| |
BGonline.org Forums
In response to Timothy and Bob
Posted By: Jim Stutz In Response To: 6-away/2-away cube (Timothy Chow)
Date: Tuesday, 27 June 2023, at 1:41 a.m.
Timothy Chow wrote: “Part of the defender's equity lies in playing the game well when the attack fails and the game turns around.”
True, but it’s a small part of the overall equity at stake, IMO. For starters, 2-away is only turning this position around and gaining the tactical initiative in about one game of three. And, holding a dead cube when he does turn the game around, he won’t have to consider when and whether to take risks to win a gammon, because he doesn’t need one of those – he just has to win the game and he goes out. On average, the attacker will have to deal with a far greater number of nuanced, high-equity tactical decisions in this class of position than the defender (..and, to Bob Koca’s question, the position qualifies as a “relatively complex” tactical position for the same reason).
The general rule: The already-considerable PR gap between XG and (even the best) human players grows DRAMATICALLY wider when we exclude simple, “routine” plays (eg: an opening 6-1) and “routine positions” (eg: a no-contact, DMP race; a low-volatility holding game) and instead consider only the data from positions such as this one – high-contact positions where gammons have unbalanced, outsized value, and where one side is, on average, dealing a clear majority of the nuanced, higher-stakes tactical decisions. All else equal, we should be taking more and deeper cubes against human opponents in such positions – way deeper, in some cases – than the XG evals would indicate.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.