| |
BGonline.org Forums
Disagree with Stick's Book Review
Posted By: Tom Keith In Response To: Disagree with Stick's Book Review (Daniel Murphy)
Date: Sunday, 12 December 2010, at 2:37 p.m.
I think most everyone here will agree that not counting forced moves is better than counting them.
This statement may be correct, but I believe it is better to count all moves, not just unforced moves. Here's why.
(1) The definition of "forced" is arbitrary. For example, any human player would say that the play of an opening 3-1 is "forced". (What other possible play could you make?) But computers don't count an opening 3-1 as forced because there are other legal plays.
(2) It is conceivable that a player choosing between two lines of play might choose the play that gives easier follow-up plays for himself and harder follow-up plays for his opponent. If he is right, and the opponent does make more errors, then the player should get credit for choosing that line of play.
(3) Suppose Player A gets hit and stays on the bar for several rolls. After being hit, all his moves are easy (he's on the bar). But Player B has easy moves too; he just has to bring his checkers around and make a prime. The two players are not treated equally. Player B gets credit for making his easy moves but Player A doesn't.
Some people might think -- it's Player A's fault for getting hit. But ER is not a measure of "result"; it's a measure of how well you play. Getting hit is not necessarily a sign of bad play; more likely, it's a sign of bad luck.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.