| |
BGonline.org Forums
Semis vs. Steve Sax
Posted By: Bill Riles In Response To: Semis vs. Steve Sax (Bill Riles)
Date: Monday, 30 March 2009, at 2:35 a.m.
Raw nerves?
I guess my points are several fold.
The mere fact that a position is posted here raises antennae that something is unique, interesting, and/or unusual about the position and that close attention is required. Or that someone -- on one side of the table or the other -- screwed something up. So, this forum is quite unlike the OTB experience.
Most of the posters don't want to make a similar mistake and be called out themselves.
I have no doubt many review bot evaluation, or rollout, results before posting their own 'opinions'.
Yet these are typically represented as 'opinion', not theses from research projects and independent study.
Secondly, I think some are more interested in the promotion/protection of their 'image' and/or 'reputation' than honest, free debate or discussion.
I've seen Neil laugh at himself on occasion for blunders and, occasionally, Stick will do the same. Jason laughed at a blunder of his the other day. Ray, perhaps more than most, recognizes and laughs at his own fallibility. I, more often than I'd like it to be the case, point out some of my own blunders/mistakes because oftentimes I think they are positions/decisions from which others can learn, as I learn from them.
I like the current growth of the recording of matches for review and study. I've only had one player, one of the best players in the world, refuse the recording of a match. Now, granted, he didn't know me from Adam and had no way of knowing how I might use the information. However, I think his interest was more in protecting his reputation, should he have played 'poorly', than in promoting the knowledge and study of the game. Unfortunate.
Backgammon is a game of skill and a game of luck -- these factors are coupled, each begets the other in respects. To win a major tournament, both must be present. The more skillful certainly have greater likelihood of winning, but we've seen many instances of the less skilled and less experienced players succeeding in the short term. By the same token, some of the most skillful don't win nearly as often as they might deserve on the basis of their skill, their study, and their dedication. But, as is said in many sports, that is why we play the game.
Many put great stock into error ratings, bot analyses, rollouts, etc. I think these factors are certainly indicative of skill and ability. However, I think they are only that -- indicative. Many circumstances are not quantitatively absolute. Many other factors -- emotion, strategy, game flow, psychology, and the like must enter into the equations. Ray is one of the greatest proponents -- and, arguably, the most successful practitioner -- of these influences.
I think rarely, probably moreso in bearoff positions and the like, are there absolute best answers. Some people are more comfortable with certain strategical sitations and oftentimes people are confident their opponents are not familiar, comfortable, or skillful in other sequences that may alter decisions.
Let's have honest discusssions recognizing all of the above.
I apologize for any squished toes I may have stepped upon.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.