I'm willing to bet that if I revisit this position in a few months I'll whiff again. I can develop a rationale, but sometimes I think backgammon analysis in the bot era is a study in phenomenalism. As Ah...Clem pointed out, bots don't tell us why. I'm
somewhat optimistic, after reading a little about AI, that bots actually will tell us the why one day. Anyway, this position I would never find the best play for over the board, yet it looks only modestly complicated.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

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

Robert Zimmerman <zimbrookside@gmail.com> writes:

I'm willing to bet that if I revisit this position in a few months
I'll whiff again. I can develop a rationale, but sometimes I think
backgammon analysis in the bot era is a study in phenomenalism. As
Ah...Clem pointed out, bots don't tell us why. I'm somewhat
optimistic, after reading a little about AI, that bots actually will
tell us the why one day. Anyway, this position I would never find the
best play for over the board, yet it looks only modestly complicated.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

You should include the ASCII art as well, even though many users here
manage to mangle it because they are using incapable "news clients" such
as Google Groups. Here it is, for the others:

GNU Backgammon Position ID: g9fggEGM24kBCQ
Match ID : cAkPAAAAAAAE
+24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ O: gnubg
| O X X O | O | O O X | 0 points
| O O | | O X |
| O | | |
| O | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |v (Cube: 1)
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | X O |
| X O X | | X X O | Rolled 63
| X O X | | X X X O | 0 points
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ X: axel
Pip counts: O 153, X 140

My thinking process in slow motion/writing:

I am ahead in the race. I cannot hit. The blot on 10 should be
protected/moved away. She has the golden point. Can I make a (new)
point? Not really. I can give up the midpoint, make the 10 and
strengthen the bar, with the blot now on the midpoint. Bad, since I have
two stragglers. I can abandon the 7 for the 4 point. Better and inner
point, but behind her anchor. Can I safety/run checkers, reduce contact
(I am ahead)? Yes, 10/7 (looks good, candidate partial move), 20/11
("direct" shot, but she is on the bar, but that does still leave a
couple of shots), and 22/16 (not far enough, blot on my golden point
still exposed). Ah, there is also 22/13, which gives a little bit of duplication protection for my blot on 10, and she needs (mostly) small
numbers to enter and for hitting on her 5 point. Candidate. Now let us
look for a completion of 10/7: 22/16 keeps connectivity, but looks
messy. 20/14 run the riskier blot, and she needs a 2 to hit (also an
entering number). So it is either

22/13

or

20/14 10/7

for me. The latter looks (not counted) safer and cleaner. Yet another
whopper?

Best regards

Axel

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

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 3:03:11 AM UTC-5, Axel Reichert wrote:

Robert Zimmerman <zimbro...@gmail.com> writes:

I'm willing to bet that if I revisit this position in a few months
I'll whiff again. I can develop a rationale, but sometimes I think backgammon analysis in the bot era is a study in phenomenalism. As Ah...Clem pointed out, bots don't tell us why. I'm somewhat
optimistic, after reading a little about AI, that bots actually will
tell us the why one day. Anyway, this position I would never find the
best play for over the board, yet it looks only modestly complicated.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

You should include the ASCII art as well, even though many users here
manage to mangle it because they are using incapable "news clients" such
as Google Groups. Here it is, for the others:

GNU Backgammon Position ID: g9fggEGM24kBCQ
Match ID : cAkPAAAAAAAE
+24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ O: gnubg
| O X X O | O | O O X | 0 points
| O O | | O X |
| O | | |
| O | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |v (Cube: 1)
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | X O |
| X O X | | X X O | Rolled 63
| X O X | | X X X O | 0 points
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ X: axel
Pip counts: O 153, X 140

My thinking process in slow motion/writing:

I am ahead in the race. I cannot hit. The blot on 10 should be protected/moved away. She has the golden point. Can I make a (new)
point? Not really. I can give up the midpoint, make the 10 and
strengthen the bar, with the blot now on the midpoint. Bad, since I have
two stragglers. I can abandon the 7 for the 4 point. Better and inner
point, but behind her anchor. Can I safety/run checkers, reduce contact
(I am ahead)? Yes, 10/7 (looks good, candidate partial move), 20/11 ("direct" shot, but she is on the bar, but that does still leave a
couple of shots), and 22/16 (not far enough, blot on my golden point
still exposed). Ah, there is also 22/13, which gives a little bit of duplication protection for my blot on 10, and she needs (mostly) small numbers to enter and for hitting on her 5 point. Candidate. Now let us
look for a completion of 10/7: 22/16 keeps connectivity, but looks
messy. 20/14 run the riskier blot, and she needs a 2 to hit (also an entering number). So it is either

22/13

or

20/14 10/7

for me. The latter looks (not counted) safer and cleaner. Yet another whopper?

Best regards

Axel

I use Google Groups, having never worked in an environment with mathematicians, programmers, etc. who are savvy. For me, the below image is painful to look at, but I would be able to use it to put checkers on a board. Your version is almost
incomprehensible to me. Don't know if that's Google Groups botching it. Using Google Groups, this is representative of what I would be publishing in the future. If others using news clients (I don't really know what they are. Yesterday I was in a
deposition (witness, not in trouble) with some lawyers on Zoom, and by hour 3 I was ready to have an argument with them over the nature of knowledge. Suffice it to say, I'm quicker to say "I don't really know." Also, I learned that people go to law
school to learn logical fallacies just so that they can abuse them. The fallacy of ambiguity is their ATM. As in, "you don't really *know* how that report came to your office, do you?" Sorry, lawyers. Feel free to punch back. I'm a physician.) would like
to give me the skinny on how to do this stuff with a news client so that I can post positions better, than I'm happy to make the change.

Regards,
Bob

+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X O |
| X O | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X O X |
| O X X X | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+

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

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 8:52:45 AM UTC-5, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 3:03:11 AM UTC-5, Axel Reichert wrote:

Robert Zimmerman <zimbro...@gmail.com> writes:

I'm willing to bet that if I revisit this position in a few months
I'll whiff again. I can develop a rationale, but sometimes I think backgammon analysis in the bot era is a study in phenomenalism. As Ah...Clem pointed out, bots don't tell us why. I'm somewhat
optimistic, after reading a little about AI, that bots actually will tell us the why one day. Anyway, this position I would never find the best play for over the board, yet it looks only modestly complicated.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

You should include the ASCII art as well, even though many users here manage to mangle it because they are using incapable "news clients" such as Google Groups. Here it is, for the others:

GNU Backgammon Position ID: g9fggEGM24kBCQ
Match ID : cAkPAAAAAAAE
+24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ O: gnubg
| O X X O | O | O O X | 0 points
| O O | | O X |
| O | | |
| O | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |v (Cube: 1)
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | X O |
| X O X | | X X O | Rolled 63
| X O X | | X X X O | 0 points
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ X: axel
Pip counts: O 153, X 140

My thinking process in slow motion/writing:

I am ahead in the race. I cannot hit. The blot on 10 should be protected/moved away. She has the golden point. Can I make a (new)
point? Not really. I can give up the midpoint, make the 10 and
strengthen the bar, with the blot now on the midpoint. Bad, since I have two stragglers. I can abandon the 7 for the 4 point. Better and inner point, but behind her anchor. Can I safety/run checkers, reduce contact
(I am ahead)? Yes, 10/7 (looks good, candidate partial move), 20/11 ("direct" shot, but she is on the bar, but that does still leave a
couple of shots), and 22/16 (not far enough, blot on my golden point
still exposed). Ah, there is also 22/13, which gives a little bit of duplication protection for my blot on 10, and she needs (mostly) small numbers to enter and for hitting on her 5 point. Candidate. Now let us look for a completion of 10/7: 22/16 keeps connectivity, but looks
messy. 20/14 run the riskier blot, and she needs a 2 to hit (also an entering number). So it is either

22/13

or

20/14 10/7

for me. The latter looks (not counted) safer and cleaner. Yet another whopper?

Best regards

Axel

I use Google Groups, having never worked in an environment with mathematicians, programmers, etc. who are savvy. For me, the below image is painful to look at, but I would be able to use it to put checkers on a board. Your version is almost

incomprehensible to me. Don't know if that's Google Groups botching it. Using Google Groups, this is representative of what I would be publishing in the future. If others using news clients (I don't really know what they are. Yesterday I was in a
deposition (witness, not in trouble) with some lawyers on Zoom, and by hour 3 I was ready to have an argument with them over the nature of knowledge. Suffice it to say, I'm quicker to say "I don't really know." Also, I learned that people go to law
school to learn logical fallacies just so that they can abuse them. The fallacy of ambiguity is their ATM. As in, "you don't really *know* how that report came to your office, do you?" Sorry, lawyers. Feel free to punch back. I'm a physician.) would like
to give me the skinny on how to do this stuff with a news client so that I can post positions better, than I'm happy to make the change.

Regards,
Bob

+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X O |
| X O | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X O X |
| O X X X | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+

LOL! Last post just demonstrated for me the issue. Sorry. If my ASCII art is useless to you, I'm all ears.
Bob

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

On 2/10/2023 8:52 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Your version is almost incomprehensible to me. Don't know if that's Google Groups botching it.

Yes, it's Google Groups botching it.

Even though the diagram you posted looks like gibberish to
you, I was able to read it just fine (because I don't use
Google Groups), and like Axel, I highly recommend that you
include the diagram in future posts.

---
Tim Chow

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

On Friday, February 10, 2023 at 9:33:37 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 2/10/2023 8:52 AM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Your version is almost incomprehensible to me. Don't know if that's Google Groups botching it.

Yes, it's Google Groups botching it.

Even though the diagram you posted looks like gibberish to
you, I was able to read it just fine (because I don't use
Google Groups), and like Axel, I highly recommend that you
include the diagram in future posts.

---
Tim Chow

Like you, Axel, I passed over making the four point with little or no thought because it's past O's anchor. That turns out to be the better play by a decent amount. I think it relates to O's blot on her 7 point and possibly ours on our 20 point. With 10/
4 7/4 we create duplicated 6s for O when coming in from the bar if she lands on the ace point (I'm usually looking for no 6 from the bar as a good indicator for a play). FWIW, 61 is one of only three available entries after 10/4 7/4. With the other plays,
O comes in more easily and has three points from which to attack our blot on the 20.
In a variant with O's blot moved to the 8 point, there is no duplication of sixes and there are only 2 points from which O attacks our 20 point blot, so O has fewer threats after coming in. There, 10/4 7/4 loses ground to other plays.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X O |
| X O | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X O X |
| O X X X | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 140 O: 153 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 63

1. Rollout¹ 10/4 7/4 eq:+0.556
Player: 63.67% (G:17.99% B:0.60%)
Opponent: 36.33% (G:9.14% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.545..+0.566) - [100.0%]
Duration: 4 minutes 25 seconds

2. Rollout¹ 13/10 13/7 eq:+0.509 (-0.046)
Player: 63.51% (G:15.15% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 36.49% (G:9.04% B:0.17%)
Confidence: ±0.012 (+0.497..+0.521) - [0.0%]
Duration: 5 minutes 35 seconds

3. Rollout¹ 22/13 eq:+0.498 (-0.057)
Player: 63.80% (G:13.30% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 36.20% (G:9.57% B:0.15%)
Confidence: ±0.013 (+0.485..+0.512) - [0.0%]
Duration: 6 minutes 21 seconds

4. Rollout¹ 22/16 13/10 eq:+0.496 (-0.060)
Player: 63.87% (G:13.15% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 36.13% (G:9.79% B:0.28%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.484..+0.507) - [0.0%]
Duration: 5 minutes 51 seconds


¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller


eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---c-dA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O X X O |
| X O | | O O |
| O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X O X |
| O X X X | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 140 O: 154 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 63

1. Rollout¹ 22/13 eq:+0.494
Player: 63.54% (G:12.95% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 36.46% (G:9.32% B:0.16%)
Confidence: ±0.012 (+0.483..+0.506) - [84.8%]
Duration: 6 minutes 13 seconds

2. Rollout¹ 22/16 13/10 eq:+0.485 (-0.009)
Player: 63.99% (G:10.93% B:0.48%)
Opponent: 36.01% (G:8.84% B:0.24%)
Confidence: ±0.013 (+0.472..+0.498) - [15.1%]
Duration: 6 minutes 10 seconds

3. Rollout¹ 13/10 13/7 eq:+0.470 (-0.024)
Player: 63.35% (G:12.67% B:0.47%)
Opponent: 36.65% (G:8.83% B:0.19%)
Confidence: ±0.012 (+0.458..+0.482) - [0.1%]
Duration: 6 minutes 11 seconds

4. Rollout¹ 10/4 7/4 eq:+0.423 (-0.072)
Player: 61.58% (G:13.90% B:0.51%)
Opponent: 38.42% (G:9.25% B:0.22%)
Confidence: ±0.012 (+0.411..+0.434) - [0.0%]
Duration: 5 minutes 51 seconds


¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller


eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

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

On 2/9/2023 10:29 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I'm willing to bet that if I revisit this position in a few months I'll whiff again. I can develop a rationale, but sometimes I think backgammon analysis in the bot era is a study in phenomenalism. As Ah...Clem pointed out, bots don't tell us why. I'm

somewhat optimistic, after reading a little about AI, that bots actually will tell us the why one day. Anyway, this position I would never find the best play for over the board, yet it looks only modestly complicated.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X O |
| X O | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X O X |
| O X X X | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 140 O: 153 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 63

It's hard to successfully blitz when your opponent owns an advanced
anchor, but I'd still make the four point here.


Running the rear checker to the midpoint looks playable, and so does
20/11, so I won't be surprised if one of those is the bot play. But
with nine dancing numbers and only half a roll to play otherwise O will
have a hard time covering or lifting the blot so X is likely to have
another whack at it, perhaps a double shot.

I'll make the four point.

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

On Sunday, February 12, 2023 at 9:46:35 AM UTC-5, ah...Clem wrote:

On 2/9/2023 10:29 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I'm willing to bet that if I revisit this position in a few months I'll whiff again. I can develop a rationale, but sometimes I think backgammon analysis in the bot era is a study in phenomenalism. As Ah...Clem pointed out, bots don't tell us why. I'

m somewhat optimistic, after reading a little about AI, that bots actually will tell us the why one day. Anyway, this position I would never find the best play for over the board, yet it looks only modestly complicated.

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10

XGID=a--B-bCBC-A-cB---badA-A-b-:0:0:1:63:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O | | O X X O |
| X O | | O O |
| | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | O | |
| | | |
| O X | | X |
| O X X | | X O X |
| O X X X | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 140 O: 153 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 63
It's hard to successfully blitz when your opponent owns an advanced
anchor, but I'd still make the four point here.

Running the rear checker to the midpoint looks playable, and so does
20/11, so I won't be surprised if one of those is the bot play. But
with nine dancing numbers and only half a roll to play otherwise O will
have a hard time covering or lifting the blot so X is likely to have
another whack at it, perhaps a double shot.

I'll make the four point.

I think your explanation makes more sense than mine. Just trying to keep O on the bar and have another go at the blots.

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