• 62 isn't that old -- no reason to be afraid of it.

    From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to All on Wed Aug 18 04:05:21 2021
    No one would take the below position but is it TG?

    Paul

    XGID=-BCB--G-a--------abccbc--A:2:-1:-1:00:0:0:3:0:10
    X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

    Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
    +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
    | X | | O O O O |
    | | | O O O O |
    | | | O O |
    | | | O |
    | | | 7 |
    | |BAR| |
    | | O | |
    | | | |
    | | | X X X | +---+
    | X | | X X X X | | 4 |
    | X X | | X X X X | +---+
    +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
    Pip count X: 89 O: 81 X-O: 0-0
    Cube: 4, X own cube
    X on roll, cube action

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Wed Aug 18 08:44:53 2021
    On 8/18/2021 7:05 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    No one would take the below position but is it TG?

    Paul

    XGID=-BCB--G-a--------abccbc--A:2:-1:-1:00:0:0:3:0:10
    X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

    Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver
    +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
    | X | | O O O O |
    | | | O O O O |
    | | | O O |
    | | | O |
    | | | 7 |
    | |BAR| |
    | | O | |
    | | | |
    | | | X X X | +---+
    | X | | X X X X | | 4 |
    | X X | | X X X X | +---+
    +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
    Pip count X: 89 O: 81 X-O: 0-0
    Cube: 4, X own cube
    X on roll, cube action

    When the opponent has all but one of her checkers in her
    home board and has no blots, then the gammon chances are
    very low. I don't think this is TG.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Wed Aug 18 07:34:24 2021
    On Wednesday, August 18, 2021 at 1:44:55 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/18/2021 7:05 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    No one would take the below position but is it TG?

    Paul

    XGID=-BCB--G-a--------abccbc--A:2:-1:-1:00:0:0:3:0:10
    X:eXtremeGammon O:Daniel

    Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game, Jacoby Beaver +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
    | X | | O O O O |
    | | | O O O O |
    | | | O O |
    | | | O |
    | | | 7 |
    | |BAR| |
    | | O | |
    | | | |
    | | | X X X | +---+
    | X | | X X X X | | 4 |
    | X X | | X X X X | +---+
    +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
    Pip count X: 89 O: 81 X-O: 0-0
    Cube: 4, X own cube
    X on roll, cube action
    When the opponent has all but one of her checkers in her
    home board and has no blots, then the gammon chances are
    very low. I don't think this is TG.

    And what about the market-gaining chances?

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Thu Aug 19 00:41:38 2021
    On 8/18/2021 10:34 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    And what about the market-gaining chances?

    If the gammons are low enough then you need almost no
    market gainers to double.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Thu Aug 19 04:39:19 2021
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 5:41:40 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/18/2021 10:34 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    And what about the market-gaining chances?
    If the gammons are low enough then you need almost no
    market gainers to double.

    It's ultra-marginal between D/P and TG.
    I think XG rolled out 1.005 but at another time in another place in another country
    in a kinder planet, a rollout of 0.995 would have been possible, I'm sure.

    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this? See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Thu Aug 19 04:40:33 2021
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 12:39:20 PM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 5:41:40 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/18/2021 10:34 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    And what about the market-gaining chances?
    If the gammons are low enough then you need almost no
    market gainers to double.
    It's ultra-marginal between D/P and TG.
    I think XG rolled out 1.005 but at another time in another place in another country
    in a kinder planet, a rollout of 0.995 would have been possible, I'm sure.

    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this? See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?

    Correction -- I should have said that a rollout of 1 would have been possible. Of course the position can't be worth less than 1.

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Thu Aug 19 09:13:06 2021
    On 8/19/2021 7:39 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this? See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?

    I don't think this position is a good example for arguing
    that "TG is used too seldom," unless you think that humans
    can play the rest of the game as well as XG can.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to Tim Chow on Thu Aug 19 08:20:37 2021
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:13:08 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/19/2021 7:39 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this? See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?
    I don't think this position is a good example for arguing
    that "TG is used too seldom," unless you think that humans
    can play the rest of the game as well as XG can.

    My reasoning is as follows:
    Here's a position where XG is on the border between TG and not TG.
    But from a human perspective, no one would consider holding.
    So if people want to move towards XG (an assumed goal), they should consider using TG more often.

    Is your point that you think it's only TG/ close to TG if you play like XG?

    Paul

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Timothy Chow@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Mon Aug 23 23:32:23 2021
    On 8/19/2021 11:20 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:13:08 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/19/2021 7:39 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this? >>> See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?
    I don't think this position is a good example for arguing
    that "TG is used too seldom," unless you think that humans
    can play the rest of the game as well as XG can.

    My reasoning is as follows:
    Here's a position where XG is on the border between TG and not TG.
    But from a human perspective, no one would consider holding.
    So if people want to move towards XG (an assumed goal), they should consider using TG more often.

    Is your point that you think it's only TG/ close to TG if you play like XG?

    I don't regard moving toward XG as my goal. My goal is to play
    better against other human players. XG is just a tool.

    In this position, if I cash, I'm guaranteed 1 point EMG. If I
    don't cash, do I have a higher expected value? Probably not.

    ---
    Tim Chow

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From J R@21:1/5 to peps...@gmail.com on Tue Aug 24 14:35:49 2021
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:38 AM UTC-4, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:13:08 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/19/2021 7:39 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this?
    See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?
    I don't think this position is a good example for arguing
    that "TG is used too seldom," unless you think that humans
    can play the rest of the game as well as XG can.
    My reasoning is as follows:
    Here's a position where XG is on the border between TG and not TG.
    But from a human perspective, no one would consider holding.
    So if people want to move towards XG (an assumed goal), they should consider using TG more often.

    Is your point that you think it's only TG/ close to TG if you play like XG?

    Paul

    What do you mean no one would consider holding? Of course some would.

    Stick

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From pepstein5@gmail.com@21:1/5 to J R on Tue Aug 24 15:56:06 2021
    On Tuesday, August 24, 2021 at 10:35:50 PM UTC+1, J R wrote:
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 11:20:38 AM UTC-4, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    On Thursday, August 19, 2021 at 2:13:08 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
    On 8/19/2021 7:39 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
    But it seems that playing on for the gammon is fine. But who would do this?
    See what I mean about TG being used too seldom?
    I don't think this position is a good example for arguing
    that "TG is used too seldom," unless you think that humans
    can play the rest of the game as well as XG can.
    My reasoning is as follows:
    Here's a position where XG is on the border between TG and not TG.
    But from a human perspective, no one would consider holding.
    So if people want to move towards XG (an assumed goal), they should consider using TG more often.

    Is your point that you think it's only TG/ close to TG if you play like XG?

    Paul
    What do you mean no one would consider holding? Of course some would.

    I've never been to one of Tim's chouettes but I wouldn't expect that it would be packed with people
    dissatisfied with the single and going for the gammon, in this position.

    Paul

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