I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology,
and that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally speaking)
incorrect by more than one category.
What do I mean? In money play, we can categorize positions from weakest
to strongest, in terms of cube actions as:
ND/Beaver, ND/T, D/T, D/P, TG.
Ignoring the Kauder paradox, these grossly incorrect actions I'd like a term
to define, are those that imply that the ranking of the position is more than
1 different from what it is. So these errors are:
Doubling when the opponent should beaver.
Holding when the opponent should pass and the holder is clearly not TG (some ambiguity here, admittedly).
Evaluating the position as TG when the opponent has a take.
Taking when the position when was actually TG for the doubler.
Dropping when the position was either ND/T or ND/Beaver for the doubler.

Can anyone suggest a name for such errors?
How about calling such errors a "cat" as short for category error?
This follows in the tradition of using animals such as beavers and raccoons
to describe cube actions.
This is different to the concept of double whopper/ tripple whopper etc.
For example, dropping a cube that's a very easy take but still a correct double is
not an error of the type described above.

Thank You,

Paul

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:31:14 AM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology,
> and that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally speaking)
> incorrect by more than one category.
> What do I mean? In money play, we can categorize positions from weakest
> to strongest, in terms of cube actions as:
> ND/Beaver, ND/T, D/T, D/P, TG.
> Ignoring the Kauder paradox, these grossly incorrect actions I'd like a term
> to define, are those that imply that the ranking of the position is more than
> 1 different from what it is. So these errors are:
> Doubling when the opponent should beaver.
> Holding when the opponent should pass and the holder is clearly not TG (some ambiguity here, admittedly).
> Evaluating the position as TG when the opponent has a take.
> Taking when the position when was actually TG for the doubler.
> Dropping when the position was either ND/T or ND/Beaver for the doubler.
>
> Can anyone suggest a name for such errors?
> How about calling such errors a "cat" as short for category error?
> This follows in the tradition of using animals such as beavers and raccoons
> to describe cube actions.
> This is different to the concept of double whopper/ tripple whopper etc.
> For example, dropping a cube that's a very easy take but still a correct double is
> not an error of the type described above.
>
> Thank You,
>
> Paul

I missed out beavering a drop -- that also fits my definition.
But hopefully my point is clear enough.

Paul

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:54:35 AM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 9:31:14 AM UTC+1, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology,
> > and that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally speaking)
> > incorrect by more than one category.
> > What do I mean? In money play, we can categorize positions from weakest
> > to strongest, in terms of cube actions as:
> > ND/Beaver, ND/T, D/T, D/P, TG.
> > Ignoring the Kauder paradox, these grossly incorrect actions I'd like a term
> > to define, are those that imply that the ranking of the position is more than
> > 1 different from what it is. So these errors are:
> > Doubling when the opponent should beaver.
> > Holding when the opponent should pass and the holder is clearly not TG (some ambiguity here, admittedly).
> > Evaluating the position as TG when the opponent has a take.
> > Taking when the position when was actually TG for the doubler.
> > Dropping when the position was either ND/T or ND/Beaver for the doubler.
> >
> > Can anyone suggest a name for such errors?
> > How about calling such errors a "cat" as short for category error?
> > This follows in the tradition of using animals such as beavers and raccoons
> > to describe cube actions.
> > This is different to the concept of double whopper/ tripple whopper etc.
> > For example, dropping a cube that's a very easy take but still a correct double is
> > not an error of the type described above.
> >
> > Thank You,
> >
> > Paul
> I missed out beavering a drop -- that also fits my definition.
> But hopefully my point is clear enough.
>
> Paul

Actually, (ignoring the possibility of Kauder paradox positions for the sake of simplicity),
beavering anything that isn't either ND/Beaver or ND/T is a category error by my definition.

Paul

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

> I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology, and
> that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally
> speaking) incorrect by more than one category.

[...]

> How about calling such errors a "cat" as short for category error?
> This follows in the tradition of using animals such as beavers and
> raccoons to describe cube actions.

Why do you think this term would be a useful addition? Making a "cat"
mistake might not be a "fat" (i.e., whopper-sized or larger) mistake,
whereas making a non-cat mistake might be fat. I do not see the
benefit. Could you please elaborate? (I do like jargon, and I do like
your specific proposal.)

Best regards

Axel

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 10:51:44 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> "peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology, and
> > that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally
> > speaking) incorrect by more than one category.
> [...]
> > How about calling such errors a "cat" as short for category error?
> > This follows in the tradition of using animals such as beavers and
> > raccoons to describe cube actions.
> Why do you think this term would be a useful addition? Making a "cat"
> mistake might not be a "fat" (i.e., whopper-sized or larger) mistake,
> whereas making a non-cat mistake might be fat. I do not see the
> benefit. Could you please elaborate? (I do like jargon, and I do like
> your specific proposal.)
>
> Best regards
>
> Axel

It's absolutely true that these category errors might be smaller than non-category errors.
Although I'm sure you'd find a strong correlation between the size of a cube error and
the binary outcome of whether the error is a category error or not.

It's a great idea (of mine) because it codifies something by giving it a clear term, that people
want to talk about anyway.
"You dropped that?? It wasn't even a double!"
"You beavered that?? The double was absolutely correct!"
"You're playing on for the gammon here?? Your opponent actually has a take!"
"You doubled that?? Your opponent should have beavered!"
"You took that?? Your opponent was actually too good to double!"
"You're not doubling here?? You're obviously not TG, and your opponent should actually pass!"

My (ingenious) idea neatly places all the above six conceptually similar scenarios under one umbrella term!

Paul

On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology,
> and that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally speaking)
> incorrect by more than one category.

Interesting idea. I don't think that "category error" is the
right term, though. A "category error" would be something like
applying Stick's DMP rule to a cube action.

How about calling it a "double double" error?

---
Tim Chow

"peps...@gmail.com" <pepstein5@gmail.com> writes:

> I'm sure you'd find a strong correlation between the size of a cube
> error and the binary outcome of whether the error is a category error
> or not.

Agreed, of course.

> "You dropped that?? It wasn't even a double!"
> "You beavered that?? The double was absolutely correct!"
> "You're playing on for the gammon here?? Your opponent actually has a take!"
> "You doubled that?? Your opponent should have beavered!"
> "You took that?? Your opponent was actually too good to double!"
> "You're not doubling here?? You're obviously not TG, and your opponent
> should actually pass!"

Thanks for this vivid description of realistic scenarios. I adopt your
"cat". (-:

Best regards

Axel

On 8/28/2022 8:22 AM, I wrote:
> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology,
>> and that a term might be missing for a cube action which is
>> (informally speaking)
>> incorrect by more than one category.
>
> Interesting idea.  I don't think that "category error" is the
> right term, though.  A "category error" would be something like
> applying Stick's DMP rule to a cube action.
>
> How about calling it a "double double" error?

This didn't occur to me when I made the above post, but if the error
is with the person on the taking side, then you can call it a
"double take" error.

It's kind of fun that both "double double" and "double take" have
meanings in other contexts.

---
Tim Chow

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 1:22:40 PM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> > I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology,
> > and that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally speaking)
> > incorrect by more than one category.
> Interesting idea. I don't think that "category error" is the
> right term, though. A "category error" would be something like
> applying Stick's DMP rule to a cube action.
>
> How about calling it a "double double" error?
>
> ---
> Tim Chow
Four syllables is rather long, if we're striving for a term to catch on.
With regard to what you say later in this thread, my whole aim is to
make one umbrella term which includes a wide range of scenarios
which can encompass both taking and passing.
So using two phrases "double double" and "double take" goes against
the grain.
How about "air shot"? As I understand it, an air shot in a racket sport or
golf means a player's shot/swing is so bad that they completely miss the ball.
This seems somewhat analogous to my examples. It's an error so bad that
it goes against normal boundaries -- it's normal to pass a take but abnormal
to pass something so weak that it's not technically a double.
Air shots are not normal among good players in tennis, but they do happen.
Arnaud Clement did one on his serve, and he was a successful and famous pro.
A problem with this, though is that "air shot" suggests checker play rather than cube action.
I think we need a term, anyway, even if we haven't hit on one yet.
BTW, there's a further analogy in that, as in tennis or golf, an air shot isn't necessarily the worst type of error.
For example, if you do one on your first serve, you haven't lost the point.
[But you do lose your serve and have to do a second service. The reason is that you have
attempted to hit the ball, so this is treated differently to a bad ball toss.]

Paul

Timothy Chow <tchow12000@yahoo.com> writes:

> On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
>> I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology, and
>> that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally
>> speaking) incorrect by more than one category.
>
> Interesting idea. I don't think that "category error" is the
> right term, though. A "category error" would be something like
> applying Stick's DMP rule to a cube action.

Well, in a sense, you are pondering the wrong question, if you beaver
instead of passing: Because you think the answer to "take or pass?" is
obvious, you dismiss it as irrelevant and instead focus on the wrong
question, "who is favourite?", which you even answer in the wrong. So with
some good will, a different question can be thought of as category.

But what about "hypercube error"? "hyper" sounds big, which it often
will be, and also hints (mathematically) at a higher dimension.

Best regards

Axel

On Sunday, August 28, 2022 at 3:43:31 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
> Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> > On 8/28/2022 4:31 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> I think there may be a gap in standard backgammon terminology, and
> >> that a term might be missing for a cube action which is (informally
> >> speaking) incorrect by more than one category.
> >
> > Interesting idea. I don't think that "category error" is the
> > right term, though. A "category error" would be something like
> > applying Stick's DMP rule to a cube action.
> Well, in a sense, you are pondering the wrong question, if you beaver
> instead of passing: Because you think the answer to "take or pass?" is
> obvious, you dismiss it as irrelevant and instead focus on the wrong
> question, "who is favourite?", which you even answer in the wrong. So with
> some good will, a different question can be thought of as category.
>
> But what about "hypercube error"? "hyper" sounds big, which it often
> will be, and also hints (mathematically) at a higher dimension.
>
> Best regards
>
> Axel

Ok, I'm happy with this. But if we want the term to really catch on, we'll
need to make it very short in terms of syllables. So "hypercube error" in full but,
in ordinary speech, we abbreviate this to "hyper"?
"I'm not sure that she's such a good player. I thought she made a few hypers.
She passed a cube which wasn't even a double in one game. And I saw another
game where she didn't double in a race despite leading by 15%. Obvious hyper if she'd
bothered to count."

Paul