On April 19, 2022 at 1:47:51 PM UTC-6, Axel Reichert wrote:

> MK <mu...@compuplus.net> writes:
>> double/drop positions can occur as early as right after the 2nd move

> Yes. 52 split, 55 double hit, dance, double, pass.

Very happy to see you back Axel. :) Are you reincarnated
as a frog or a turtle..? ;)

Let me make a few side remarks before getting back into
the subject. I like: 1) that you use Gnubg rather than XG in
your posts, 2) that you write long, detailed posts, 3) that
you make efforts to support your arguments with more than
authoritative assertions (without taking advantage of any of
your other unrelated/unearned credibility, as some other hot
air ballons often do here), 4) that you don't let my "style" turn
you off from my "substance", 5) that you sometimes reformat
the lines you quote, like I often do, etc.

Of course, I would like to be able to respect some people
here and be respected back. Of course, I would like to win
over some people with my arguments and get their support
for my "causes". But I hope you can understand that I don't
want to form "alliances requiring mutual ass-kissing", etc.

As I had said before, I know I can never convince the "flock"
here but you may be able to convince a few who are at least
speaking the same language as you. So, I want to try to win
you over and "utilise" you fairly to convince others indirectly.
I think I have some chance of succeeding with you however
small the odds may be because at least on occasion I feel
that you have some integrity and are relatively candid and
open minded. To that end, I will make effort to explain my
points and understand your points as best as I can.

>> The effect of such super early drops is like the fuse fizzling
>> out before reaching the cap and the explosive never explodes.

> I do not figure that many explosions. Most of these blitzes
> will just end in gammons, with the occasional lucky late hit
> by the dancer. Not terribly exciting checker play.

I don't mind talking about many sub-topic at once but let's
try to segregate related arguments at least a little.

Let's first talk about the above example sequence in terms
of my interest in "positions".

The dancing 3rd roll is a loop edge that doesn't link to another
vertex, i.e. the position doesn't change. So, the 4th roll will be
the one that will result in one of the however many legally
possible 3rd-tier positions.

All those positions, qualifying as very early positions, they will
occur in backgammon much more frequently than mid-game
positions. But in gamblegammon, they will never occur since
the game will be over before the 3rd roll.

Out of the supposedly recorded 100,000,000 game, if we take
10,000,000 backgammon and 10,000,000 gamblegammon
games, we may be looking at 100,000,000 positions in each
set. This assuming round numbers of 20 moves per game
resulting in 10 different positions, after excluding dancing
moves, more than one move ending in the same position, etc.

If we generate "spectrum charts" from those two sets of
positions, I propose that we will be able tell which one came
from backgammon and which one came from gamblegammon
because of a multitude of very strong "markers" such as in
the above example.

I won't dispute your saying that "Most of these blitzes will just
end in gammons, with the occasional lucky late hit by the dancer"
but you need to also realize that the blitz arose out of a lucky
double hit to begin with!

In backgammon, the dancer has a least some chance of winning
while in gamblegammon it's over.

So, what happened in gamblegammon is that the cube magnified
the luck so much that it instantly ended the game right there!

I'm going to keep trying at making you acknowledge that the cube
magnifies luck. So now, let me ask this question for the first time:
do you agree that the cube magnifies luck (at times drastically as
in this example)? Yes or no?

Another thing I'm going to keep trying at making you acknowledge
is that the cube shortens games. (I'm not talking about matches.)
Again, let me ask this question for the first time also: do you agree
that the cube shortens games? Yes or no?

The next question is very easy, almost rhetorical: do you agree that
longer games favor skill? Yes or no?

If you have any doubts about this, you can look at the FIBS rating
formula (which I called a horse fart from the beginning, because
of the arbitrarily inserted constants in it). There you will see that
the match length is one of the variables in it. By simple logic, the
same applies to game length.

Finally on this section, checker play following a opening double
hit may not be terribly exciting to gamblers but it's part of the
character of backgammon, having a chance at winning until the
last roll is indeed what makes backgammon fun and exciting to
people like me. From my angle, I don't what can be so exciting
about winning a game on the second roll due to pure luck? It's
a fizzled out fuze... Pffftt... :(

>> Similarly, bear-off positions will be clipped off from the tail end.
>> In fact, we may almost never get to see quite a few final positions.

> Yes. While using the cube to double your opponent out in a race
> will cut the tree, it will in my opinion even more efficiently cut
> down the luck involved. Take this position:

This false argument never stops to fascinate me every time I hear
it, expecially mathematicians.

In order for the cube to cut down the luck by doubling out the
opponent, in a race or not, the player with access to the cube
has to get lucky first! :)

> GNU Backgammon Position ID: 4HPMBwDgewcHAA
> .....
> This is double, pass. Without the cube, would you expect any
> interesting MOVES? Rather than exciting ROLLS? I would not.

Again, what is so interesting about a double/drop purely due to
an unlucky/lucky sequence of just two dice roll..? I don't get it. :(

> I played this to conclusion, squandered a whopping 0.001 of
> equity in the process and lost due to GNU Backgammon rolling
> two 66s.

How is rolling two 66s later in the game is less exciting than a
55 on the second roll? The excitement is not in how likely it is
to happen but in the possibility and anticipation of it happening.

> Another try, I lost 0.002 by non-optimal play and won easily.
> Every single roll in this second (boring) game involved more
> luck or bad luck than this total equity loss, see

Would you ever consider that it may have been boring for you
because you are trying to play like the bot? Think os it as you
trying to ride your bike on train tracks... Do you realize that the
equities you are talking about are calculated by the bot, based
on some Jackoff-ski cube skill formulas? You will never beat
the train by following its tracks.

Now, since you mentioned the word, let's talk about "optimal",
(or "best", "perfect", etc.) play a little. The measuring sticks for
"optimal" are the super-human bots. Actually any bot would do
to use as a 100% consistent unit of measuring. Since the most
important thing is the consistency, then you probably need the
same bot playing against itself. That's why I rebuked you so
harshly about your example of possible distribution of plays
for a 43 roll, while talking about Markov chains, etc.

To revisit the sub-topic and further clarify, at the link you gave:

https://www.bkgm.com/openings.html#opening52

Only the first ranked 15 plays for the 15 possible dice rolls
would ever occur in bot-vs-bot play, resulting in only 15
different positions.

Just to earn some respect and credibility ;) let me use the
occasion to perfect the argument.

Theorically, a position said impossible to occur during the
first few rolls can actually occur after the game "recycles",
i.e. returns to the initial position, but only human-vs-human
games. Take a look at this:

https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+1530

His first two solutions would never happen in bot-vs-bot play,
since the bot wouldn't make the moves that he suggests,
regardless of whether the bot goes first or second.

His third solution actually belongs to me, 14 years before him:

https://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+68

Let him take the credit, no big deal. What may matter though
is that, in addition to his and my clarifying that this solution
is only possible in backgammon allowing opening double,
but not in gamblegammon, when I had posted my solution
in RGB, I had also explained that this solution would be legal
in gamblegammon also if and after the game "recycles" to
the opening position in 5 moves first. I was ahead of him
and his ilks back then and I still am... :)

>> 3- Three-point wins.
>> This shortens the game with or without the cube. It prevents
>> one from getting his second wind and enjoy a last chance
>> comeback.

> Roughly the same as the races. Yes, it is exciting to win a
> "coup classique", but apart from some tough containment
> position I think this is mostly luck as well.

This is not about "coup classique" at all. That belongs to
gamblegammon. Pay attention.

I had said that in backgammon, the entire game will enfold
differently, throughout the game, from the beginning to the
end, simply because you don't worry about losing 3-points.

And as far as losing a 2-point games, it doesn't matter if
you have all your pieces in your home board but haven't
borne off any, or if you have all your 15 pieces still in your
opponents home board. Make an effort to understand the
difference and think how you would play differently then.

Anyone who hasn't learned backgammon first and came
to enjoy it for what it is, before becoming exposed to and
infected by gamblegammon, can never know nor even
imagine what they have missed... :(

> So yes, you are right, these rules cut the tree and decrease
> the branching factor (but see Tim's counterargument),

"Tim's counterargument"? What counterargument?? He
had none. If you think he did, can you explain to me also?

> but in my opinion the cube is a good thing to, surprise,
> REDUCE the gambling factor in backgammon.

When I hear this, I'm lost for words but I will try to keep hope
for as long as I can and I won't consider my efforts wasted
if you only promise me that you will also make some effort
to try to understand my arguments.

> The branching factor is not everything, ..... This is of course
> a matter of game design and also taste.

I agree completely. What's exciting is subjective. I'm finally
coming to a compromise in my mind that I would be happy
enough if gamblers quit referring to their gamblegammon
as backgammon and acknowledge the huge, huge, huge
differences between the two games.

After that, I think I could manage to discuss the cube-skill
bullshit, etc. politely ;) without being agressive/defensive
because of feeling resentment...

I have to admit, I really enjoyed trying to read up about
Markov chains and discrete maths graphs, etc. learning
new things even though a real world-class human can
beat the heat out of the current bots (bot wanna-be's)
without all that elaborate fantesizing...

Okay, I'm really tired and don't want to overdo it. Feel
free to break up the discussion into sub-topics within
this thread or new threads.

MK