BGonline.org Forums

Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited

Posted By: Keene
Date: Monday, 23 August 2010, at 9:06 p.m.

In Response To: Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited (Timothy Chow)

Timothy: At least now we know that we don't understand the position, rather than falsely thinking we did.

What makes you think you understand any position in Backgammon? Backgammon is a finite solveable game. Understanding is a subjective assessment of an aspect of the finite game. So, by changing the position and score slightly either way, you are transferring one set of subjective descriptors to another. I completely understand that you are trying to get a better set of descriptors for what is happening in that position class, but understanding that? That simply wont happen without using specific equity numbers and the actual solution to that position, which changes as you manipulate it.

Trying to figure out a general way to describe how to deal with the 55 question in this position is best described in loose terms - weigh the risk and rewards for your options and find the optimal solution. Thematically, the least risk with the highest reward is always best. Specifically the highest reward is most often best, but only when weighed appropriately with the associated risk. What value do you place on the risk of being hit here vs the reward when not hit? You can use words like "you need to make your low points in order to better contain the running checker", but thats subjective to your interpretation of what that means to you.

Dont get me wrong, I am not just having a go at you for chasing this position around, I am merely poking fun at the notion of understanding positions to the degree that you are chasing. There are so many millions of unique positions and scores that choking this one to death seems like overkill.

IIRC, I heard (some time back) a story about Walter Trice (I believe) with his adjusted pipcounts for bearoffs and bearins, and how he was willing to bet that he would do better using his adjusted count vs anyone who didnt use it. The details evade me at this time, however, the theme here is this, the bearoff will happen in many games. Study that to hell and back, and you will make up more equity with what you learn from that relatively finite position class, than you will get from this particularly uncommon position.

As Sun Tzu (I think..) said "Pick your battles wisely", or choose what works better for you than your opponent.

Messages In This Thread

• Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
  Timothy Chow -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 2:03 p.m.
  • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
    Casper van der Tak -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 2:33 p.m.
  • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
    Keene -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 3:41 p.m.
    • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
      Timothy Chow -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 4:12 p.m.
      • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
        Casper van der Tak -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 4:45 p.m.
      • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
        Keene -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 9:06 p.m.
        • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
          Timothy Chow -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 9:56 p.m.
  • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 5:29 p.m.
    • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
      Timothy Chow -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 8:20 p.m.
  • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
    Keene -- Monday, 23 August 2010, at 9:09 p.m.
  • Phil Simborg's 5-5 revisited
    Timothy Chow -- Thursday, 30 September 2010, at 1:06 a.m.