XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10

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 | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66

---
Tim Chow

On 12/26/2022 8:55 AM, Timothy Chow wrote:
> XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
>
> 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    |   | O     O          | | 2 |
>  | X           O    |   | O                | +---+
>  | X           O    |   | O                |
>  |                  |   |                  |
>  |                  |BAR|                  |
>  |                  |   |                  |
>  |                  |   |                  |
>  | O                |   | X                |
>  | O           X    |   | X  X     X       |
>  | O     X     X    |   | X  X  O  X     O |
>  +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count  X: 136  O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, O own cube
> X to play 66

All points are equal in a blitz, right? Does that mean hitting on the
ace is as good as hitting on the four point? Perhaps, but after making
the two point we can use a fourth six to do something where if we hit on
the ace we don't.

Pointing is better than hitting, so make the deuce point.
Hitting is better than building, so 10/4*.
Building is better than escaping so 13/7.

--
Ah....Clem
The future is fun, the future is fair.

XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10

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 | | O O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X O | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| O | | X |
| O X | | X X X |
| O X X | | X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 66

OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?

My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).

Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
than not anchoring at all.

Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
her to expose another blot to a direct shot.

1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]

2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]

3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]

4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]

5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]

6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]

7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [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

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
>
> 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> | X O | | O | +---+
> | X O | | O |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | O | | X |
> | O X | | X X X |
> | O X X | | X X O X O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, O own cube
> X to play 66
> OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
>
> My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
>
> Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> than not anchoring at all.
>
> Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
>
> 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
>
> 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
>
> 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
>
> 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
>
> 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
>
> 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
>
> 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]

The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
everyone interested in themselves?]).
OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
play of 13/1*(2).
However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
thought he may well be right.
In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.

Paul

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
> >
> > 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> > | X O | | O | +---+
> > | X O | | O |
> > | | | |
> > | |BAR| |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | O | | X |
> > | O X | | X X X |
> > | O X X | | X X O X O |
> > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> > Cube: 2, O own cube
> > X to play 66
> > OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> > Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
> >
> > My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> > 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> > that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
> >
> > Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> > four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> > good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> > may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> > rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> > least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> > than not anchoring at all.
> >
> > Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> > from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> > whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> > anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> > by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> > XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> > after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> > not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> > her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
> >
> > 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> > Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> > Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
> >
> > 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> > Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> > Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
> >
> > 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> > Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> > Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> > Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
> >
> > 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> > Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> > Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> > Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
> >
> > 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> > Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> > Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
> >
> > 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> > Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> > Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
> >
> > 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> > Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> > Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
> The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
> everyone interested in themselves?]).
> OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
> play of 13/1*(2).
> However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
> thought he may well be right.
> In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
> Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
>
> Paul

If you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.

Stick

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
>
> 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> | X O | | O | +---+
> | X O | | O |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | O | | X |
> | O X | | X X X |
> | O X X | | X X O X O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, O own cube
> X to play 66
> OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
>
> My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
>
> Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> than not anchoring at all.
>
> Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
>
> 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
>
> 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
>
> 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
>
> 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
>
> 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
>
> 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
>
> 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [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
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

The clipped version is you don't hit loose in your home board and leave a blot when you could make a point and still put him on the bar.

Stick

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > > XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
> > >
> > > 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> > > | X O | | O | +---+
> > > | X O | | O |
> > > | | | |
> > > | |BAR| |
> > > | | | |
> > > | | | |
> > > | O | | X |
> > > | O X | | X X X |
> > > | O X X | | X X O X O |
> > > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > > Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> > > Cube: 2, O own cube
> > > X to play 66
> > > OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> > > Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
> > >
> > > My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> > > 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> > > that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
> > >
> > > Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> > > four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> > > good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> > > may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> > > rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> > > least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> > > than not anchoring at all.
> > >
> > > Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> > > from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> > > whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> > > anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> > > by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> > > XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> > > after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> > > not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> > > her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
> > >
> > > 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> > > Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> > > Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
> > >
> > > 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> > > Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> > > Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
> > >
> > > 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> > > Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> > > Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
> > >
> > > 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> > > Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> > > Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
> > >
> > > 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> > > Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> > > Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
> > >
> > > 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> > > Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> > > Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
> > >
> > > 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> > > Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> > > Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
> > The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
> > everyone interested in themselves?]).
> > OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
> > play of 13/1*(2).
> > However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
> > thought he may well be right.
> > In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
> > Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
> >
> > Paul
> If you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.

I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as good
as this, and made a different play.

If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.

Paul

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > > > XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
> > > >
> > > > 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> > > > | X O | | O | +---+
> > > > | X O | | O |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | |BAR| |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | | | |
> > > > | O | | X |
> > > > | O X | | X X X |
> > > > | O X X | | X X O X O |
> > > > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > > > Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> > > > Cube: 2, O own cube
> > > > X to play 66
> > > > OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> > > > Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
> > > >
> > > > My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> > > > 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> > > > that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
> > > >
> > > > Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> > > > four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> > > > good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> > > > may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> > > > rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> > > > least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> > > > than not anchoring at all.
> > > >
> > > > Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> > > > from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> > > > whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> > > > anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> > > > by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> > > > XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> > > > after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> > > > not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> > > > her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
> > > >
> > > > 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> > > > Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> > > > Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
> > > >
> > > > 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> > > > Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> > > > Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
> > > >
> > > > 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> > > > Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> > > > Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
> > > >
> > > > 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> > > > Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> > > > Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
> > > >
> > > > 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> > > > Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> > > > Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
> > > >
> > > > 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> > > > Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> > > > Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
> > > >
> > > > 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> > > > Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> > > > Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
> > > The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
> > > everyone interested in themselves?]).
> > > OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
> > > play of 13/1*(2).
> > > However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
> > > thought he may well be right.
> > > In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
> > > Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > If you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
> I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as good
> as this, and made a different play.
>
> If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
>
> Paul

I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?

Stick

On 12/29/2022 7:03 PM, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?

Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
(perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
his PR was.

Should I ever meet Stick OTB and should he ask me that question,
I will reassure him that my PR is 8 or 9 on a good day.

---
Tim Chow

On 12/29/2022 9:36 PM, I wrote:
> Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
> (perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
> his PR was.

Just in case my interpretation above isn't quite correct, here's the
original reference where you can read for yourself Stick's exact words.

http://www.bgonline.org/forums/webbbs_config.pl?read=118813

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:03:07 AM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > > > > XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
> > > > >
> > > > > 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> > > > > | X O | | O | +---+
> > > > > | X O | | O |
> > > > > | | | |
> > > > > | |BAR| |
> > > > > | | | |
> > > > > | | | |
> > > > > | O | | X |
> > > > > | O X | | X X X |
> > > > > | O X X | | X X O X O |
> > > > > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > > > > Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> > > > > Cube: 2, O own cube
> > > > > X to play 66
> > > > > OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> > > > > Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
> > > > >
> > > > > My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> > > > > 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> > > > > that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> > > > > four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> > > > > good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> > > > > may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> > > > > rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> > > > > least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> > > > > than not anchoring at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> > > > > from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0..226
> > > > > whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> > > > > anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> > > > > by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> > > > > XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> > > > > after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> > > > > not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> > > > > her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
> > > > >
> > > > > 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> > > > > Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> > > > > Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
> > > > >
> > > > > 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> > > > > Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> > > > > Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
> > > > >
> > > > > 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> > > > > Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> > > > > Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
> > > > >
> > > > > 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> > > > > Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> > > > > Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
> > > > >
> > > > > 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> > > > > Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> > > > > Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
> > > > >
> > > > > 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> > > > > Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> > > > > Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
> > > > >
> > > > > 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> > > > > Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> > > > > Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
> > > > The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
> > > > everyone interested in themselves?]).
> > > > OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
> > > > play of 13/1*(2).
> > > > However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
> > > > thought he may well be right.
> > > > In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
> > > > Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > If you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
> > I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as good
> > as this, and made a different play.
> >
> > If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
> >
> > Paul
> I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?

Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.
I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better.
But even clear memories can be wrong. I tried to dig up this thread but couldn't.

I'm a bit surprised Tim hasn't mentioned his PR on this thread now that we're discussing it.

Paul

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 2:36:15 AM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 12/29/2022 7:03 PM, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
> Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
> (perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
> his PR was.
>
> Should I ever meet Stick OTB and should he ask me that question,
> I will reassure him that my PR is 8 or 9 on a good day.

That may well be correct if the number of games is small and if the
day is "good" from Stick's point of view.

Paul

On 12/30/2022 6:46 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.
> I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better.

But I could have been lying! Or fooling myself. One's
PR while playing against the computer at home does not
necessarily reflect one's PR in live play.

---
Tim Chow

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 1:40:08 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
.....
> But I could have been lying!
.....

But you're lying now. I'm sure it's true that you never lie and always tell the truth.
Since you always tell the truth, you must be lying.

Paul

On 12/29/2022 11:50 AM, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:47:11 AM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
>> XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10

> The clipped version is you don't hit loose in your home board and leave a blot when you could make a point and still put him on the bar.

Thanks. That's a simple cogent reason to make the ace point here, and
something to remember. I'm reluctant to make the ace point so I often
get dinged in situations like this.

BTW, does Ben know you're using his account?

https://www.transfermarkt.com/benjamin-friesen/profil/spieler/916693

--
Ah....Clem
The future is fun, the future is fair.

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:46:28 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:03:07 AM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > > > > > XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> > > > > > | X O | | O | +---+
> > > > > > | X O | | O |
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | |BAR| |
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > | O | | X |
> > > > > > | O X | | X X X |
> > > > > > | O X X | | X X O X O |
> > > > > > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > > > > > Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> > > > > > Cube: 2, O own cube
> > > > > > X to play 66
> > > > > > OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> > > > > > Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> > > > > > 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> > > > > > that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> > > > > > four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> > > > > > good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> > > > > > may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> > > > > > rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> > > > > > least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> > > > > > than not anchoring at all.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> > > > > > from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> > > > > > whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> > > > > > anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> > > > > > by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> > > > > > XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> > > > > > after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> > > > > > not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> > > > > > her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> > > > > > Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> > > > > > Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> > > > > > Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> > > > > > Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> > > > > > Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> > > > > > Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> > > > > > Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> > > > > > Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> > > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
> > > > > The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
> > > > > everyone interested in themselves?]).
> > > > > OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
> > > > > play of 13/1*(2).
> > > > > However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
> > > > > thought he may well be right.
> > > > > In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
> > > > > Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
> > > > >
> > > > > Paul
> > > > If you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
> > > I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as good
> > > as this, and made a different play.
> > >
> > > If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
> > >
> > > Paul
> > I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
> Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.
> I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better.
> But even clear memories can be wrong. I tried to dig up this thread but couldn't.
>
> I'm a bit surprised Tim hasn't mentioned his PR on this thread now that we're discussing it.
>
> Paul

Since Tim is being coy about his PR I believe even more firmly he doesn't play under a 5 PR. I thought perhaps he had mentioned in the past, I certainly wouldn't remember it. It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty much be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to play that well based solely on the problems he posts. My wag was the 6.5 range. And it is very true at home play v. the computer doesn't equate to one's live play and that, generally speaking, one's live PR will be (much) worse.

That pos web site won't load so I can't see the post Tim was referring to and I'm too lazy to log in and find the post itself atm.

Stick

On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 10:29:50 PM UTC, Stick Rice wrote:
> On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 6:46:28 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, December 30, 2022 at 12:03:07 AM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 12:46:00 PM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 4:48:53 PM UTC, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 10:28:40 AM UTC-5, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 2:47:11 PM UTC, Tim Chow wrote:
> > > > > > > XGID=-a-BaBC-B-A-cD---d-d-b--A-:1:-1:1:66:0:0:0:0:10
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 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 | | O O | | 2 |
> > > > > > > | X O | | O | +---+
> > > > > > > | X O | | O |
> > > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > > | |BAR| |
> > > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > > | | | |
> > > > > > > | O | | X |
> > > > > > > | O X | | X X X |
> > > > > > > | O X X | | X X O X O |
> > > > > > > +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> > > > > > > Pip count X: 136 O: 148 X-O: 0-0
> > > > > > > Cube: 2, O own cube
> > > > > > > X to play 66
> > > > > > > OTB, I was already imagining that I would play 10/4* if I rolled a six.
> > > > > > > Does the calculus change if I roll two sixes?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My reasoning was much the same as ah...clem's justification for playing
> > > > > > > 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2). I didn't want O to anchor on my 4pt. But XG says
> > > > > > > that this play is a whopper with cheese compared to 13/1*(2).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's how I think we should compare the two plays. Both make a
> > > > > > > four-point board and put a checker on the bar. After 13/1*(2), O's only
> > > > > > > good rolls are 4x, 62, and 22; other entering 2's aren't very good, and
> > > > > > > may even force her to expose another blot. After 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2),
> > > > > > > rolling 4x or 31 is still her best hope, but other entering 1's at
> > > > > > > least anchor. The 1pt anchor isn't great, but it's still a lot better
> > > > > > > than not anchoring at all.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's another observation. After our play, suppose that O rolls a 41
> > > > > > > from the bar. According to XGR++, her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.226
> > > > > > > whereas her equity after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.275. Roughly speaking,
> > > > > > > anchoring with the 4 is a bit better than hitting with the 4, but not
> > > > > > > by that much. But now suppose O rolls a 21 from the bar. Again using
> > > > > > > XGR++, we find that her equity after 13/1*(2) is -0.829 while her equity
> > > > > > > after 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) is -0.514. So anchoring is hugely better than
> > > > > > > not anchoring, especially because rolling a 21 after 13/1*(2) forces
> > > > > > > her to expose another blot to a direct shot.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Rollout¹ 13/1*(2) eq:+0.739
> > > > > > > Player: 73.05% (G:43.78% B:0.58%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 26.95% (G:5.24% B:0.26%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.731..+0.747) - [100.0%]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2. Rollout¹ 13/7 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.613 (-0.126)
> > > > > > > Player: 69.34% (G:41.40% B:1.15%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 30.66% (G:7.60% B:0.37%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.604..+0.623) - [0.0%]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3. Rollout¹ 13/7 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.596 (-0.143)
> > > > > > > Player: 68.88% (G:43.72% B:0.75%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 31.12% (G:9.35% B:0.72%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.586..+0.606) - [0.0%]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 4. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/7(2) 10/4* eq:+0.531 (-0.208)
> > > > > > > Player: 70.66% (G:30.03% B:1.10%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 29.34% (G:7.86% B:0.37%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.521..+0.542) - [0.0%]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 5. Rollout¹ 24/18 13/1* 10/4* eq:+0.519 (-0.220)
> > > > > > > Player: 67.87% (G:37.70% B:0.66%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 32.13% (G:9.77% B:0.53%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.510..+0.528) - [0.0%]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 6. Rollout¹ 24/18 10/4* 8/2(2) eq:+0.511 (-0.228)
> > > > > > > Player: 68.60% (G:34.13% B:0.88%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 31.40% (G:8.57% B:0.31%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.008 (+0.503..+0.518) - [0.0%]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 7. Rollout¹ 13/7(3) 10/4* eq:+0.501 (-0.238)
> > > > > > > Player: 68.13% (G:33.66% B:1.34%)
> > > > > > > Opponent: 31.87% (G:8.18% B:0.47%)
> > > > > > > Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.492..+0.509) - [0.0%]
> > > > > > The way I would have solved this is interesting (to me [but isn't
> > > > > > everyone interested in themselves?]).
> > > > > > OTB, or as a Waltish poster, I would definitely have made the correct
> > > > > > play of 13/1*(2).
> > > > > > However, I was somewhat convinced by Ah..Clem's posting and
> > > > > > thought he may well be right.
> > > > > > In a chouette, I could definitely have been persuaded to joint the Tim-And-Walt
> > > > > > Society if a strong player in the box spoke with authority.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Paul
> > > > > If you had a strong player in your chou they'd have told you to make the ace point without hesitation.
> > > > I think this is demonstrably false because a PR of 5 is considered "strong" and Tim is at least as good
> > > > as this, and made a different play.
> > > >
> > > > If you want to redefine "strong" as being synonymous with "world-class", I don't argue with you.
> > > >
> > > > Paul
> > > I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
> > Of course, I can't be sure about Tim's level.
> > I have a clear memory of him asserting (for himself) a PR of 5.0 or better.
> > But even clear memories can be wrong. I tried to dig up this thread but couldn't.
> >
> > I'm a bit surprised Tim hasn't mentioned his PR on this thread now that we're discussing it.
> >
> > Paul
> Since Tim is being coy about his PR I believe even more firmly he doesn't play under a 5 PR. I thought perhaps he had mentioned in the past, I certainly wouldn't remember it. It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty much be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to play that well based solely on the problems he posts. My wag was the 6.5 range. And it is very true at home play v. the computer doesn't equate to one's live play and that, generally speaking, one's live PR will be (much) worse.
>
> That pos web site won't load so I can't see the post Tim was referring to and I'm too lazy to log in and find the post itself atm.

Hard to know. I rate Tim as (considerably) better than myself and I rate myself at around 6.0 so my perceptions are different.
When I say 6.0, I mean when I play the bot. Clearly some adjustment needs to be made for live play, because the bot is
giving a lot of help by letting you know that its previous cube actions were optimal.
I sometimes sacrifice my PR for the sake of intellectual honesty, though.
For example, in money play, XG might hold against me (in a position which is clearly not TG), but I radically misassess the position and
prepare to drop XG's cube (which in fact doesn't come).
After the next exchange, XG's position improves very slightly. So I must have a take (if XG doubles) because my postion is only mildly
worse than an ND/T. However, I will often (probably far more often than not, actually) stay true to the way my backgammon
positional understanding is, and drop anyway, with the clear expectation that I will get dinged.
So maybe the live play adjustment in my case is smaller than usual.

On 12/30/2022 5:29 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty much be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to play that well based solely on the problems he posts. My wag was the 6.5 range.

Hmmm. Seems like I should be posting easier problems! It
sounds like Stick won't believe me if I say I play 8 or 9 on
a good day.

---
Tim Chow

On 12/31/2022 10:33 AM, Timothy Chow wrote:
> On 12/30/2022 5:29 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
>> It was possible in my mind that he did play a 5, but that would pretty
>> much be his capped range, 4.5-5 PR but thought he was a clear dog to
>> play that well based solely on the problems he posts.  My wag was the
>> 6.5 range.
>
> Hmmm.  Seems like I should be posting easier problems!  It
> sounds like Stick won't believe me if I say I play 8 or 9 on
> a good day.

If it's any consolation, he might believe me if I said my average is a
little over 8 PR, based on my saved FIBS matches (mostly 5 and 7 pointers).

I only rarely play live, and it's usually against weak players without
bothering to record the moves or analyze with a bot.

--
Ah....Clem
The future is fun, the future is fair.

On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:36:15 PM UTC-5, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 12/29/2022 7:03 PM, Benjamin Friesen wrote:
> > I guess it depends who uses the term 'strong'. And are you sure Tim plays at a 5 PR or better on average?
> Years ago, when Stick was playing Dmitriy Obukhov over the board
> (perhaps for the first time), he half-jokingly asked Dmitriy what
> his PR was.
>
> Should I ever meet Stick OTB and should he ask me that question,
> I will reassure him that my PR is 8 or 9 on a good day.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

I still don't get the point of you directing us to this post but it was a nice re-read for me anyway. You can't play a 5 and tell me you play an 8-9 and I not be able to tell the difference if I'm playing you.

Stick