XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10
X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

Score is X:2 O:4. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O O O O O O |
| | | O O O O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | 6 |
| X | | X |
| X | | X |
| X | | X O X |
| X | | X O X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 82 O: 94 X-O: 2-4
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

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

On October 24, 2021 at 5:22:20 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10

Time delayed comments on positions are worthless even
for the purposes of you morons. He already rolled it out
and will post a realistic sounding response soon... ;)

MK

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

On 10/24/2021 7:22 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10
X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

Score is X:2 O:4. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O O O O O O |
| | | O O O O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | 6 |
| X | | X |
| X | | X |
| X | | X O X |
| X | | X O X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 82 O: 94 X-O: 2-4
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

How does O win this one? X has to give up a shot and then O has to hit
it. Or O has to roll well to overcome a 12 pip deficit.

The rule of fours, if it applied, would say D/T since X is ahead in the
race by enough to cash in a no-contact position, and O is not behind by
twice the point of last take. I'm not sure it does here, and O can run
off the five point leaving a single checker due to X's homeboard blots.

So, I'll say take. The double seems clear.

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

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 11:40:01 AM UTC+1, MK wrote:

On October 24, 2021 at 5:22:20 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10

Time delayed comments on positions are worthless even
for the purposes of you morons. He already rolled it out
and will post a realistic sounding response soon... ;)

MK

If he rolls it out and then "post[s] a realistic sounding response", why are his answers to my questions usually wrong?

Paul

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

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 8:17:50 PM UTC+1, ah...Clem wrote:

On 10/24/2021 7:22 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10
X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

Score is X:2 O:4. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O O O O O O |
| | | O O O O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | 6 |
| X | | X |
| X | | X |
| X | | X O X |
| X | | X O X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 82 O: 94 X-O: 2-4
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

How does O win this one? X has to give up a shot and then O has to hit
it. Or O has to roll well to overcome a 12 pip deficit.

The rule of fours, if it applied, would say D/T since X is ahead in the
race by enough to cash in a no-contact position, and O is not behind by
twice the point of last take. I'm not sure it does here, and O can run
off the five point leaving a single checker due to X's homeboard blots.

So, I'll say take. The double seems clear.

It would seem really useful to have a rule for assessing racing advantages when the risk of being
hit is significant. What is this "rule of four"? Do you have a reference for it?
So O would have a take in a race at (82, 88) (halving the deficit).
So because of the hitting chances, it's also a take at (82, 94).
Is that the reasoning?
If so, when does it apply?

Paul

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

On 10/26/2021 12:01 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

It would seem really useful to have a rule for assessing racing advantages when the risk of being
hit is significant. What is this "rule of four"? Do you have a reference for it?
So O would have a take in a race at (82, 88) (halving the deficit).
So because of the hitting chances, it's also a take at (82, 94).
Is that the reasoning?
If so, when does it apply?

Paul

RULE OF FOURS

If you have escaped your checkers and have four or less on the midpoint
while your opponent has an advanced anchor (four, five, or bar point),
cube when the pipcount indicates it would be a pass without contact
(some say you need a 15% lead). Take up to two times the “point of last take”. Be wary of a “stinger” (i.e. a single opponent’s checker on the ace or deuce) - it may be an asset or a liability for your opponent invalidating the mechanical application of this rule


In the position in question, the point of last take is nine pips and O
is down by 12. Since 12 is between 9 and 9*2 it's D/T according to the rule.

The problem is, this is not exactly a reference position for that rule -
X will have a much easier time getting home than if he had four on the midpoint, O has a strong board but will crunch soon, and X has all those homeboard blots. Seems like a wash to me making the rule of fours
applicable, but may be an exception.

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

On 10/26/2021 1:07 PM, ah...Clem wrote:

On 10/26/2021 12:01 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

It would seem really useful to have a rule for assessing racing advantages when the risk of being
hit is significant.

And there's also

THE RULE OF THREE:

As in the rule of four, but with the anchor on the three point. Cube
when ahead by 3 pips. Take up to 30 pips behind.


Again, lots of exceptions since this rule only tells you where two out
of the thirty checkers are placed. The placement of the other 28 can
change things a lot.

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

On 10/26/2021 11:57 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 11:40:01 AM UTC+1, MK wrote:

On October 24, 2021 at 5:22:20 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10

Time delayed comments on positions are worthless even
for the purposes of you morons. He already rolled it out
and will post a realistic sounding response soon... ;)

If he rolls it out and then "post[s] a realistic sounding response", why are his answers to my questions usually wrong?

Obviously, it's all part of a huge conspiracy, and the fact that there's
no evidence of the conspiracy simply proves that there's a cover-up.

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

On 10/24/2021 7:22 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10
X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

Score is X:2 O:4. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O O O O O O |
| | | O O O O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | 6 |
| X | | X |
| X | | X |
| X | | X O X |
| X | | X O X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 82 O: 94 X-O: 2-4
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

In a low-wastage race, 82 pips versus 94 pips would be a clear pass.
This is not quite a race but I think that's what it will usually
turn into. X's wastage is worse than O's because of his poor
distribution. I would take this. D/T.

---
Tim Chow

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

On 10/26/2021 1:09 PM, ah...Clem wrote:

On 10/26/2021 11:57 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

On Monday, October 25, 2021 at 11:40:01 AM UTC+1, MK wrote:

On October 24, 2021 at 5:22:20 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10

Time delayed comments on positions are worthless even
for the purposes of you morons. He already rolled it out
and will post a realistic sounding response soon... ;)

If he rolls it out and then "post[s] a realistic sounding response", why are his answers to my questions usually wrong?

Obviously, it's all part of a huge conspiracy, and the fact that there's
no evidence of the conspiracy simply proves that there's a cover-up.

Exactly. In order to cover up my cheating by consulting a bot,
I have to write posts that look exactly like I have not consulted
a bot. It's just like in a war, when countries that have cracked
the enemy's code won't act on the information they obtain because
that would give away the super-sensitive fact that they have cracked
the enemy's code.

---
Tim Chow

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

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 3:28:43 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:

On 10/24/2021 7:22 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

XGID=-ABBBCB-A--------d-fBbaaa-:0:0:-1:00:4:2:3:0:10
X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

Score is X:2 O:4. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O O O O O O |
| | | O O O O O |
| | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | 6 |
| X | | X |
| X | | X |
| X | | X O X |
| X | | X O X X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 82 O: 94 X-O: 2-4
Cube: 1
X on roll, cube action

In a low-wastage race, 82 pips versus 94 pips would be a clear pass.
This is not quite a race but I think that's what it will usually
turn into. X's wastage is worse than O's because of his poor
distribution. I would take this. D/T.

It's ultra-marginal.
I don't have the rollout with me on this computer but,
if anyone would like to see it, I don't mind adding it to the thread when I move
to that other computer.
It rolled out to something like a 0.998 take.
XG's pre-rollout opinion was also (correctly) ultra-marginal but the result of the coin toss was different and it was something like a 1.004 pass.
My first instinct was that this was a marginal take but I'd been penalised before
for taking too much in races where I'm dependent on hitting a somewhat unlikely shot.
So I passed, but it was basically a 50/50.
XG's rollout was 50/50
XG's opinion was 50/50
I was 50/50.

What a superb reference position, and what a great vindication of my brilliant intuition regarding this position.

Paul

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

On October 26, 2021 at 9:57:38 AM UTC-6, peps...@gmail.com wrote:

If he rolls it out and then "post[s] a realistic sounding response",
why are his answers to my questions usually wrong?

In that case, you better question why do you keep asking him??

MK

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

On October 26, 2021 at 11:09:44 AM UTC-6, ah...Clem wrote:

Obviously, it's all part of a huge conspiracy,

When I didn't even imply that the two were conspiring,
where did you get the "huge" conspiracy?

and the fact that there's no evidence of the conspiracy
simply proves that there's a cover-up.

Not only a strawman but also a false logic. You must be
another one of them math phd's...

MK

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

On October 26, 2021 at 8:31:56 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:

In order to cover up my cheating by consulting a bot,
I have to write posts that look exactly like I have not
consulted a bot.

At least you're honest about it. ;) If you didn't consult
the bot and gave the right answers by pure coincidence,
Paul may stop asking you because your answers may no
longer sound "realistic" bullshit but "fantastic" bullshit,
even if not as fantastic bullshit as Clem's "Rules of Four"... :))

MK

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

On Wednesday, October 27, 2021 at 11:24:04 PM UTC+1, MK wrote:

On October 26, 2021 at 8:31:56 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:

In order to cover up my cheating by consulting a bot,
I have to write posts that look exactly like I have not
consulted a bot.

At least you're honest about it. ;) If you didn't consult
the bot and gave the right answers by pure coincidence,
Paul may stop asking you because your answers may no
longer sound "realistic" bullshit but "fantastic" bullshit,
even if not as fantastic bullshit as Clem's "Rules of Four"... :))

I'm too lazy to google it right now but I think there's a rule of 72 or something
like that in interest rate theory. I wouldn't be surprised if Clem's an expert in that, too. All you have to do is divide by 18 and hey presto! the rule of 72 becomes
yet another rule of four.

Paul

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

On 10/27/2021 6:24 PM, MK wrote:

On October 26, 2021 at 8:31:56 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:

In order to cover up my cheating by consulting a bot,
I have to write posts that look exactly like I have not
consulted a bot.

At least you're honest about it. ;) If you didn't consult
the bot and gave the right answers by pure coincidence,

You mean give the wrong answers.

---
Tim Chow

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

On October 28, 2021 at 8:03:41 PM UTC-6, Tim Chow wrote:

On 10/27/2021 6:24 PM, MK wrote:

At least you're honest about it. ;) If you didn't consult
the bot and gave the right answers by pure coincidence,

You mean give the wrong answers.

No, I meant what I said but there are now other interesting
discussions that I want to focus on rather than try to derive
fun from petty squabbles.

MK

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