Finally I found some time to go through my notes
about Axel's "Murat mutant experiment" and try to
rearrange/expand sentences/paragraphs in order
to compose a digest of it. And while I was doing it,
I had a eureka moment!

I've been talking about "strategy" in backgammon
in the meaning of "continuity" in the game (using
these very words) for decades here in RGB.

In other words, my view of backgammon is not a
series of unrelated, individual positions (with each
having a certain inaccurate/fallacious unique equity),
but sequences of various lengths during the game,
with each sequence having an "average equity" in the
meaning of "my seat of the pants estimate of winning
chances".

I think I'm getting better at expressing myself and I
hope that this makes sense to at least some of you.

I never understood why the bots (or people) who can
look so many plies ahead would only consider the
equity (as inaccurate as it may be) for just the current
position instead of "average equities" (as inaccurate as
they may be) "for the next two, three, etc. possitions"!?

For long years, I could see that many of you would make
situational arguments that sometimes assumed that
there was continuity in backgammon, and at other times
that there wasn't. And I asked you all, again and again,
to make up your minds one way or the other.

I think I'm continually getting better at also understanding
my own strength (namely/thus far against bots only). It
may be that I can pick the best move for the current
position only and/or the best move that will lead to the
best next-two-positions, or next-three-positions, etc. as
I deem applies best...

Can you dig?

I like myself. I feel good... :)

MK

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