Congratulations to Chase, Mike Mannon and Jim Painter, who e-mailed me (in that order) with the correct solution -- they solved it from the position alone (see diagram above) prior to my posting Holmes' hint. Kudos as well to Scotty, who solved it with that hint (and without XG), and is clearly more than a little versed in Sherlock Holmes lore as evident from his post.
Holmes' Intriguing Hint was essentially the cipher key shown below.
11 22 33 44 55 66 21 31 41 51 61 32 42 52 62 43 53 63 54 64 65
AL AN AR ES IC OS DA LO MO MU NE NI PE PY RE RI SE SO TA TO TY
Dr. Watson tried ALAN ALDA, PENELOPE, and DATALORE, but none translated to a roll sequence that matches up to the diagrammed position. Finally, he remembered Holmes' words when he first introduced the puzzle. (See the first paragraph of the "original post: "Sherlock Holmes, detective mastermind, was kind enough to share the following puzzle with me. Left by his archrival as a subtle clue...")
Holmes' archrival is none other than Professor Moriarty. Watson (and Scotty) found MO-RI-AR-TY in the chart and translated it to the roll sequence 41-43-33-65. All that remains is to lay out that sequence on the board, and if you're not sure about a move then check with a bot. (Blue goes first, which you'll quickly determine if you happen to try White first -- you'll end up with the mirror image.)
The solution sequence is illustrated below by a series of XGR++ evaluations. Following that is additional discussion.
| 1. | XG Roller++ | 24/23 13/9 | eq: +0.001 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 49.67% (G:13.94% B:0.58%)
50.33% (G:13.42% B:0.57%) | |
|
| 2. | XG Roller++ | 13/9 6/5 | eq: -0.033 (-0.034) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 49.38% (G:13.51% B:0.54%)
50.62% (G:14.42% B:0.94%) | |
|
| 3. | XG Roller++ | 24/23 24/20 | eq: -0.046 (-0.047) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 48.92% (G:12.18% B:0.55%)
51.08% (G:13.31% B:0.50%) | |
|
| 4. | XG Roller++ | 13/8 | eq: -0.047 (-0.048) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 48.77% (G:13.62% B:0.68%)
51.23% (G:14.38% B:0.64%) | |
|
| 5. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 6/5 | eq: -0.061 (-0.062) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 48.75% (G:12.35% B:0.51%)
51.25% (G:14.20% B:0.67%) | |
|
| 1. | XG Roller++ | 24/21 6/2* | eq: -0.133 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 46.98% (G:11.74% B:0.45%)
53.02% (G:14.78% B:0.67%) | |
|
| 2. | XG Roller++ | 24/21 13/9 | eq: -0.165 (-0.032) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 46.33% (G:11.86% B:0.50%)
53.67% (G:15.79% B:0.72%) | |
|
| 3. | XG Roller++ | 13/10 13/9 | eq: -0.174 (-0.040) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 46.00% (G:12.46% B:0.54%)
54.00% (G:15.89% B:0.97%) | |
|
| 4. | XG Roller++ | 24/20 13/10 | eq: -0.181 (-0.048) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 46.16% (G:11.34% B:0.49%)
53.84% (G:15.71% B:0.72%) | |
|
| 5. | XG Roller++ | 24/21 24/20 | eq: -0.206 (-0.073) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 45.65% (G:10.69% B:0.46%)
54.35% (G:16.11% B:0.56%) | |
|
| 6. | XG Roller++ | 13/10 6/2* | eq: -0.220 (-0.086) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 45.31% (G:11.68% B:0.47%)
54.69% (G:16.84% B:1.10%) | |
|
| 1. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 9/3 6/3 | eq: +0.152 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 53.59% (G:14.92% B:0.62%)
46.41% (G:12.01% B:0.43%) | |
|
| 2. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 8/5(3) | eq: +0.141 (-0.010) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 52.55% (G:17.03% B:0.66%)
47.45% (G:12.33% B:0.56%) | |
|
| 3. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 13/10(2) 9/6 | eq: +0.099 (-0.052) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 52.62% (G:14.31% B:0.64%)
47.38% (G:13.12% B:0.50%) | |
|
| 4. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 13/10 6/3(2) | eq: +0.074 (-0.077) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 51.71% (G:15.12% B:0.67%)
48.29% (G:13.40% B:0.75%) | |
|
| 5. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 24/21 6/3(2) | eq: +0.069 (-0.082) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 51.83% (G:13.00% B:0.59%)
48.17% (G:12.34% B:0.48%) | |
|
| 6. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 9/6 8/5(2) | eq: +0.060 (-0.092) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 50.88% (G:15.33% B:0.58%)
49.12% (G:12.91% B:0.56%) | |
|
| 7. | XG Roller++ | Bar/22 13/4* | eq: +0.058 (-0.094) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 51.17% (G:15.26% B:0.70%)
48.83% (G:13.75% B:0.73%) | |
|
| 1. | XG Roller++ | 13/2 | eq: -0.194 |
| Player:
Opponent: | 45.62% (G:12.65% B:0.47%)
54.38% (G:16.95% B:0.64%) | |
|
| 2. | XG Roller++ | 21/16 8/2 | eq: -0.291 (-0.097) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 43.95% (G:10.66% B:0.38%)
56.05% (G:18.50% B:0.72%) | |
|
| 3. | XG Roller++ | 8/2 6/1* | eq: -0.356 (-0.162) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 41.96% (G:11.31% B:0.30%)
58.04% (G:18.54% B:0.93%) | |
|
| 4. | XG Roller++ | 8/2 8/3* | eq: -0.370 (-0.176) |
| Player:
Opponent: | 41.75% (G:12.09% B:0.48%)
58.25% (G:20.78% B:1.43%) | |
|
After White plays her 65 correctly, the target position (diagrammed at the top of this post) is reached. Recapping the solution sequence with Nactation yields:
.....41S-43X-33Y-65O.
For opening 41, the (XGR++) evalution overstates the margin (.034) by which S (Split, 24/23 13/9) is better than $ (Slot, 13/9 6/5). According to an XG2 101k 3-ply/XGR rollout, the margin is .015.
Working on a retro-solution is a fun challenge in and of itself, but it is also a chance to learn or reinforce early game plays. For example, Scotty discovered that with 41S-43, the best move is X (hit and split), a move he would never have played OTB until now According to rollout, he would have erred by .035, or even more if he chose an alternative other than Z (reverse split). Furthermore, it is not only the moves that end up being part of the solution sequence, but also every blind alley, that may provide you such an opportunity.
Note: I'm not sure if anyone caught my passing reference to DATALORE (one of the names Watson found in the cipher key). This is the one-word title of season 1's episode 13 of Star Trek: The Next Generation, in which the android Data discovers he has a twin brother named Lore (both characters played by Brent Spiner). In other episodes, Data plays the role of Sherlock Holmes on the Enterprise's holodecks. (I just added "Lore" to increase his name length to eight letters.)
Finally, Jim Painter suggested it might be time for me (or Mike) to post a retro-puzzle with FIVE rolls. I would be happy to post a puzzle with that many moves (or even more), but first I'd like to see at least (say) half a dozen solution responses by e-mail and/or reply post (this time there were 3 + 1 = 4). Until then, I'm inclined to believe that four-movers are tough enough. (Of course, others are welcome to post their own retros of any length.) That said, I'm interested in would-be-solvers' opinions; please let me know what you think.
Nack
