I imagine if you've played long enough, you've seen this at least a few times. Novel to me. Too bad I didn't see it over the board.

Bob

XGID=-a-BCCCa----b----dBcc-Ba--:0:0:1:55:0:0:3:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| O X O O | | X O |
| X O O | | X O |
| O O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X | | O |
| O X X X X | | O O |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
Pip count X: 131 O: 135 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 55

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

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 5:15:48 PM UTC-5, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I imagine if you've played long enough, you've seen this at least a few times. Novel to me. Too bad I didn't see it over the board.

Bob

XGID=-a-BCCCa----b----dBcc-Ba--:0:0:1:55:0:0:3:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| O X O O | | X O |
| X O O | | X O |
| O O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X | | O |
| O X X X X | | O O |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
Pip count X: 131 O: 135 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 55

I don't really follow, was there another play you were going to make? The accidental duplication doesn't matter much, it's just the right play regardless.

Stick

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

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:15:48 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I imagine if you've played long enough, you've seen this at least a few times. Novel to me. Too bad I didn't see it over the board.

Bob

XGID=-a-BCCCa----b----dBcc-Ba--:0:0:1:55:0:0:3:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| O X O O | | X O |
| X O O | | X O |
| O O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X | | O |
| O X X X X | | O O |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
Pip count X: 131 O: 135 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 55

Ok, 6/1* (3) 18/13 is the play.
There's no way I would have seen this OTB, and I
appreciate the reminder.

Stick is saying that the duplication (although present)
is not the main feature and that if you variantize the position
to allow a similar play with no duplication, then the similar
play would be correct too.
This makes sense. The opponent is only just over 50% to
even enter on a 4 point board, so you'd have to be very unlucky
for them to enter and then hit you somewhere else. And there's
also the fact that being hit hardly even hurts you.

Stick and Tim have their specializations in backgammon.
Tim is a major genius at variantization and Stick (a world-class
player) is an expert at making claims like "This play is obvious
to me and anyone who doesn't find it obvious is totally incompetent
at backgammon and probably just a worthless being in general."

Of course, that's not a verbatim quote but that's often kind of the message. His question "was there another play you were going to make?" is obviously
a completely ridiculous one. Anyone with any experience of non-expert play (and this includes Stick for sure) would know that making the 8 point is
a likely OTB play here, even though I'm sure it's a bad mistake.

Paul

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:05:47 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:15:48 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I imagine if you've played long enough, you've seen this at least a few times. Novel to me. Too bad I didn't see it over the board.

Bob

XGID=-a-BCCCa----b----dBcc-Ba--:0:0:1:55:0:0:3:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| O X O O | | X O |
| X O O | | X O |
| O O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X | | O |
| O X X X X | | O O |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
Pip count X: 131 O: 135 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 55

Ok, 6/1* (3) 18/13 is the play.
There's no way I would have seen this OTB, and I
appreciate the reminder.

Stick is saying that the duplication (although present)
is not the main feature and that if you variantize the position
to allow a similar play with no duplication, then the similar
play would be correct too.
This makes sense. The opponent is only just over 50% to
even enter on a 4 point board, so you'd have to be very unlucky
for them to enter and then hit you somewhere else. And there's
also the fact that being hit hardly even hurts you.

Stick and Tim have their specializations in backgammon.
Tim is a major genius at variantization and Stick (a world-class
player) is an expert at making claims like "This play is obvious
to me and anyone who doesn't find it obvious is totally incompetent
at backgammon and probably just a worthless being in general."

Of course, that's not a verbatim quote but that's often kind of the message. His question "was there another play you were going to make?" is obviously
a completely ridiculous one. Anyone with any experience of non-expert play (and this includes Stick for sure) would know that making the 8 point is
a likely OTB play here, even though I'm sure it's a bad mistake.

Paul

Yes, Paul, I'm aware. And I'm reminded of my own transgressions years ago when, although not world-renowned in my field, I did carry a certain amount of respect for my expertise. Regrettably, I was pretty unkind at times to people who were not so
accomplished and were simply trying to learn from me. I mean, not abusive, but I could have been kinder and I still regret it. So I'm sympathetic. And I try to live by the tautology of a 33 year-old man who, shortly before being given the death sentence
for claiming he was king, said, to paraphrase, "It's nice to be nice". It gets easier with time.

Yes, my play was to make the 8 point. Oops.

Bob

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 3:25:38 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:05:47 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:15:48 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I imagine if you've played long enough, you've seen this at least a few times. Novel to me. Too bad I didn't see it over the board.

Bob

XGID=-a-BCCCa----b----dBcc-Ba--:0:0:1:55:0:0:3:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| O X O O | | X O |
| X O O | | X O |
| O O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X | | O |
| O X X X X | | O O |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
Pip count X: 131 O: 135 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 55

Ok, 6/1* (3) 18/13 is the play.
There's no way I would have seen this OTB, and I
appreciate the reminder.

Stick is saying that the duplication (although present)
is not the main feature and that if you variantize the position
to allow a similar play with no duplication, then the similar
play would be correct too.
This makes sense. The opponent is only just over 50% to
even enter on a 4 point board, so you'd have to be very unlucky
for them to enter and then hit you somewhere else. And there's
also the fact that being hit hardly even hurts you.

Stick and Tim have their specializations in backgammon.
Tim is a major genius at variantization and Stick (a world-class
player) is an expert at making claims like "This play is obvious
to me and anyone who doesn't find it obvious is totally incompetent
at backgammon and probably just a worthless being in general."

Of course, that's not a verbatim quote but that's often kind of the message.
His question "was there another play you were going to make?" is obviously a completely ridiculous one. Anyone with any experience of non-expert play (and this includes Stick for sure) would know that making the 8 point is
a likely OTB play here, even though I'm sure it's a bad mistake.

Paul

Yes, Paul, I'm aware. And I'm reminded of my own transgressions years ago when, although not world-renowned in my field, I did carry a certain amount of respect for my expertise. Regrettably, I was pretty unkind at times to people who were not so

accomplished and were simply trying to learn from me. I mean, not abusive, but I could have been kinder and I still regret it. So I'm sympathetic. And I try to live by the tautology of a 33 year-old man who, shortly before being given the death sentence
for claiming he was king, said, to paraphrase, "It's nice to be nice". It gets easier with time.

Yes, my play was to make the 8 point. Oops.

Bob

Oh, wow.
Tim is also a committed Christian who has written a lot about that side of himself on his homepages.

Paul

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:42:40 PM UTC, Stick Rice wrote:

Contrary to popular belief I don't look at XG's analysis before posting ...

To clarify, are you saying you've never looked at XG's analysis before posting, or that you rarely do so?
I think Tim has identified some posts of yours where he thought (rightly or wrongly)
that you had consulted XG before making those posts.
But it could well be true that you avoid consulting XG in advance for more than 99% of
your posts, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

Paul

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 10:25:38 AM UTC-5, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 9:05:47 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, February 27, 2023 at 10:15:48 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

I imagine if you've played long enough, you've seen this at least a few times. Novel to me. Too bad I didn't see it over the board.

Bob

XGID=-a-BCCCa----b----dBcc-Ba--:0:0:1:55:0:0:3:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| O X O O | | X O |
| X O O | | X O |
| O O | | O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| X X X | | |
| X X X X | | O |
| O X X X X | | O O |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+
Pip count X: 131 O: 135 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 1
X to play 55

Ok, 6/1* (3) 18/13 is the play.
There's no way I would have seen this OTB, and I
appreciate the reminder.

Stick is saying that the duplication (although present)
is not the main feature and that if you variantize the position
to allow a similar play with no duplication, then the similar
play would be correct too.
This makes sense. The opponent is only just over 50% to
even enter on a 4 point board, so you'd have to be very unlucky
for them to enter and then hit you somewhere else. And there's
also the fact that being hit hardly even hurts you.

Stick and Tim have their specializations in backgammon.
Tim is a major genius at variantization and Stick (a world-class
player) is an expert at making claims like "This play is obvious
to me and anyone who doesn't find it obvious is totally incompetent
at backgammon and probably just a worthless being in general."

Of course, that's not a verbatim quote but that's often kind of the message.
His question "was there another play you were going to make?" is obviously a completely ridiculous one. Anyone with any experience of non-expert play (and this includes Stick for sure) would know that making the 8 point is
a likely OTB play here, even though I'm sure it's a bad mistake.

Paul

Yes, Paul, I'm aware. And I'm reminded of my own transgressions years ago when, although not world-renowned in my field, I did carry a certain amount of respect for my expertise. Regrettably, I was pretty unkind at times to people who were not so

accomplished and were simply trying to learn from me. I mean, not abusive, but I could have been kinder and I still regret it. So I'm sympathetic. And I try to live by the tautology of a 33 year-old man who, shortly before being given the death sentence
for claiming he was king, said, to paraphrase, "It's nice to be nice". It gets easier with time.

Yes, my play was to make the 8 point. Oops.

Bob

Contrary to popular belief I don't look at XG's analysis before posting and this is one scenario where my play is still right but I was wrong at the same time. I would have thought the magnitude of difference between plays was much larger. I checked it
now and the difference is around .035. Not hitting here for me was criminal as we have the much stronger board, he has other blots to be picked up and esp. that loose blot in his inner board in case we are hit back. So what did I miss?

Well, I missed that you hadn't cubed. I didn't even look at the cube position because it's clearly a monster cube before the roll if we hadn't cubed already. With the cube turned it becomes sheer blasphemy to not make the play I suggested. Over .300.

Stick

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

Well, I missed that you hadn't cubed. I didn't even look at the cube position because it's clearly a monster cube before the roll if we hadn't cubed already. With the cube turned it becomes sheer blasphemy to not make the play I suggested. Over .300.

Stick

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game. I don't think I've posted anything yet where the match score made the position more
interesting (no comments, please, about whether any of my posts are interesting. Just tell me to go fornicate with spiders and I'll take the hint). As an atheist, I ignorantly blaspheme many times a day, so that's baseline for me. But you're welcome to
point it out. I might learn something.

Bob

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

Oh, wow.
Tim is also a committed Christian who has written a lot about that side of himself on his homepages.

Paul

Do you mean Tim is a committed Christian in addition to BG player or committed Christian in addition to me? I'm very much an atheist. But I amply borrow the best from many religions.

Bob

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:51:01 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Oh, wow.
Tim is also a committed Christian who has written a lot about that side of himself on his homepages.

Paul

Do you mean Tim is a committed Christian in addition to BG player or committed Christian in addition to me? I'm very much an atheist. But I amply borrow the best from many religions.

I misunderstood you and thought you were making a statement about being a Christian. My apologies.
Although I (wrongly) assumed you were a Christian, I didn't assume you were a "committed Christian".
I suppose I (wrongly) meant "Tim is a committed Christian in addition to you being a Christian."
I stand corrected.

Paul

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 2:33:19 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 5:51:01 PM UTC, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Oh, wow.
Tim is also a committed Christian who has written a lot about that side of himself on his homepages.

Paul

Do you mean Tim is a committed Christian in addition to BG player or committed Christian in addition to me? I'm very much an atheist. But I amply borrow the best from many religions.

I misunderstood you and thought you were making a statement about being a Christian. My apologies.
Although I (wrongly) assumed you were a Christian, I didn't assume you were a "committed Christian".
I suppose I (wrongly) meant "Tim is a committed Christian in addition to you being a Christian."
I stand corrected.

Paul

No apology necessary.
:-)
Bob

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:07:08 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 4:42:40 PM UTC, Stick Rice wrote:

Contrary to popular belief I don't look at XG's analysis before posting ...

To clarify, are you saying you've never looked at XG's analysis before posting,
or that you rarely do so?
I think Tim has identified some posts of yours where he thought (rightly or wrongly)
that you had consulted XG before making those posts.
But it could well be true that you avoid consulting XG in advance for more than 99% of
your posts, and I don't think anyone has said otherwise.

Paul

It depends on when I'm looking at the problem. I've definitely looked at XG's analysis before posting generally when the rollout/analysis has already been posted anyway. And as I've said before, I always put the problem into XG for the visual instead
of reading the Xs and Os from the 1990s. When I post post mortem (after the analysis is posted) it's safe to assume I've also seen it/looked myself and anything I say from that point forward is backed by XG. (rollouts)

Stick

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:46:59 PM UTC-5, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Well, I missed that you hadn't cubed. I didn't even look at the cube position because it's clearly a monster cube before the roll if we hadn't cubed already. With the cube turned it becomes sheer blasphemy to not make the play I suggested. Over .300.

Stick

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game. I don't think I've posted anything yet where the match score made the position more

interesting (no comments, please, about whether any of my posts are interesting. Just tell me to go fornicate with spiders and I'll take the hint). As an atheist, I ignorantly blaspheme many times a day, so that's baseline for me. But you're welcome to
point it out. I might learn something.

Bob

I'm an atheist too and things can be sacred and therefore blasphemous without bringing the grand wizard into the equation. The cube doesn't matter as to which play is correct here but it sure as Hades makes a difference on whether one's PR is 4 or 14.

Stick

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

On 2/28/2023 12:46 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game.

It's usually a good idea to check if XG wants to double before
the roll. If it does, and you leave the cube in the center,
the results can be rather strange. Maybe the top play is still
the top play, but the ranking of the other plays might change,
and the sizes of the errors can change a lot. One can easily
draw incorrect conclusions from this sort of bot analysis.

---
Tim Chow

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 6:31:45 PM UTC-5, Stick Rice wrote:

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 12:46:59 PM UTC-5, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

Well, I missed that you hadn't cubed. I didn't even look at the cube position because it's clearly a monster cube before the roll if we hadn't cubed already. With the cube turned it becomes sheer blasphemy to not make the play I suggested. Over .

300.

Stick

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game. I don't think I've posted anything yet where the match score made the position more

interesting (no comments, please, about whether any of my posts are interesting. Just tell me to go fornicate with spiders and I'll take the hint). As an atheist, I ignorantly blaspheme many times a day, so that's baseline for me. But you're welcome to
point it out. I might learn something.

Bob

I'm an atheist too and things can be sacred and therefore blasphemous without bringing the grand wizard into the equation. The cube doesn't matter as to which play is correct here but it sure as Hades makes a difference on whether one's PR is 4 or 14.

Stick

Amen to that! And I'm grateful to my lucky stars that as a Pisces I don't stake my self-worth on my PR.
Bob

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

On Tuesday, February 28, 2023 at 11:26:53 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 2/28/2023 12:46 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game.

It's usually a good idea to check if XG wants to double before
the roll. If it does, and you leave the cube in the center,
the results can be rather strange. Maybe the top play is still
the top play, but the ranking of the other plays might change,
and the sizes of the errors can change a lot. One can easily
draw incorrect conclusions from this sort of bot analysis.

---
Tim Chow

Thanks Tim. Helpful to know.
Bob

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

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:26:53 AM UTC, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 2/28/2023 12:46 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game.

It's usually a good idea to check if XG wants to double before
the roll. If it does, and you leave the cube in the center,
the results can be rather strange. Maybe the top play is still
the top play, but the ranking of the other plays might change,
and the sizes of the errors can change a lot. One can easily
draw incorrect conclusions from this sort of bot analysis.

But the Bob approach does have practical applications even when a cube is missed.
Suppose you're in a chouette and you're on the same team as the captain.
You have doubled but the captain (wrongly) hasn't.
You then want to know what the captain's best play is, so that you can persuade the
captain to do it if it's in your interests, too.

Paul

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

On 3/1/2023 2:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:26:53 AM UTC, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 2/28/2023 12:46 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game.

It's usually a good idea to check if XG wants to double before
the roll. If it does, and you leave the cube in the center,
the results can be rather strange. Maybe the top play is still
the top play, but the ranking of the other plays might change,
and the sizes of the errors can change a lot. One can easily
draw incorrect conclusions from this sort of bot analysis.

But the Bob approach does have practical applications even when a cube is missed.
Suppose you're in a chouette and you're on the same team as the captain.
You have doubled but the captain (wrongly) hasn't.
You then want to know what the captain's best play is, so that you can persuade the
captain to do it if it's in your interests, too.

The trouble is that if the captain hasn't doubled then the captain's
thought process isn't aligning with the bot's anyway, so trying to
argue for what the bot thinks is best now is unlikely to bear fruit.

---
Tim Chow

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

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 11:43:37 PM UTC, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 3/1/2023 2:43 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Wednesday, March 1, 2023 at 4:26:53 AM UTC, Timothy Chow wrote:

On 2/28/2023 12:46 PM, Robert Zimmerman wrote:

When I post positions, unless XG shows that the cube matters with regard to the checker play, I leave the cube in the center and post the position as a money game.

It's usually a good idea to check if XG wants to double before
the roll. If it does, and you leave the cube in the center,
the results can be rather strange. Maybe the top play is still
the top play, but the ranking of the other plays might change,
and the sizes of the errors can change a lot. One can easily
draw incorrect conclusions from this sort of bot analysis.

But the Bob approach does have practical applications even when a cube is missed.
Suppose you're in a chouette and you're on the same team as the captain. You have doubled but the captain (wrongly) hasn't.
You then want to know what the captain's best play is, so that you can persuade the
captain to do it if it's in your interests, too.

The trouble is that if the captain hasn't doubled then the captain's
thought process isn't aligning with the bot's anyway, so trying to
argue for what the bot thinks is best now is unlikely to bear fruit.

I think it's a common situation (and in fact this situation occurs in the position
that started this thread) that the play is the same regardless of cube position, but
the cost of the wrong play varies wildly.
I gave a situation, where arguing for the right play in a cube position where it
apparently matters little, might still have a big equity payoff.

There might, of course, be a dialogue of the deaf. Are you familiar with a song that
goes: "I said 'Captain.' He said 'What?' I said 'Captain.' He said 'What?' I said 'Captain.'
He said "What d'ya want?' ". ?
(I just googled it, and those aren't the exact lyrics but I was close.)

Paul

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