| |
BGonline.org Forums
related question-more specific to backgammon
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: related question-more specific to backgammon (phil simborg)
Date: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, at 3:21 p.m.
Phil Simborg wrote:
Put another way, it is easier for humans to find the best play out of several good alternatives than to find the least worst play from several alternatives that all look bad.
I am not sure that my experience agrees with yours, but let's assume that you are correct. My guess is that a large part of the difference comes from the fact that these types of positions are very different. More specifically, in what kinds of positions can you be losing badly yet have numerous options? When I think "losing badly" I tend to think "closed out" or "two rolls behind in a straight race," but these don't have numerous options where I can fail to spot a play that is 0.100 better. For me to be losing yet have significant options, I think it needs to be a position in which some bold play is available that gains a lot when it works but looks risky; e.g., bold slotting plays in a priming game, risky-looking loose hits, or plopping down blots in front of your opponent's checkers to maximize contact. These can be tough to see, perhaps because of the hyperbolic discounting effect.
Being ahead and having lots of options puts us into a different category of positions. Blitzing positions come to mind. This is where my experience may differ from yours because I think that many players will frequently overlook the best play in blitzes. They won't go for the attack aggressively enough, feeling that their position is "good enough" already. But I could imagine it being the case that it's easier to overlook the best play in (say) priming games than in blitzes, and that might go a long way towards explaining your observation.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.