XGID=---CBbBAA---------bbFcbbb-:1:1:1:44:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O X O O O O |
| O | | O X O O O O |
| | | X O |
| | | X |
| | | 6 |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X | +---+
| | | X O X X | | 2 |
| X X | | X O X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 164 O: 90 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X to play 44

---
Tim Chow

On Wednesday, November 9, 2022 at 3:01:59 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> XGID=---CBbBAA---------bbFcbbb-:1:1:1:44:0:0:0:0:10
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | O | | O X O O O O |
> | O | | O X O O O O |
> | | | X O |
> | | | X |
> | | | 6 |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | X | +---+
> | | | X O X X | | 2 |
> | X X | | X O X X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 164 O: 90 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X to play 44

Surely, the "pretty" theme can (and should) be extended here:
"A pretty easy problem of playing a pretty good roll in a pretty bad position."
It's trivial as a quiz but missable OTB, I suppose.
Very obviously, we have to protect both our blots. This forces 7/3 so we only
have 3 fours to play.
Actually, no, the problem is not easy. I take that back.
However, I want to preserve my thought processes, so I'm not going to erase my first impression.
There's a real debate (from my point of view -- it might be obvious to Stick) about whether we
make the 8 point or play 8/4.
When I (erroneously) thought the problem was trivial, I thought we could play 20/16 after playing 20/8 but
no, that's too many fours.
There seem to be two candidates 8/4 7/3 20/16(2) and 7/3 20/8.
The QF play is 20/8 because the quizzer (not a point about Tim but someone setting these problems in general)
is quite likely to want to punish the impulsive (and weak) player who immediately plays 8/4 without thinking of
the protection play.
However, I'm more impressed by the outfield point than the 8 point.
8/4 20/16(2) for me with about 60% confidence only.
I still think this isn't the QF play but Tim has sometimes claimed to be anti-QF, and this self-assessment sounds
right to me.

Paul

XGID=---CBbBAA---------bbFcbbb-:1:1:1:44:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O X O O O O |
| O | | O X O O O O |
| | | X O |
| | | X |
| | | 6 |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X | +---+
| | | X O X X | | 2 |
| X X | | X O X X | +---+
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 164 O: 90 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, X own cube
X to play 44

Congrats to Paul, who found the bot play of 20/16(2) 8/4 7/3 and also
observed that this is a pedestrian, anti-QF play. OTB, I tried the
"fancy" play of 20/8 7/3 and got dinged heavily by XG for it.

Speaking of QF, XG does favor a QF play at DMP, as indicated by the
rollout below: 20/16 20/8!

1. Rollout¹ 20/16(2) 8/4 7/3 eq:-0.585
Player: 27.90% (G:4.46% B:0.13%)
Opponent: 72.10% (G:29.89% B:0.35%)
Confidence: ±0.007 (-0.592..-0.577) - [100.0%]

2. Rollout¹ 20/16(3) 8/4 eq:-0.641 (-0.056)
Player: 27.99% (G:4.73% B:0.12%)
Opponent: 72.01% (G:36.47% B:0.28%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (-0.649..-0.633) - [0.0%]

3. Rollout¹ 20/16 20/8 eq:-0.688 (-0.104)
Player: 28.37% (G:5.34% B:0.17%)
Opponent: 71.63% (G:42.33% B:0.86%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (-0.697..-0.680) - [0.0%]

4. Rollout¹ 20/8 7/3 eq:-0.699 (-0.114)
Player: 24.44% (G:3.86% B:0.12%)
Opponent: 75.56% (G:32.56% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.007 (-0.706..-0.692) - [0.0%]

¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release

---
DMP
---

XGID=---CBbBAA---------bbFcbbb-:0:0:1:44:0:0:0:1:10

Score is X:0 O:0 1 pt.(s) match.
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O | | O X O O O O |
| O | | O X O O O O |
| | | X O |
| | | X |
| | | 6 |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X |
| | | X O X X |
| X X | | X O X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 164 O: 90 X-O: 0-0/1
Cube: 1
X to play 44

1. Rollout¹ 20/16 20/8 eq:-0.416
Player: 29.22% (G:4.29% B:0.13%)
Opponent: 70.78% (G:50.44% B:0.84%)
Confidence: ±0.004 (-0.420..-0.411) - [99.9%]

2. Rollout¹ 20/16(2) 8/4 7/3 eq:-0.426 (-0.010)
Player: 28.72% (G:3.96% B:0.18%)
Opponent: 71.28% (G:38.16% B:0.49%)
Confidence: ±0.005 (-0.430..-0.421) - [0.1%]

3. Rollout¹ 20/16(3) 8/4 eq:-0.431 (-0.015)
Player: 28.46% (G:3.95% B:0.18%)
Opponent: 71.54% (G:45.91% B:0.43%)
Confidence: ±0.004 (-0.435..-0.426) - [0.0%]

4. Rollout¹ 20/16(3) 7/3 eq:-0.473 (-0.057)
Player: 26.35% (G:3.58% B:0.18%)
Opponent: 73.65% (G:48.27% B:0.38%)
Confidence: ±0.005 (-0.478..-0.469) - [0.0%]

5. Rollout¹ 20/8 7/3 eq:-0.488 (-0.073)
Player: 25.59% (G:3.34% B:0.09%)
Opponent: 74.41% (G:45.92% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.004 (-0.492..-0.484) - [0.0%]

¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release, MET: Kazaross XG2

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, November 11, 2022 at 3:28:05 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> XGID=---CBbBAA---------bbFcbbb-:1:1:1:44:0:0:0:0:10
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | O | | O X O O O O |
> | O | | O X O O O O |
> | | | X O |
> | | | X |
> | | | 6 |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | X | +---+
> | | | X O X X | | 2 |
> | X X | | X O X X | +---+
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 164 O: 90 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, X own cube
> X to play 44
> Congrats to Paul, who found the bot play of 20/16(2) 8/4 7/3 and also
> observed that this is a pedestrian, anti-QF play. OTB, I tried the
> "fancy" play of 20/8 7/3 and got dinged heavily by XG for it.
>
> Speaking of QF, XG does favor a QF play at DMP, as indicated by the
> rollout below: 20/16 20/8!

Even in the non-variantized originalizationed postingization in the actual quizzation,
we see the same surprising element -- namely that keeping the 7 point blot is not nearly
as bad as most people would think it is. Besides being correct at DMP, we can apparently keep the
7 point blot in the original at a cost of < 0.06. This seems very surprising to me. I would expect it to
be something like a 0.3 blunder.

Thoughts on why we can keep the 7 point blot (even though it might not be optimal)
are welcome.

Paul