I read this:
"What’s the best way to quickly improve your backgammon skills? Cube actions, Doubling theory, Strategy theory?
It’s improving your opening game! Why?
Almost every single game you will play the first 2-3 rolls."
Ummm, no. It's not the best time investment if your opening understanding
is already reasonable.
And, if you do the odd missteps, losing 0.02 equity occasionally because
you haven't memorized the opening, you may bluff your opponent into thinking you're weaker than you are, and that bluff is worth tons of equity (much more than 0.02) if successful.
Well, there's no excuse for not bothering to learn the 15 distinct
opening rolls.
On 8/29/2022 6:31 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I read this:
"What’s the best way to quickly improve your backgammon skills? Cube actions, Doubling theory, Strategy theory?
It’s improving your opening game! Why?
Almost every single game you will play the first 2-3 rolls."
Ummm, no. It's not the best time investment if your opening understanding is already reasonable.Well, there's no excuse for not bothering to learn the 15 distinct
And, if you do the odd missteps, losing 0.02 equity occasionally because you haven't memorized the opening, you may bluff your opponent into thinking
you're weaker than you are, and that bluff is worth tons of equity (much more
than 0.02) if successful.
opening rolls. OTOH, the 600+ replies are not so easy to learn, and
there are just too many third rolls for any human to memorize.
Agree that giving up .02 equity in the opening is not most intermediate players' biggest problem, but "bluffing" in not terribly useful to me -
I mostly play on FIBS and my rating is there for everyone to see,
So, what is the best way to improve? Probably cube action, and if you
play matches rather than unlimited learning the take points for scores
less than 5a5a is worth the effort.
losing 0.02 equity occasionally because you haven't memorized the
opening, you may bluff your opponent into thinking you're weaker than
you are, and that bluff is worth tons of equity (much more than 0.02)
if successful.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
losing 0.02 equity occasionally because you haven't memorized theMaybe you are right about the bluff, but weaker opening moves are not immediately rewarded by much weaker reply moves (which I believed and advocated. From
opening, you may bluff your opponent into thinking you're weaker than
you are, and that bluff is worth tons of equity (much more than 0.02)
if successful.
https://bkgm.com/articles/Reichert/first-two-rolls.pdf
However, I strongly recommend using only this single latter list for
both match play and money games. The reason is that the correct reply
moves against D or $ are sometimes non-intuitive (e. g., many
opponents, especially up to intermediate level, will not dare to
slot). To accept a small equity loss by playing an opening mistake
will thus hopefully induce a much larger reply error by our opponent
and easily compensate us.
).
But when I did the maths some months later, it turned out that 32D, 41$,
and 51$ (where my recommended opening moves deviate from the current
"best" and immediately lose 0.0132, 0.0153, 0.0157 of equity,
respectively) do not pay off against intermediates too timid to slot or
play two down:
Let us assume a "splitter" will hit if possible, after the hit aim for
"4 on mid" (non-doublet, with the exception of 24/20*/14) or make
additional points in his board (doublet), and play 65R, P, 43Z, S when
no hit is possible.
Against 32D he will erroneously play 21S, 41S, 51S, 32S, 24/21(2)
13/10(2), and 43Z. This loses (according to XG's opening book data) on average 0.0056. This is smaller than 0.0132 (your 32D loss) and thus in
sum he will have gained after two rolls from your inferior opening move.
For 41$ the replier loses 0.0044 (< 0.0153), for 51$ it is (including
the whopper 24/20*(2) 6/2(2)!) a meagre 0.0088 (< 0.0157).
For me the bottom line is now: Opening gambits may be fun, but do not
pay, because there are too few opportunities for your opponent to go
wrong.
Best regards
Axel
And it's probably a good idea to buy and read the book Tim bought recently (can't remember the name, and I'm too lazy to search for it).
Well, there's no excuse for not bothering to learn the 15 distinct
opening rolls. OTOH, the 600+ replies are not so easy to learn, and
there are just too many third rolls for any human to memorize.
On 8/29/2022 9:47 AM, ah...Clem wrote:
Well, there's no excuse for not bothering to learn the 15 distinctBack in 2016, there was an interesting discussion on BGOnline about memorizing third rolls.
opening rolls. OTOH, the 600+ replies are not so easy to learn, and
there are just too many third rolls for any human to memorize.
http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?noframes;read=192924
It depends on what you mean by "memorizing third rolls," but I'm sure
that by some definitions, memorizing all third rolls is certainly a
feasible task for top memory athletes.
Stick claimed that "memorizing all the third rolls over a couple month
span would be easily doable" for him. If we're talking about 100%
accuracy then I don't believe him, but of course there's no way to
settle the bet, since even though he claims that it would be "easily" doable, a few thousand dollars is not enough to entice him to try.
Another reason I don't believe him is that he claimed to know all
the world capitals, but when I gave a quick pop quiz (South Sudan,
St. Lucia, Palau, Montenegro, Myanmar, Cote d'Ivoire, Tanzania, Sri
Lanka) he didn't reply, demonstrating to me that he's not in the habit
of memorizing even that amount of information with 100% completeness,
let alone the amount of information involved in memorizing third rolls.
I have a pretty good memory. I like the trivia quiz website Sporcle,
and I can usually score 100% when I try to list all world capitals,
or the periodic table, or all the constellations, or the top 200 names
in the Bible, or the full text of various famous poems. For these
tasks, I use only "natural" memory and almost no mnemonic tricks.
However, memorizing all third rolls is on another level. For anyone
who's not Kim Peek, it would require systematic application of formal memorization techniques to achieve 100% accuracy. Stick, I think, is
misled by the fact that a large percentage of third rolls is already
known to him because of general backgammon knowledge (we all know how
to play 66 after both players have played 8/5 6/5), but he hasn't
calculated how much "residual" information has to be memorized after "natural" memory leaves off, and so underestimates the amount of
effort required.
---
Tim Chow
If you think it's so hard and others do also, you could pool your money to make a bet on whether it could be done or not and reach an amount where it would be worth doing for me.
but when I gave a quick pop quiz (South Sudan,proves less than nothing if I answer a thread where I could just as easily look up the answers online and spit them out saying I knew them.
St. Lucia, Palau, Montenegro, Myanmar, Cote d'Ivoire, Tanzania, Sri
Lanka)
Tim is also way off base saying " Another reason I don't believe him is that he claimed to know all the world capitals, but when I gave a quick pop quiz...". You asked me about some world capitals 5 days later. I didn't reply I'm sure because it
Tim is also way off base saying " Another reason I don't believe him is that he claimed to know all the world capitals, but when I gave a quick pop quiz...". You asked me about some world capitals 5 days later. I didn't reply I'm sure because itproves less than nothing if I answer a thread where I could just as easily look up the answers online and spit them out saying I knew them. I also stated "I've done the world capitals too myself because I like geography to a degree and it seemed like it
I occasionally engage in moderate memory tasks just for the fun ofit, > e.g., memorizing all the world capitals (about 200) or memorizing
On 8/30/2022 3:31 PM, Stick Rice wrote:proves less than nothing if I answer a thread where I could just as easily look up the answers online and spit them out saying I knew them.
but when I gave a quick pop quiz (South Sudan,
St. Lucia, Palau, Montenegro, Myanmar, Cote d'Ivoire, Tanzania, Sri
Lanka)
Tim is also way off base saying " Another reason I don't believe him is that he claimed to know all the world capitals, but when I gave a quick pop quiz...". You asked me about some world capitals 5 days later. I didn't reply I'm sure because it
Tell me, do you know the capitals of the above countries off the topI know this is a dialogue between you and Stick but I'd just like to state where I stand on the list of capitals
of your head? I will assume you are honorable and won't cheat.
---
Tim Chow
I know this is a dialogue between you and Stick but I'd just like to state where I stand on the list of capitals
in parentheses. I thought that the capital of Myanmar is Rangoon and the capital of Sri Lanka is Colombo,
but I was (and still am) clueless about all the others.
After googling, I realise that I was right about Sri Lanka, but wrong about Myanmar. It's tough when
the capital is much less known than the largest city.
Without googling, I think capital means something like "Administrative centre" or "seat of government".
If it does mean that, I find it somewhat odd that people assume a clean correspondence between nations
and capitals. In a large country it might make a lot of sense to have more than one administrative centre
to minimize the need for the representatives to travel or to avoid crammed buildings.
But maybe each country has a unique administrative town/city in practice -- I can't think of a country which has
more than one.
On the Tim/Stick debate, my tentative conclusions are:
1) Stick's claims about his memory and what he said about his memory may be true or mostly true.
He certainly hasn't been caught in a lie here.
2) If what he said about himself is mostly true, rather than absolutely true, then there's no reason to
make a fuss about it. We're not making legal statements here for a court of law.
3) On this thread, there were some completely unnecessary attacks on Stick which were unprovoked
and completely unjustifiable in context. For example, "Stick claimed ... but I don't believe him" is just
unnecessary inflammatory language. To say "I was only saying the truth" is not enough of a justification.
For example, if in the middle of a thread about backgammon, you said "Paul is seriously overweight and maybe even obese",
you would be saying the absolute truth but I would still consider it unjustifiable and offensive.
On 8/31/2022 3:51 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:Ok, thanks for the clarification.
I know this is a dialogue between you and Stick but I'd just like to state where I stand on the list of capitalsColombo for Sri Lanka is morally correct, but technically it's
in parentheses. I thought that the capital of Myanmar is Rangoon and the capital of Sri Lanka is Colombo,
but I was (and still am) clueless about all the others.
After googling, I realise that I was right about Sri Lanka, but wrong about Myanmar. It's tough when
the capital is much less known than the largest city.
Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte.
Without googling, I think capital means something like "Administrative centre" or "seat of government".Most countries state officially what city is the capital city.
If it does mean that, I find it somewhat odd that people assume a clean correspondence between nations
and capitals. In a large country it might make a lot of sense to have more than one administrative centre
to minimize the need for the representatives to travel or to avoid crammed buildings.
But maybe each country has a unique administrative town/city in practice -- I can't think of a country which has
more than one.
There are a few countries where the different functions of
government are located in different cities; South Africa is
perhaps the most prominent one (Pretoria, Cape Town, and
Bloemfontein). A more complicated example is Bolivia, where
Sucre is the official capital but the de facto administrative
capital is La Paz, and there is a history of conflict behind
the split.
On the Tim/Stick debate, my tentative conclusions are:True.
1) Stick's claims about his memory and what he said about his memory may be true or mostly true.
He certainly hasn't been caught in a lie here.
2) If what he said about himself is mostly true, rather than absolutely true, then there's no reason toIf your only context is r.g.b. then I agree. But this is a
make a fuss about it. We're not making legal statements here for a court of law.
3) On this thread, there were some completely unnecessary attacks on Stick which were unprovoked
and completely unjustifiable in context. For example, "Stick claimed ... but I don't believe him" is just
unnecessary inflammatory language. To say "I was only saying the truth" is not enough of a justification.
For example, if in the middle of a thread about backgammon, you said "Paul is seriously overweight and maybe even obese",
you would be saying the absolute truth but I would still consider it unjustifiable and offensive.
a continuation of an exchange that began on BGOnline where
Stick challenged a claim that I made, without providing evidence.
Stick actually claimed even more, that various other people would
be able to perform the memorization feat in question, and he was
shocked when Bob Koca said that he (Bob) would be highly unlikely
to be able to do it. I brought up world capitals as part of an
effort to explain the basis for my original assessment of the
difficulty of the task. When Stick said "me too," he clearly was
making a bid to claim that his own experience with memorization
was comparable to mine. Therefore I probed him to see if it really
was comparable. Based on his response, I judged that it wasn't,
and his response here confirms that---he's basically saying that
he never claimed to have memorized the world capitals to a comparable
level that I have, even though what he said (in context) gave a very
strong impression that he *was* claiming that.
All this is not irrelevant to the point about third rolls. Anticipating
that Stick reads r.g.b. and would likely make a confident assertion
that he could "easily" memorize all third rolls, I wanted to point out
that Stick's claims about his own memory aren't always what they seem
to be and that if you press him on something that is directly testable,
he may back down.
Last time around, he said that a few thousand dollars would be
insufficient motivation for him to perform this "easy" task, so I'm
curious as to what the going rate is.
---
Tim Chow
On 8/31/2022 3:51 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I know this is a dialogue between you and Stick but I'd just like to state where I stand on the list of capitalsColombo for Sri Lanka is morally correct, but technically it's
in parentheses. I thought that the capital of Myanmar is Rangoon and the capital of Sri Lanka is Colombo,
but I was (and still am) clueless about all the others.
After googling, I realise that I was right about Sri Lanka, but wrong about Myanmar. It's tough when
the capital is much less known than the largest city.
Sri Jayawardenapura Kotte.
Without googling, I think capital means something like "Administrative centre" or "seat of government".Most countries state officially what city is the capital city.
If it does mean that, I find it somewhat odd that people assume a clean correspondence between nations
and capitals. In a large country it might make a lot of sense to have more than one administrative centre
to minimize the need for the representatives to travel or to avoid crammed buildings.
But maybe each country has a unique administrative town/city in practice -- I can't think of a country which has
more than one.
There are a few countries where the different functions of
government are located in different cities; South Africa is
perhaps the most prominent one (Pretoria, Cape Town, and
Bloemfontein). A more complicated example is Bolivia, where
Sucre is the official capital but the de facto administrative
capital is La Paz, and there is a history of conflict behind
the split.
On the Tim/Stick debate, my tentative conclusions are:True.
1) Stick's claims about his memory and what he said about his memory may be true or mostly true.
He certainly hasn't been caught in a lie here.
2) If what he said about himself is mostly true, rather than absolutely true, then there's no reason toIf your only context is r.g.b. then I agree. But this is a
make a fuss about it. We're not making legal statements here for a court of law.
3) On this thread, there were some completely unnecessary attacks on Stick which were unprovoked
and completely unjustifiable in context. For example, "Stick claimed ... but I don't believe him" is just
unnecessary inflammatory language. To say "I was only saying the truth" is not enough of a justification.
For example, if in the middle of a thread about backgammon, you said "Paul is seriously overweight and maybe even obese",
you would be saying the absolute truth but I would still consider it unjustifiable and offensive.
a continuation of an exchange that began on BGOnline where
Stick challenged a claim that I made, without providing evidence.
Stick actually claimed even more, that various other people would
be able to perform the memorization feat in question, and he was
shocked when Bob Koca said that he (Bob) would be highly unlikely
to be able to do it. I brought up world capitals as part of an
effort to explain the basis for my original assessment of the
difficulty of the task. When Stick said "me too," he clearly was
making a bid to claim that his own experience with memorization
was comparable to mine. Therefore I probed him to see if it really
was comparable. Based on his response, I judged that it wasn't,
and his response here confirms that---he's basically saying that
he never claimed to have memorized the world capitals to a comparable
level that I have, even though what he said (in context) gave a very
strong impression that he *was* claiming that.
All this is not irrelevant to the point about third rolls. Anticipating
that Stick reads r.g.b. and would likely make a confident assertion
that he could "easily" memorize all third rolls, I wanted to point out
that Stick's claims about his own memory aren't always what they seem
to be and that if you press him on something that is directly testable,
he may back down.
Last time around, he said that a few thousand dollars would be
insufficient motivation for him to perform this "easy" task, so I'm
curious as to what the going rate is.
---
Tim Chow
I'm not sure, the more the better. Start at 50k and go up.
People like Nack or Jake are too smart to get involved in these petty online back and forths when they basically know nothing is coming of it.
On 8/31/2022 6:02 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
I'm not sure, the more the better. Start at 50k and go up.At what odds?
People like Nack or Jake are too smart to get involved in these petty online back and forths when they basically know nothing is coming of it.They got involved somewhat when you invited them to weigh in.
http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=193513
None of them thought it would be "easy," which you claimed (and
apparently still claim) it would be.
One thing that emerged from the discussion, which caused me to
modify my views slightly from what they were originally, was that
it makes a big difference exactly what the format of the test is.
I was initially envisaging a list of about 10,000 Nactation lines
such as 31P-31P-66B. If this is the format then I still believe
that a memory athlete would indeed find it easy to regurgitate the
entire list from memory, whereas I don't think that any backgammon
expert without serious training in memorization techniques would
find it easy, and maybe no backgammon expert could do it with 100%
accuracy without essentially training as a memory athlete and
mastering those techniques.
But if you tilt the scales by changing the format, presenting people
with randomly (or adversarially) chosen backgammon positions and
having them play the move, then this would certainly help the
backgammon player and make things harder for the memory athlete.
I'd still bet on the memory athlete, but with less confidence.
This is not because I think a favorable format would make the task
"easy" for the backgammon player---it would still be hard---but the
format might mean that it would be no longer easy for the memory
athlete either.
---
Tim Chow
They didn't get involved, they talked to me directly again sidestepping the nonsense. I also don't think I called it *easy*. I called it *easily doable* (with the implication of motivation, mainly monetarily). Again, two wildly different things.And it is easily doable. I'm offering no odds because you don't think it is, why would I offer odds?
I've done the world capitals too myself because I like geography to
a degree and it seemed like it would be worth it for my trivia nights. Things like this are easy to do, like the 2nd rolls, like the 3rd
rolls, you have to break up the information into small pieces.
On 9/1/2022 3:19 AM, Stick Rice wrote:it is easily doable. I'm offering no odds because you don't think it is, why would I offer odds?
They didn't get involved, they talked to me directly again sidestepping the nonsense. I also don't think I called it *easy*. I called it *easily doable* (with the implication of motivation, mainly monetarily). Again, two wildly different things. And
Beautiful! This is worth the entire "price" of the conversation.
"Easy" is wildly different from "easily doable." A worthy competitor
to Bill Clinton's iconic, "It depends on what the meaning of the word
'is' is."
For the record, here's a quote from the same "world capitals" thread:
I've done the world capitals too myself because I like geography to
a degree and it seemed like it would be worth it for my trivia nights. Things like this are easy to do, like the 2nd rolls, like the 3rd
rolls, you have to break up the information into small pieces.
But I get it, just because it's "easy to do" and just because you
compared the task to memorizing world capitals (which you presumably
didn't get $50,000 for doing), doesn't mean that it's "easy." Being
"easy" and "easy to do" are wildly different things. I actually
agree with this...it sure is easy if you don't have to do anything!
---
Tim Chow
On Thursday, September 1, 2022 at 2:33:51 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
For the record, here's a quote from the same "world capitals" thread:
I've done the world capitals too myself because I like geography to
a degree and it seemed like it would be worth it for my trivia nights.
Things like this are easy to do, like the 2nd rolls, like the 3rd
rolls, you have to break up the information into small pieces.
"Easy" and "easy to do" mean the same thing.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 14:00:04 |
| Calls: | 6,667 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,214 |
| Messages: | 5,336,557 |