| |
BGonline.org Forums
SLY'S INSIGHTS: Response to Giants Survey
Posted By: Phil Simborg
Date: Thursday, 12 January 2012, at 3:47 p.m.
I did the "how do you stack up" quiz.....my only comment is..."seriously?" Very easy positions... If people are getting these problems wrong, then i have to believe its a symptom of "tunnel vision"....players only looking at checker play, or the cube position, or the match score...and NOT all the elements as they relate to each other in a given position. In my relatively short term back playing, i've noticed this frequently! When players are making errors, its usually due to this...and i mean so-called GOOD players...Could it be that the bot era has produced a generation of lazy, data-overloaded. drones only looking for themes and not the thinkers of the past?
True, the really top players still look to see why a play is right, but i tend to doubt that this tool (and yes, the bot is only a tool...not god), is used without repercusssions...many players tire of truly understanding a position and merely look at the bot's roll-out answer and mentally record a trend or pattern...
My conclusion after 90 days back playing is this...the bot gives excellent data, but its inherent flaw is that the results are there without the player having ever had to WORK for them and thus many players have become lazy, pattern reactive checker pushers, and much of the deeper thought that is necessary to catch the "quiz" positions(as stick calls them...) has been lost...
I recall watching a $25 chouette you were in at the tuesday night club, perhaps you remember the occasion- i believe it was in late october....5 players, good ones,-yourself, carter, dave rockwell, taki, and yamin yamin...on consecutive plays a checker play was botched(due to the cube position relavence...) and then a redouble was missed(due to hasty checker pattern recognition..." oh let's clear and then double...")...no deeper analysis was given as to potential market losers, the effect on the position of less than average rolls, or the opponents ability to handle the position's complexities....just 4 team members...(who were all paying attention!)...siting generalizing themes without any of them truly understanding the position....so sad, and i believe a result of X-gammon's lazy inducing influence...
Why do i ramble about this...hopefully, you will teach your students HOW to use this TOOL(the bot) to its full potential...First , and foremost, show how to use the bot by analyaing a position and them re-analyzing the position after shifting a checker or a point a bit, This "exercise" is best in deepening one's understanding of a position....Secondly, teach your students HOW to interpret the data...when an equity is spit out by the bot it usually comes with a win/loss %, and a gammon win/loss %...these are EXTREMELY relative in match play! Knowing your opponent, his ability to handle different types of positions, and his inherent "fear-factor" of gammons will easily justify the so called "error" the bot claims you've made...(i happily give up .5 % bot claimed match equity, to create positions my opponent may have less understanding of and make greater errors in return,,,particularly cube errrors where the recipricating errors in a position can be easily 3-5 %!)...Truly now, when a bot spits out this play results in .816 equity, and this play yields only .778 equity how many of your student know WHY this is so? How many of your students then take the time to see that play a, while winning far more games, doesn't win nearly as many gammons-and thus, may play out very differently over-the-board against various opponents?
Feel free to reprint, re-send, or quote this ramble....i feel it's good for the game....
And my response to Sly:
Dear Sly:
Thank you for this. The truth is THIS IS EXACTLY how we teach. We always stress that “why” something is right is what matters, not “what” is right. But you are very correct that the bots tend to make us lazy precisely because we don’t have to work for the answer, as you said.
The main reason that the four of us in the chou, and the giants who missed these problems, miss plays is fundamentally simple: we’re not that good!
Now, why we aren’t that good is, in my opinion, not JUST because of lack of learning technique, though that must surely be a part of it, but even with the correct approach, not everyone has put in the 10,000 hours necessary to become great, the discipline to apply their knowledge over the board (there is still a disconnect between knowledge and skill), and possibly, the other talents it takes to be great (analytical skills, ability to access long-term memory, gaming skills, emotional ability to focus and do the right things).
When you have time, I will show you ANY ONE of our lesson plans on ANY TOPIC and you will see that they all focus on finding the reasoning and causes behind our checker and cube decisions. We do move checkers are and vary the position and play them out to see what happens if you do A or B and ALL of the things you suggest. And, by the way, ALL of our students improve significantly and many have gone from beginner to Open or intermediate to Open level within 1-2 years of starting with us. That leap from Open to Giant, however, is quite a different animal.
You are one of the people that helped take me from the intermediate to Open level, but I have been reaching for the next level for 15 years and that last step is a huge one.
So while I agree with you completely, you may be over-simplifying the reasons that we are not closer to perfect players.
I will post and publicize and share your response because I agree that people need to hear this.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.