| |
BGonline.org Forums
Opening 32Z: reply errors
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Opening 32Z: reply errors (Timothy Chow)
Date: Sunday, 3 January 2010, at 10:22 p.m.
The point is that it's totally unclear whether 32S would end up with higher equity if I and my opponent were to play 46k games with each other. One can't just blithely assume that if my opponent and I are roughly equal then the equities will be the same as with bot-vs-bot. Snowie is roughly equal to itself and GNU is roughly equal to itself; does that mean that Snowie-vs-Snowie and GNU-vs-GNU equities can be assumed to be equal to each other?
No, it doesn't mean that, but if one were to break the two plays down by reply error (as David did for 63R at GS), I believe one could have a pretty good idea what would happen. 32Z and 32S, both splitting plays, don't rate to steer towards radically different types of games.
Likewise, if you can make a good estimate of what your opps are giving away replying to each of 32S and 32Z (and my intent in creating the table of plays and error sizes was to give you the proper tools to do so), I believe you'll have a pretty good idea how much equity you're gaining (or losing) relative to theoretical equity (as judged by current rollouts). This assumption is not made blithely; right or wrong, it's my well-considered opinion.
The plays are close enough that the decision is, or should be, outweighed by other considerations.
There could well be broader considerations that override, though I only entered this discussion with the idea of helping you determine which play with opening 32 is your best chance to win now against your misplaying opps. (See (a), (b) and (c) below.) It looks like you want to reach beyond that.
... enslaving oneself to fashion carries its own risks, of inhibiting the flexibility of one's mind, and falling into the trap of thinking that "current theory = absolute truth."
Yes, that is a trap to avoid. At the same time, I believe that current theory is our best estimate of truth (adjusted by each of us opine how that theory – bot rollouts -- may be biased).
If you choose to play 32Z instead of 32S, in spite of estimating (after all adjustments) that you’re giving away .014 or .001 (or whatever) because it is better for the flexibility of your mind to break with fashion, I completely support that. See (d) and maybe (e) below.
Compare with chess. I believe it's a mistake, at all levels, to play only the "theoretically best" lines. At the top levels, of course, a large part of opening preparation amounts to finding lines that refute current theory. But even if you're not at that level, it's important not to fall into the trap of playing by rote. It's also important to expose oneself to a wider range of positions to gain more experience. Of course there's a limit here; in an important game, you don't want to play a line with an obvious and crushing refutation. Within limits, though, I strongly believe it's more valuable to test the boundaries than to adhere slavishly to current theory.
I agree. It seems to me there are several issues (at least):
(a) Current theory.
(b) Individual perception that theory is biased.
(c) Playing with the best chance of winning this game/match.
(d) Playing so as to push the envelope; to best learn and improve over time.
(e) Other (you want to see how a move turns out, it feels good, you want to dazzle the spectators, you want to end the game/match quickly, and dozens of other reasons).I believe we agree on (a). I don’t know about (b), but I suspect we’re on the same page.
The main element of (c) I’ve contributed is a methodology on adjusting 32S’ theoretical edge over 32Z based on how your opps play against it; you can choose to embrace it, factor it in, or ignore it. There may be other (c)-impacted elements of 32Z (e.g., your opps go berserk / steam when they see you play it) that I don’t know about.
I really don’t want to spend time discussing (d) and/or (e), either generally or specifically. You are endowed with a lifetime of personal information about yourself and have a better idea than I do if (d) and/or (e) are sufficient to make you want to play 32Z over 32S.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, I’d like to see opening 32Z played more. I wish you and anyone else who plays 32Z a lot of profitable and mind-opening success with it!
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.