BGonline.org Forums

RO

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Sunday, 7 November 2010, at 6:40 p.m.

In Response To: RO (Stick)

Stick wrote:

What do you think the true gammon values are for John O'Hagan and for random fish? If you adjust these values how does it affect the choice of which play is correct?

I have to say that while fish METs are an interesting exercise, I think they create a false sense of precision. Some fish steam when they're behind while others become defeatist, and still others play well only when they're behind. Most won't extract as many gammon wins as they're "entitled" to, but some wild players will win more than their fair share of gammons at the cost of losing more games. Unless you have an excellent sense of how your opponent plays under various conditions, I think that trying to adjust your checker play at 13a13a according to some fish MET is over-finessing. Even someone of JOH's caliber risks psyching himself out, over-correcting, and playing a whopper.

When the end of the match is in sight (or if the cube gets high) then it's a different story, and then I think that opponent-based adjustments are worthwhile, provided you can trust yourself to make them accurately.

Messages In This Thread

• Blonde to play 64
  John O'Hagan -- Saturday, 6 November 2010, at 2:00 p.m.
  • Blonde to play 64
    Casper van der Tak -- Saturday, 6 November 2010, at 5:16 p.m.
    • Blonde to play 64
      Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 6 November 2010, at 7:00 p.m.
  • Blonde to play 64
    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Saturday, 6 November 2010, at 8:10 p.m.
  • RO
    John O'Hagan -- Sunday, 7 November 2010, at 2:33 p.m.
    • RO
      Stick -- Sunday, 7 November 2010, at 4:26 p.m.
      • RO
        Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 7 November 2010, at 5:28 p.m.
        • RO
          Stick -- Sunday, 7 November 2010, at 5:37 p.m.
          • RO
            Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 7 November 2010, at 6:40 p.m.