[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Non-doublet Replies: Rules for beginners

Posted By: Nack Ballard
Date: Thursday, 11 May 2017, at 11:29 p.m.

In Response To: Non-doublet Replies: Rules for beginners (Axel Reichert)

Thanks for your latest post.

> [Eliminating plays between 0.06 and 0.07, keeping those between 0.05 and 0.06]

I think I can safely assume that beginners/intermediates will not care.

I'm not sure we'll ever agree on the arbitrariness issue. If I were a backgammon beginner and understood you were creating a rule set for my benefit (and knowing what I know about game theory and how to most quickly improve at playing games), I might not care if my introductory worst-case error line were set at .05 or .07, but I would want it to be consistent. I would certainly accept the reason, "I'm not willing to put the time in to nail down a line of .06 as closely as is currently possible -- that's why you have roughly a .05 to .07 slop on which moves are okay to play" but I would be dissatisfied with the reason that "it doesn't matter" or "you shouldn't care because you are a beginner."

As the first of those reasons (quite understandably) appears to be the case (though even if it is not), I recommend that you clarify with some sort of disclaimer or qualifier. You haven't earned a straightforward claim of .06.

Also, I think it's careless to assume that beginners, without being informed, will automatically hit on the highest point with 64S-62, 63S-63, 62S-64, 43Z-62, 43S-63, 32S-64, 32Z-54 and 32Z-63.

You are right that due to 61P-62R, for either your rule set or mine, 62R needs to be part of the opening library (even though -.028). Good catch. If I were to work on my rule set further (which I probably won't), I would eliminate 62R by adding an exception or more likely reshaping.

From a cursory check it seems, though, that neither 62$ nor 43U cause any trouble..."

I think it does matter that 62$ is eliminated (beyond that it costs .045 as an opener). Otherwise (assuming that you change your "most similar" wording to "from the opening library," as you concurred with), 61P-62$ could unfortunately be played.

I was careful to exclude 43U from my set of openers because of the dominance of the 21K, 41K and 32K replies. It looks to me that your rule set needs to exclude 43U for the same reason.

From your rule set:

.....a) After hits in the two outer boards: Play from rear, else from mid.
.....b) After hits in the two inner boards: Play from mid, else from rear.

For this leftover die corollary, I'm not sure you understood my point about "two outer boards." The assumption is that the opponent has made one of the (now 28) standard opening plays, and therefore you'll never use ONE die to hit in the opponent's outer board. All you need for simplicity and brevity is something like "outer board" and "elsewhere." Conceptually similar, my one-liner from this rule set is:

....."If hit from mid, play up. If not, play from mid."

(A cardinal rule already prevents $-64Z.)

Sorry to praise your hit / no-hit structure only to find something that (IMO) is even better in my follow-up post (where that structure is still implied). We're in definite disagreement about the value of placing 31P 61P at the top of the chain (me) or lack thereof (you), and listing "cardinal rules" at the beginning (me) rather than as "exceptions" at the end (you). Otherwise, we're not far apart. That said, you initiated the project and I consider you the final arbiter.

Nack

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.