BGonline.org Forums

Backgame theory

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 1:18 a.m.

In Response To: Backgame theory (Michael Depreli)

I think there is definitely room for developing more theory here. I posted a few scattered thoughts here a couple of months ago.

"Timing" in a mature backgame can, to a large extent, be broken down into four components: probability of hitting, probability of dancing, probability of leaping a prime, and pipcounts. Each of these components can be approximated pretty well by relatively simple mathematical formulas. Putting them together correctly is a little subtle, but I think that it would be feasible if one tried hard enough.

I don't entirely trust the bots in these positions, but it's difficult to prove that they're playing incorrectly.

If one were to make a serious effort to develop a theory here, then I think the way to go would be to start with relatively simple positions, where there's very little chance of hitting blots. Then the dominant factor would be pipcounts and prime-leaping probabilities, which can be worked out relatively simply. The bots could then be tested against the mathematical calculation. Once the simple positions are thoroughly understood, one could gradually complicate the position.

Messages In This Thread

• Backgame theory
  Michael Depreli -- Thursday, 29 October 2009, at 10:03 p.m.
  • Backgame theory
    Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 7:16 a.m.
    • Backgame theory
      Michael Depreli -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 8:53 a.m.
      • Backgame theory
        Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
  • Backgame theory BOT DATA
    Michael Depreli -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 2:58 p.m.
    • Backgame theory BOT DATA
      Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:25 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA
        eXtreme Gammon -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:36 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA
        mtuhtan -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:46 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA
        Michael Depreli -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:47 p.m.
    • Backgame theory BOT DATA: Longer RO
      eXtreme Gammon -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 3:46 a.m.
      • Backgame theory continuation
        Michael Depreli -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 12:39 p.m.
        • Backgame theory continuation Correction
          Michael Depreli -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 3:36 p.m.
          • Backgame theory continuation Ignore this thread.
            Michael Depreli -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 7:47 p.m.
            • Backgame theory continuation Ignore this thread.
              Frank Berger -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 9:37 p.m.
        • Backgame theory continuation
          neilkaz -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 3:51 p.m.
          • Backgame theory continuation
            Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 4:08 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA: Longer RO
        Ian Shaw -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 7:35 p.m.
        • Backgame theory BOT DATA: Longer RO
          neilkaz -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 9:38 p.m.
  • Backgame theory
    Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 1:18 a.m.
    • Backgame theory
      Phil Simborg -- Monday, 2 November 2009, at 4:00 a.m.
      • Backgame theory
        Timothy Chow -- Monday, 2 November 2009, at 1:53 p.m.
  • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you? *NM*
    neilkaz -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 9:56 p.m.
    • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you?
      Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 10:07 a.m.
      • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you?
        neilkaz -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 3:02 p.m.
        • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you?
          Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 3:41 p.m.