| 1. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 2/1 | eq: -0.052 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 46.33% (G:2.24% B:0.04%)
53.67% (G:15.75% B:0.99%) | |
|
| 2. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 3/2 | eq: -0.130 (-0.078) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 42.61% (G:1.69% B:0.02%)
57.39% (G:15.31% B:0.99%) | |
|
| 3. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 4/3 | eq: -0.214 (-0.163) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 39.70% (G:1.33% B:0.02%)
60.30% (G:15.79% B:1.06%) | |
|
| 4. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 5/4 | eq: -0.231 (-0.179) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 39.46% (G:1.24% B:0.02%)
60.54% (G:16.73% B:1.25%) | |
|
| 5. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 6/5 | eq: -0.248 (-0.196) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 39.62% (G:1.42% B:0.02%)
60.38% (G:17.66% B:1.21%) | |
|
The above position was posed here by Jeremy Bagai. Nobody has posted a rollout for it (as far as I know), but given that the top move is a blowout, I'm settling for the XGR++ evaluation. The best 4 is (obviously) 24/20, and the respondents (whether by QF-deduction or other means) all correctly guessed the best ace.
[The ranking of plays in the above position and in the variant positions of this post are the same whether the score is unlimited/money or at the originally suggested –3–5 score.]
For a contrast to Jeremy’s position, I posed a couple of positions here. Rollouts for those two positions appear below (side-by-side if you widen your window or zoom out).
In the above position, the lower that Blue breaks his board, the better. For the ace destination, the 1pt beats the 2pt, which beats the 3pt, which beats the 4pt, which beats the 5pt.
In the two positions below, the ace ranking is exactly the opposite: the higher the inside point that Blue breaks with his ace, the better.
Scroll down for further discussion and more positions.
| 1. | Rollout1 | 24/20 6/5 | eq: -0.261 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 38.21% (G:7.22% B:0.05%)
61.79% (G:21.46% B:1.94%) | Conf.: ± 0.002 (-0.263...-0.259) - [100.0%]
Duration: 1 hour 02 minutes |
|
| 2. | Rollout1 | 24/20 5/4 | eq: -0.274 (-0.013) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 37.70% (G:6.98% B:0.07%)
62.30% (G:22.28% B:2.01%) | Conf.: ± 0.002 (-0.276...-0.272) - [0.0%]
Duration: 1 hour 06 minutes |
|
| 3. | Rollout2 | 24/20 4/3 | eq: -0.298 (-0.037) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 36.92% (G:6.44% B:0.06%)
63.08% (G:22.28% B:1.97%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.302...-0.295) - [0.0%]
Duration: 28 minutes 34 seconds |
|
| 4. | Rollout2 | 24/20 3/2 | eq: -0.309 (-0.047) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 36.65% (G:6.07% B:0.05%)
63.35% (G:22.54% B:2.00%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.312...-0.305) - [0.0%]
Duration: 28 minutes 36 seconds |
|
| 5. | Rollout2 | 24/20 2/1 | eq: -0.314 (-0.053) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 36.45% (G:6.39% B:0.08%)
63.55% (G:23.26% B:2.11%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.318...-0.310) - [0.0%]
Duration: 29 minutes 27 seconds |
|
| |
1 20736 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 85570326
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
2 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 85570326
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
| 1. | Rollout1 | 24/18 6/5 | eq: -0.196 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 40.20% (G:7.62% B:0.05%)
59.80% (G:21.15% B:1.97%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.199...-0.192) - [100.0%]
Duration: 25 minutes 52 seconds |
|
| 2. | Rollout1 | 24/18 5/4 | eq: -0.241 (-0.045) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 38.84% (G:6.54% B:0.07%)
61.16% (G:21.19% B:1.83%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.245...-0.237) - [0.0%]
Duration: 29 minutes 13 seconds |
|
| 3. | Rollout1 | 24/18 4/3 | eq: -0.246 (-0.050) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 38.62% (G:6.16% B:0.05%)
61.38% (G:21.28% B:1.80%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.249...-0.242) - [0.0%]
Duration: 30 minutes 38 seconds |
|
| 4. | Rollout1 | 24/18 3/2 | eq: -0.262 (-0.067) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 38.57% (G:6.39% B:0.06%)
61.43% (G:22.77% B:2.15%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.266...-0.258) - [0.0%]
Duration: 30 minutes 41 seconds |
|
| 5. | Rollout1 | 24/18 2/1 | eq: -0.275 (-0.080) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 37.98% (G:6.58% B:0.07%)
62.02% (G:23.20% B:2.13%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.279...-0.271) - [0.0%]
Duration: 30 minutes 26 seconds |
|
| |
1 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 43835611
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
Stick weighed in: I thought we always played 6/5 in these cases unless the opponent could come in and crack himself by breaking lower in my board. This is the right idea. It helps explain why 2/1 is best in Jeremy’s position, and why 6/5 is best in my two variant positions immediately above.
However, I'd like to expand on that. It can be right to play 2/1 even when the opponent has enough spares that he is unlikely to break more points in his board any time soon. The more outfield control that Blue has, the more reasonable it is to play 2/1.
The two (side-by-side) positions below are cusps, where 2/1 and 6/5 are TIED. (The 41 cusp is just one pip different from the 61 cusp.) Like the two variants above, White still has several spares to play before her board breaks down, but she has lost her 11pt and along with that the outfield control and threats that her three extra (owned or eyed) points afforded her. White’s loss is Blue’s gain; he (Blue) can operate more freely.
As stated earlier, the ranking of the inside-point destinations in each of the three positions above is in either perfect ascending (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) or descending (5, 4, 3, 2, 1) order. By contrast, in the cusp positions (below), 5 and 1 are both standout choices compared to 2, 3 and 4.
In other words, in the cusp positions, you are sort of on the spot to choose a game plan. Breaking inside to a middle point is neither fish nor fowl.
Nack
| 1. | Rollout1 | 24/20 2/1 | eq: -0.194 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 40.61% (G:3.25% B:0.05%)
59.39% (G:18.61% B:1.60%) | Conf.: ± 0.002 (-0.196...-0.191) - [89.1%]
Duration: 1 hour 39 minutes |
|
| 2. | Rollout1 | 24/20 6/5 | eq: -0.195 (-0.002) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 40.41% (G:3.34% B:0.03%)
59.59% (G:17.41% B:1.49%) | Conf.: ± 0.002 (-0.197...-0.193) - [10.9%]
Duration: 1 hour 23 minutes |
|
| 3. | Rollout2 | 24/20 5/4 | eq: -0.228 (-0.035) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 39.17% (G:2.86% B:0.04%)
60.83% (G:18.10% B:1.64%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.232...-0.225) - [0.0%]
Duration: 19 minutes 37 seconds |
|
| 4. | Rollout2 | 24/20 4/3 | eq: -0.233 (-0.040) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 38.82% (G:2.84% B:0.03%)
61.18% (G:17.97% B:1.55%) | Conf.: ± 0.003 (-0.237...-0.230) - [0.0%]
Duration: 19 minutes 50 seconds |
|
| 5. | Rollout2 | 24/20 3/2 | eq: -0.246 (-0.053) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 38.68% (G:2.48% B:0.03%)
61.32% (G:18.75% B:1.66%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.250...-0.243) - [0.0%]
Duration: 20 minutes 51 seconds |
|
| |
1 20736 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 43835611
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
2 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 85570326
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
| 1. | Rollout1 | 24/18 6/5 | eq: -0.124 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 42.82% (G:3.45% B:0.03%)
57.18% (G:16.29% B:1.35%) | Conf.: ± 0.002 (-0.126...-0.122) - [99.7%]
Duration: 1 hour 05 minutes |
|
| 2. | Rollout1 | 24/18 2/1 | eq: -0.128 (-0.004) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 42.41% (G:3.05% B:0.04%)
57.59% (G:16.90% B:1.30%) | Conf.: ± 0.002 (-0.130...-0.126) - [0.3%]
Duration: 1 hour 15 minutes |
|
| 3. | Rollout2 | 24/18 3/2 | eq: -0.175 (-0.051) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 41.03% (G:2.64% B:0.03%)
58.97% (G:17.55% B:1.45%) | Conf.: ± 0.003 (-0.179...-0.172) - [0.0%]
Duration: 11 minutes 59 seconds |
|
| 4. | Rollout2 | 24/18 4/3 | eq: -0.178 (-0.054) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 40.47% (G:2.66% B:0.03%)
59.53% (G:16.60% B:1.30%) | Conf.: ± 0.003 (-0.181...-0.175) - [0.0%]
Duration: 11 minutes 34 seconds |
|
| 5. | Rollout2 | 24/18 5/4 | eq: -0.189 (-0.065) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 40.33% (G:2.63% B:0.03%)
59.66% (G:16.74% B:1.30%) | Conf.: ± 0.004 (-0.193...-0.186) - [0.0%]
Duration: 11 minutes 08 seconds |
|
| |
1 20736 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 85570326
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
2 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 70757351
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
|
