Rocksolid Light

Welcome to novaBBS (click a section below)

mail  files  register  newsreader  groups  login

Message-ID:  

Your motives for doing whatever good deed you may have in mind will be misinterpreted by somebody.

interests / rec.games.backgammon / Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule

SubjectAuthor
* Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rulepeps...@gmail.com
`* Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP RuleTimothy Chow
 `* Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rulepeps...@gmail.com
  `- Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP RuleTimothy Chow

1
Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule

<591292a6-9a5f-4bac-bce1-22fbc98aa553n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=9055&group=rec.games.backgammon#9055

  copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6650:0:b0:6a3:5fb9:7ff7 with SMTP id a77-20020a376650000000b006a35fb97ff7mr10135201qkc.90.1654353466950;
Sat, 04 Jun 2022 07:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:221f:b0:32b:4696:738a with SMTP id
bd31-20020a056808221f00b0032b4696738amr8620103oib.81.1654353466746; Sat, 04
Jun 2022 07:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 07:37:46 -0700 (PDT)
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.155.59.144; posting-account=X1j9wgoAAADLt4UnZrIneT3jwl9HvLMd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.155.59.144
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <591292a6-9a5f-4bac-bce1-22fbc98aa553n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule
From: pepste...@gmail.com (peps...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2022 14:37:46 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 2897
 by: peps...@gmail.com - Sat, 4 Jun 2022 14:37 UTC

I found the below position tricky -- so tricky that I in fact got it wrong.
Here, the DMP play is completely obvious.
But should we deliberately sacrifice wins by removing four checkers
in the hope of a gammon?
I didn't think so but I was wrong.
It is very common when bearing off against contact that you
deliberately take risks and leave your position awkward in order
to bear off faster and increase your gammons.
Assuming that the DMP rule is still helpful, I think that the proviso
"when not bearing off against contact" needs to be applied.

Paul

XGID=-CACaDB--a--------bdbbab--:1:-1:1:55:1:0:3:0:10
X:Daniel O:eXtremeGammon

Score is X:1 O:0. 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 | | 2 |
| | | O | +---+
| | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | X |
| | | X X X |
| | | X X X X |
| O | | X X O X X X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 46 O: 100 X-O: 1-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 55

1. XG Roller+ 5/Off(4) eq:+1.036
Player: 93.24% (G:19.39% B:0.09%)
Opponent: 6.76% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

2. XG Roller+ 6/1(2) 5/Off(2) eq:+0.993 (-0.043)
Player: 96.10% (G:8.41% B:0.03%)
Opponent: 3.90% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

3. 1-ply 6/1 5/Off(3) eq:+0.127 (-0.909)
Player: 59.36% (G:8.28% B:0.00%)
Opponent: 40.64% (G:0.00% B:0.00%)

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10

Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule

<t7fsq0$dbq$2@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=9057&group=rec.games.backgammon#9057

  copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tchow12...@yahoo.com (Timothy Chow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 11:13:04 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 10
Message-ID: <t7fsq0$dbq$2@dont-email.me>
References: <591292a6-9a5f-4bac-bce1-22fbc98aa553n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 15:13:04 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="079b16ec9f830ae96aab5249a4d4ee04";
logging-data="13690"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18Ee0T4xbz0x5QXh9RUXTEY0S+rSq4znBQ="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:bGXGFfPY/coL7zfBfvSahQ4Secc=
In-Reply-To: <591292a6-9a5f-4bac-bce1-22fbc98aa553n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Timothy Chow - Sat, 4 Jun 2022 15:13 UTC

On 6/4/2022 10:37 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> Assuming that the DMP rule is still helpful, I think that the proviso
> "when not bearing off against contact" needs to be applied.

This is an obvious exception that goes without saying, as is
known to anyone who studies and applies Stick's DMP rule as it is
intended to be studied and applied.

---
Tim Chow

Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule

<d9970175-0abf-4517-9974-adba6d691002n@googlegroups.com>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=9060&group=rec.games.backgammon#9060

  copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:1714:b0:2f3:e638:84a1 with SMTP id h20-20020a05622a171400b002f3e63884a1mr12222506qtk.268.1654363351760;
Sat, 04 Jun 2022 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:33cf:b0:5af:4018:fc2a with SMTP id
q15-20020a05683033cf00b005af4018fc2amr6590113ott.161.1654363351526; Sat, 04
Jun 2022 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feed1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!peer03.iad!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!news-out.google.com!nntp.google.com!postnews.google.com!google-groups.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2022 10:22:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <t7fsq0$dbq$2@dont-email.me>
Injection-Info: google-groups.googlegroups.com; posting-host=217.155.59.144; posting-account=X1j9wgoAAADLt4UnZrIneT3jwl9HvLMd
NNTP-Posting-Host: 217.155.59.144
References: <591292a6-9a5f-4bac-bce1-22fbc98aa553n@googlegroups.com> <t7fsq0$dbq$2@dont-email.me>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <d9970175-0abf-4517-9974-adba6d691002n@googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule
From: pepste...@gmail.com (peps...@gmail.com)
Injection-Date: Sat, 04 Jun 2022 17:22:31 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
X-Received-Bytes: 1805
 by: peps...@gmail.com - Sat, 4 Jun 2022 17:22 UTC

On Saturday, June 4, 2022 at 4:13:06 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 6/4/2022 10:37 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Assuming that the DMP rule is still helpful, I think that the proviso
> > "when not bearing off against contact" needs to be applied.
> This is an obvious exception that goes without saying, as is
> known to anyone who studies and applies Stick's DMP rule as it is
> intended to be studied and applied.
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Perhaps it might be hard to tell, once you've seen the answer.
But do you think you would correctly make the greedy play or would you make the same mistake I did?

Paul

Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule

<t7i4m2$qth$1@dont-email.me>

  copy mid

https://www.novabbs.com/interests/article-flat.php?id=9062&group=rec.games.backgammon#9062

  copy link   Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Path: i2pn2.org!i2pn.org!eternal-september.org!reader02.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: tchow12...@yahoo.com (Timothy Chow)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Position from the Campaign for the Rewording of the DMP Rule
Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2022 07:39:45 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 11
Message-ID: <t7i4m2$qth$1@dont-email.me>
References: <591292a6-9a5f-4bac-bce1-22fbc98aa553n@googlegroups.com>
<t7fsq0$dbq$2@dont-email.me>
<d9970175-0abf-4517-9974-adba6d691002n@googlegroups.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2022 11:39:46 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: reader02.eternal-september.org; posting-host="0712244c51c9a65e97c51fa0d07a5f44";
logging-data="27569"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+1vHxtNvUl44PQHeYnUs/s+ARGd/wJiro="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.9.1
Cancel-Lock: sha1:OdincMaTGgDk/vTPbZeP+ukNSKY=
In-Reply-To: <d9970175-0abf-4517-9974-adba6d691002n@googlegroups.com>
Content-Language: en-US
 by: Timothy Chow - Sun, 5 Jun 2022 11:39 UTC

On 6/4/2022 1:22 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> Perhaps it might be hard to tell, once you've seen the answer.
> But do you think you would correctly make the greedy play or would you make the same mistake I did?

I think I would have made the greedy play. I would have seen
that the greedy play would get me off in roughly five more rolls
and so the gammon race was close. Based on experience, I would
have figured that going for the gammon was indicated.

---
Tim Chow

1
server_pubkey.txt

rocksolid light 0.9.8
clearnet tor