When I've finished a game with XG, I have a moment of considerable
tension as I wait for its PR verdict.
What I've found is that my guesses as to how I've played appear to
be completely uncorrelated with the PR score. I might feel confident
that I've made all the right plays, only to be given a PR of 24.
Or maybe all my decisions seem dubious and I turn out to have
played near-perfectly.
What do others experience? Are others able to guess correctly
how well they played?

Thank You,

Paul

On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 20:30:12 UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> When I've finished a game with XG, I have a moment of considerable
> tension as I wait for its PR verdict.
> What I've found is that my guesses as to how I've played appear to
> be completely uncorrelated with the PR score. I might feel confident
> that I've made all the right plays, only to be given a PR of 24.
> Or maybe all my decisions seem dubious and I turn out to have
> played near-perfectly.
> What do others experience? Are others able to guess correctly
> how well they played?
>
> Thank You,
>
> Paul

Your failing is believing that what the bot tells you is gospel.

Your first roll is 5-2, you play 13-8, 13-11. Well done.

Your next roll is 6-1. If you play (the correct roll of) 13-7, 8-7 you'll get slaughtered because the "correct" roll is apparently 11-5, 6-5.

And then AI Factory Backgammon *will roll* 6-6 or 6-5 and blow you out of the water.

This "golden point" nonsense has a lot to answer for.

On 4/10/2022 12:47 PM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 20:30:12 UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> When I've finished a game with XG, I have a moment of considerable
>> tension as I wait for its PR verdict.
>> What I've found is that my guesses as to how I've played appear to
>> be completely uncorrelated with the PR score. I might feel confident
>> that I've made all the right plays, only to be given a PR of 24.
>> Or maybe all my decisions seem dubious and I turn out to have
>> played near-perfectly.
>> What do others experience? Are others able to guess correctly
>> how well they played?
>>
>> Thank You,
>>
>> Paul
>
> Your failing is believing that what the bot tells you is gospel.

This is irrelevant. Even if the bot has completely mistaken ideas of
good backgammon play, it may still be possible to predict with high
accuracy what PR it will give you.

---
Tim Chow

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 1:29:37 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 4/10/2022 12:47 PM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
> > On Saturday, 9 April 2022 at 20:30:12 UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> When I've finished a game with XG, I have a moment of considerable
> >> tension as I wait for its PR verdict.
> >> What I've found is that my guesses as to how I've played appear to
> >> be completely uncorrelated with the PR score. I might feel confident
> >> that I've made all the right plays, only to be given a PR of 24.
> >> Or maybe all my decisions seem dubious and I turn out to have
> >> played near-perfectly.
> >> What do others experience? Are others able to guess correctly
> >> how well they played?
> >>
> >> Thank You,
> >>
> >> Paul
> >
> > Your failing is believing that what the bot tells you is gospel.
> This is irrelevant. Even if the bot has completely mistaken ideas of
> good backgammon play, it may still be possible to predict with high
> accuracy what PR it will give you.

Actually, I do find the point relevant (which, of course, doesn't mean at all that I agree with it).
If I didn't rate the bot's judgment highly, I wouldn't care much about the PR, and wouldn't experience "considerable tension."

I agree that the point doesn't contribute to answering my question, but the point is very relevant to the importance of my question.
For example, take the following exchange:
"Do you think it's likely to rain tomorrow?"
"It doesn't matter whether it rains or not since we'll be spending the day indoors."

It seems to have the logical structure of this thread.
Would you say that the response is irrelevant because it says nothing to address the likelihood of rain?
I wouldn't.

Paul

On 4/13/2022 9:18 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> For example, take the following exchange:
> "Do you think it's likely to rain tomorrow?"
> "It doesn't matter whether it rains or not since we'll be spending the day indoors."
>
> It seems to have the logical structure of this thread.
> Would you say that the response is irrelevant because it says nothing to address the likelihood of rain?
> I wouldn't.

It seems that a better parallel would be:

"Are you good at predicting what weather.com will say about tomorrow's
weather?"
"Your mistake is taking weather.com as gospel."
"That's irrelevant; one can be good at predicting what weather.com
will say even if weather.com is terrible at predicting the weather."

---
Tim Chow

On Wednesday, April 13, 2022 at 4:40:51 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 4/13/2022 9:18 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > For example, take the following exchange:
> > "Do you think it's likely to rain tomorrow?"
> > "It doesn't matter whether it rains or not since we'll be spending the day indoors."
> >
> > It seems to have the logical structure of this thread.
> > Would you say that the response is irrelevant because it says nothing to address the likelihood of rain?
> > I wouldn't.
> It seems that a better parallel would be:
>
> "Are you good at predicting what weather.com will say about tomorrow's
> weather?"
> "Your mistake is taking weather.com as gospel."
> "That's irrelevant; one can be good at predicting what weather.com
> will say even if weather.com is terrible at predicting the weather."

It's a fair parallel.
Again, the person saying "Your mistake..." doesn't sound completely irrelevant to me.
If weather.com is terrible, then the activity of predicting what it will say lacks motive.

Again, the 2nd voice is relevant to the importance of the question, even though irrelevant to the
answer to the question.

In ordinary informal dialogue, it's fine (in my opinion) to address the importance/relevance of questions.

Paul

On Saturday, April 9, 2022 at 3:30:12 PM UTC-4, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> When I've finished a game with XG, I have a moment of considerable
> tension as I wait for its PR verdict.
> What I've found is that my guesses as to how I've played appear to
> be completely uncorrelated with the PR score. I might feel confident
> that I've made all the right plays, only to be given a PR of 24.
> Or maybe all my decisions seem dubious and I turn out to have
> played near-perfectly.
> What do others experience? Are others able to guess correctly
> how well they played?
>
> Thank You,
>
> Paul

I know how well I played. There is margin for error of course as maybe on some of those decisions I was unsure of I got lucky and guessed correctly or maybe on some of those decisions I was unsure of I guessed and even though it was wrong it didn't really matter but overall I know if I played well, average, or blah before the bot tells me anything.

Stick