
    less than 0.1 worse than the best move in the rollout, a whopper.

    That's like the traffic cop giving you a ticket when you're not
    speeding, but "almost" speeding and then coming up with a kind of story
    about how his laser gun might be inaccurate.
    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to Zorba on Sun Jan 16 13:26:47 2022
    On 1/15/2022 6:26 PM, Zorba wrote:
    On 14-1-2022 14:51, Timothy Chow wrote:
    On 1/13/2022 1:48 PM, Zorba wrote:
    On 13-1-2022 15:54, Timothy Chow wrote:

    Stick's behavior is akin to that of a policeman who tickets a driver
    for going 57 mph when the speed limit is 55 mph.

    As compared to traffic cop T. C. who epistemologically tickets
    drivers for going 53mph when the speed limit is 55mph.

    Say what?  You're saying that I have complained when people call
    something with a displayed rollout value of > .1 a whopper?

    ---
    Tim Chow

    No, I'm saying you call something with a calculated rollout value that's
    less than 0.1 worse than the best move in the rollout, a whopper.

    That's like the traffic cop giving you a ticket when you're not
    speeding, but "almost" speeding and then coming up with a kind of story
    about how his laser gun might be inaccurate.

    I see. So you're comparing a police officer writing tickets to a
    coach pointing out flaws in a player's performance, whereas I'm
    comparing a police officer writing tickets to a player telling other
    players that they can't use words in a certain way.

    Let's pursue the coach analogy a bit. Suppose a coach is trying to
    correct a tennis player's tendency to serve too wide. If, during
    training, the coach occasionally says that a serve is two feet past
    the line when it's only 23 inches past the line, then should the
    player fire the coach for not knowing the definition of a foot? Is
    the coach's behavior comparable to that of the police officer in your
    analogy?

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to Timothy Chow on Sun Jan 16 22:46:35 2022
    On 16-1-2022 19:26, Timothy Chow wrote:

    Suppose a coach is trying to
    correct a tennis player's tendency to serve too wide.  If, during
    training, the coach occasionally says that a serve is two feet past
    the line when it's only 23 inches past the line, then should the
    player fire the coach for not knowing the definition of a foot?  Is
    the coach's behavior comparable to that of the police officer in your analogy?


    If that coach used an electronic device that showed the distance as off
    by less than two feet, it would be quite strange for him to insist that
    it's actually two feet.

    If the problem of the coach is in the conversions needed to express
    oneself in the deprecated American non-metric system, I'd recommend
    adopting the metric system instead.

    The blunder by this coach would then never have happened.

    In fact, I'd always recommend using the metric system. There's just no
    excuse for using anything else. Unless you want to communicate with
    people from Liberia or Myanmar. Or the USA.

    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to Zorba on Mon Jan 17 09:02:16 2022
    On 1/16/2022 4:46 PM, Zorba wrote:
    On 16-1-2022 19:26, Timothy Chow wrote:

    Suppose a coach is trying to
    correct a tennis player's tendency to serve too wide.  If, during
    training, the coach occasionally says that a serve is two feet past
    the line when it's only 23 inches past the line, then should the
    player fire the coach for not knowing the definition of a foot?  Is
    the coach's behavior comparable to that of the police officer in your
    analogy?


    If that coach used an electronic device that showed the distance as off
    by less than two feet, it would be quite strange for him to insist that
    it's actually two feet.

    Let me spell out the scenario in what I believe is an analogous way.

    The coach examines an electronic device which says 23.5 inches, plus or
    minus an inch. He yells to the player, "That was way out! Like two
    feet!"

    The player walks over and examines the electronic device. "That doesn't
    say two feet; it says 23.5 inches. Two feet is 24 inches."

    The coach stares at the player, wondering if the player is serious.
    "Yeah, I know that two feet is 24 inches. When I said two feet, I
    meant approximately two feet. And actually, if you want to quibble
    about it, the device itself says 23.5 plus or minus 1 inch, so 24
    inches is even within the error bars. Anyway, the point is that your
    serve is way wide."

    The player replies, "That's the saddest thing I've ever heard you say.
    Maybe you should write to the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology and tell them that their definition of a foot is wrong."

    The coach says, "There's nothing with the NIST standard. Don't you
    know what it means to use approximate language?"

    Etc. Do you think the coach's behavior is unreasonable here?

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Zorba@21:1/5 to Timothy Chow on Mon Jan 17 22:01:11 2022
    On 17-1-2022 15:02, Timothy Chow wrote:

    The coach examines an electronic device which says 23.5 inches, plus or
    minus an inch.  He yells to the player, "That was way out!  Like two
    feet!"

    I like that you take the issue as serious as it deserves to be taken,
    haha! Anyway.

    In backgammon, calling something a whopper means it is *more* than a 0.1
    error.

    So the correct analogy would be the coach saying "that was more than two
    feet out!".

    The player walks over and examines the electronic device.  "That doesn't
    say two feet; it says 23.5 inches.  Two feet is 24 inches."

    So the device shows *less* than two feet, not *more*. The player is
    right to complain.

    "When I said two feet, I
    meant approximately two feet."

    He meant less than two feet in this case.

    And actually, if you want to quibble
    about it, the device itself says 23.5 plus or minus 1 inch, so 24
    inches is even within the error bars.

    So it *could* have been more than two feet out, and if we suppose some
    kind of normal distribution for the measuring error, the probability of
    that is clearly less than 0.5.

    To call something two feet out when the probability of that is actually
    clearly less than 0.5 is bad coaching.

    Of course it would be correct to say "It *might* have been more than two
    feet out, given measurement errors" especially when you'd add "but most
    likely it wasn't".

    Anyway, the point is that your
    serve is way wide."

    That would be an analogy of saying in backgammon "that play is a big
    error", leaving out further specification that you don't have any good
    evidence for.

    The player replies, "That's the saddest thing I've ever heard you say.
    Maybe you should write to the National Institute of Standards and
    Technology and tell them that their definition of a foot is wrong."

    A whopper is defined as a range upwards from a threshold value, unlike a
    foot.

    It's not so much sad as it's a misunderstanding of terminology and how
    to use it correctly.

    Stick's example rollout with few trials, pointed out the problem of
    calling a bg play a whopper just because it's possible within a 95%
    confidence range.

    The tennis analogy would be using a device that is plus or minus 30 inch
    and then calling something two feet out when it was actually inside the
    lines by 5.5 inch.

    "Don't you know what it means to use approximate language?"

    Saying that a play is a whopper when it most likely isn't, is more
    inaccurate than it is approximate.

    Etc.  Do you think the coach's behavior is unreasonable here?

    Yes. The coach should have clarified himself with "it's almost a
    whopper" or "it could be a whopper", instead of insisting that it *is* a whopper.

    --
    Zorba

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to Zorba on Tue Jan 18 23:46:03 2022
    On 1/17/2022 4:01 PM, Zorba wrote:
    A whopper is defined as a range upwards from a threshold value, unlike a foot.

    If this were true, I could see your point. Checking bkgm.com again, I
    see that it agrees with you, but it doesn't match how I've seen the term
    used.

    The historical post I cited credited Magriel with defining a whopper to
    be 0.10, with "whopper with cheese" being somewhat more than 0.10 and a
    "double whopper" being .20. I've never seen anyone try to define
    "cheese" precisely but people still use the term "whopper with cheese"
    in this way and they use "double whopper" as well, which suggests to me
    that they're still following Magriel. This usage isn't consistent with "whopper" meaning *anything* greater than 0.10---people don't refer to
    .20 errors as whoppers. On the other hand, it *is* consistent with the
    words having *approximate* meanings---a whopper is approximately 0.10,
    a double whopper is approximately 0.20, and a whopper with cheese is
    something in the middle that is far enough from 0.10 and 0.20 to make
    someone want to distinguish it from 0.10 and from 0.20.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jan 19 00:43:52 2022
    On 1/18/2022 11:46 PM, I wrote:
    On 1/17/2022 4:01 PM, Zorba wrote:
    A whopper is defined as a range upwards from a threshold value, unlike
    a foot.

    If this were true, I could see your point.  Checking bkgm.com again, I
    see that it agrees with you, but it doesn't match how I've seen the term used.

    It just occurred to me that what you're saying about "whopper"
    matches my intuition about the word "blunder"---that a blunder is
    anything worse than a certain threshold.

    In large part, I attribute that to my background in chess, where
    there isn't (or wasn't, back when I played chess regularly) any
    other noun worse than a blunder. You might attach an adjective
    ("huge," "colossal," etc.) or you might use more than two question
    marks, but basically a blunder was as bad as it got.

    I have noticed, however, that Chris Bray frequently uses terms such
    as "double blunder" to mean .16. Does anyone else use the term
    "double blunder"? It always struck me as odd, precisely because
    blunder to me meant anything worse than a certain threshold.

    Conversely, because I encountered the term "double whopper" more or
    less the same time that I encountered the term "whopper," it seemed
    clear that "whopper" meant (approximately) .10 and "double whopper"
    meant (approximately) .20.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Stick Rice@21:1/5 to Zorba on Wed Jan 19 00:26:33 2022
    On Monday, January 17, 2022 at 4:01:14 PM UTC-5, Zorba wrote:
    On 17-1-2022 15:02, Timothy Chow wrote:

    The coach examines an electronic device which says 23.5 inches, plus or minus an inch. He yells to the player, "That was way out! Like two
    feet!"
    I like that you take the issue as serious as it deserves to be taken,
    haha! Anyway.

    In backgammon, calling something a whopper means it is *more* than a 0.1 error.

    So the correct analogy would be the coach saying "that was more than two
    feet out!".
    The player walks over and examines the electronic device. "That doesn't say two feet; it says 23.5 inches. Two feet is 24 inches."
    So the device shows *less* than two feet, not *more*. The player is
    right to complain.
    "When I said two feet, I
    meant approximately two feet."
    He meant less than two feet in this case.
    And actually, if you want to quibble
    about it, the device itself says 23.5 plus or minus 1 inch, so 24
    inches is even within the error bars.
    So it *could* have been more than two feet out, and if we suppose some
    kind of normal distribution for the measuring error, the probability of
    that is clearly less than 0.5.

    To call something two feet out when the probability of that is actually clearly less than 0.5 is bad coaching.

    Of course it would be correct to say "It *might* have been more than two
    feet out, given measurement errors" especially when you'd add "but most likely it wasn't".
    Anyway, the point is that your
    serve is way wide."
    That would be an analogy of saying in backgammon "that play is a big
    error", leaving out further specification that you don't have any good evidence for.
    The player replies, "That's the saddest thing I've ever heard you say. Maybe you should write to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and tell them that their definition of a foot is wrong."
    A whopper is defined as a range upwards from a threshold value, unlike a foot.

    It's not so much sad as it's a misunderstanding of terminology and how
    to use it correctly.

    Stick's example rollout with few trials, pointed out the problem of
    calling a bg play a whopper just because it's possible within a 95% confidence range.

    The tennis analogy would be using a device that is plus or minus 30 inch
    and then calling something two feet out when it was actually inside the
    lines by 5.5 inch.
    "Don't you know what it means to use approximate language?"
    Saying that a play is a whopper when it most likely isn't, is more
    inaccurate than it is approximate.
    Etc. Do you think the coach's behavior is unreasonable here?
    Yes. The coach should have clarified himself with "it's almost a
    whopper" or "it could be a whopper", instead of insisting that it *is* a whopper.

    --
    Zorba

    Thank you for taking the time and effort. I don't have it in me any more to explain things that take more than a quick quip. It has become too draining over the years. Much appreciated.

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Wed Jan 19 06:40:45 2022
    On Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 4:46:06 AM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 1/17/2022 4:01 PM, Zorba wrote:
    A whopper is defined as a range upwards from a threshold value, unlike a foot.
    If this were true, I could see your point. Checking bkgm.com again, I
    see that it agrees with you, but it doesn't match how I've seen the term used.

    The historical post I cited credited Magriel with defining a whopper to
    be 0.10, with "whopper with cheese" being somewhat more than 0.10 and a "double whopper" being .20. I've never seen anyone try to define
    "cheese" precisely but people still use the term "whopper with cheese"
    in this way and they use "double whopper" as well, which suggests to me
    that they're still following Magriel. This usage isn't consistent with "whopper" meaning *anything* greater than 0.10---people don't refer to
    .20 errors as whoppers. On the other hand, it *is* consistent with the
    words having *approximate* meanings---a whopper is approximately 0.10,
    a double whopper is approximately 0.20, and a whopper with cheese is something in the middle that is far enough from 0.10 and 0.20 to make
    someone want to distinguish it from 0.10 and from 0.20.

    A whopper with pepper might be an alternative expression.
    The idea is that you feel full (overly full) after eating a whopper.
    However, after the pepper made you sneeze, you lost the feeling of satiation. This applies if the initial determination of XG is that your play is worse than 0.1.
    However, a fuller analysis vindicated your play somewhat.

    Paul

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