I've decided to put this question in a new thread, but its related to the concept of playing BG taking into account an opponents weaknesses. This concept is a sound one if you really know your opponent.
In the Monty vs Mpetch series Monty has suggested he is the superior opponent. He states his errors were to trap me into difficult situations that he had hoped I would play wrong. Lets exclude the cubes in this discussion. I think the statistics are clear that Monty likely didn't succeed in making more/larger cube errors compared to himself.
So lets assume that Monty is a 1950 rated player (this would likely be in Advanced/Expert territory) and seems to be in line with what Monty thinks he plays at. This discussion would still apply if he was 1925. Monty has stated he made specific errors to trap me into playing my known weaknesses.
Over the series of 7 matches I ended up with a lower checker play error rate than he did. Assume I had average ~1900 based on the matches (The average was slightly higher)
With Monty at 1950 and myself at 1900 he would be the better player. So lets assume this for the discussion.
My view is this. If you make a checker play error (doubtful/bad/verybad - doesn't matter) in the hopes that your opponent gets trapped into a hard situation (Thinking they will make the wrong play), one would expect that the opponents errors in such difficult situations would be larger than the initial error. Simply put, if you are going to make an error and play to an opponents weakness, the opponent on average is going to have to make errors that are worse - So the NET equity loss remains in the stronger players favor.
So lets see what happened. Monty apparently played to my weaknesses, and believed he succeeded but ended up with an overall checker error rate worse than the weaker player (me). In essence it appears that based on the final skill level that he gave up more in checker play errors anticipating what I would do, compared to the errors I actually made.
One might say, if Monty was favored on checker play error rate (because of his superior abilities) at the outset - than my checker play error rate should have dropped by at least a proportional amount (and then some!).
So is it possible that Monty went into this thinking he knew how I played, but in the end his "tricks" to put me in difficult situations actually backfired to the point that I now became the better player? This is possible, so lets assume it is true for the sake of argument!
If a near world class player goes into a series of matches, and underestimates his opponents ability to play tricky situations and ends up with a higher error rate - wouldn't one conclude that the near world class player may not really know his opponents strengths and weaknesses to begin with? If you can't estimate what your opponent will do, you will be throwing away valuable equity inherent in being the better opponent (to begin with).
Maybe a naïve intermediate player such as myself can't understand how a net deficit on error rates at the end of the match (compared to the perceived strengths of each player at the start) can benefit the stronger opponent.
If a near world class player can not estimate an opponents weaknesses before playing into them, then I do not think they are near world class at all. Playing to weaknesses that either are not very weak, and giving up equity in the process makes no logical sense.
So maybe the question to Monty is - if you're near world class in actual skill, how do you rate yourself in knowing the opponent?
Someone asked this in another thread, but can you point out the weaknesses in my playing ability, and the places where you took advantage of it? To know there is a weakness is to know the opponent has made the errors before. So you'll need multiple examples of similar situations that lead you to conclude I would make the error you expect (I have never played Monty until this series so there is no past history but these matches to go by). Next you'll have to show that in these given difficult spots that I actually gave up more equity than the initial wrong play.
My conclusion is this. Either a) Monty is near world class, but doesn't have a clue what his opponents weaknesses are but uses it as an excuse for his errors, or b) Monty is an Intermediate Advanced player like myself who play at nearly the same level of play.
If I were to guess. It isn't A. So I will go with B. But I am open to Monty showing all these weaknesses of mine over time that were a NET benefit to him because they were exploitable.
For the record, I played into a weakness of Monty. On cube plays I often cubed when it was too early, knowing that there was a good chance he would drop. I can especially show this pattern in his first few matches, BUT I am also aware that if he perceived me as the weaker player that he would drop them (Basically, I was willing to give up equity on cubes hoping Monty practiced what he preached on this forum). I also believed he felt I was a WEAK opponent before the first roll.
I believe that since my error rates were within my expected norms, that I likely was a NET beneficiary of cube errors compared with a supposed "stronger" opponent. In the overall series stats its interesting to note that Monty had 16 bad passes (Compared with 8 of mine), and 2 bad takes (0) for me. ON Takes/Passes alone Monty gave up a huge amount of equity (Comapred to my errors). Unfortunately it wasn't enough to overcome the luck - and that's the nature of backgammon.
It's not just tricking someone into making inferior moves, but simply creating complicated positions, or making the position simpler for myself. I'd like to continue to play (9 pt. match at TMG/XG for a Euro is the only format that will hold my attention, unless you want to offer me the same deal as before), and things will clarify. I won't offer an opinion on what your weaknesses are, because that would obviously defeat the purpose of the whole thing.
>I've decided to put this question in a new thread, but its related to the >concept of playing BG taking into account an opponents weaknesses. This >concept is a sound one if you really know your opponent.
>In the Monty vs Mpetch series Monty has suggested he is the superior >opponent. He states his errors were to trap me into difficult situations >that he had hoped I would play wrong. Lets exclude the cubes in this >discussion. I think the statistics are clear that Monty likely didn't >succeed in making more/larger cube errors compared to himself.
>So lets assume that Monty is a 1950 rated player (this would likely be in >Advanced/Expert territory) and seems to be in line with what Monty thinks he >plays at. This discussion would still apply if he was 1925. Monty has stated >he made specific errors to trap me into playing my known weaknesses.
>Over the series of 7 matches I ended up with a lower checker play error rate >than he did. Assume I had average ~1900 based on the matches (The average >was slightly higher)
>With Monty at 1950 and myself at 1900 he would be the better player. So lets >assume this for the discussion.
>My view is this. If you make a checker play error (doubtful/bad/verybad - >doesn't matter) in the hopes that your opponent gets trapped into a hard >situation (Thinking they will make the wrong play), one would expect that >the opponents errors in such difficult situations would be larger than the >initial error. Simply put, if you are going to make an error and play to an >opponents weakness, the opponent on average is going to have to make errors >that are worse - So the NET equity loss remains in the stronger players >favor.
>So lets see what happened. Monty apparently played to my weaknesses, and >believed he succeeded but ended up with an overall checker error rate worse >than the weaker player (me). In essence it appears that based on the final >skill level that he gave up more in checker play errors anticipating what I >would do, compared to the errors I actually made.
>One might say, if Monty was favored on checker play error rate (because of >his superior abilities) at the outset - than my checker play error rate >should have dropped by at least a proportional amount (and then some!).
>So is it possible that Monty went into this thinking he knew how I played, >but in the end his "tricks" to put me in difficult situations actually >backfired to the point that I now became the better player? This is >possible, so lets assume it is true for the sake of argument!
>If a near world class player goes into a series of matches, and >underestimates his opponents ability to play tricky situations and ends up >with a higher error rate - wouldn't one conclude that the near world class >player may not really know his opponents strengths and weaknesses to begin >with? If you can't estimate what your opponent will do, you will be throwing >away valuable equity inherent in being the better opponent (to begin with).
>Maybe a naïve intermediate player such as myself can't understand how a net >deficit on error rates at the end of the match (compared to the perceived >strengths of each player at the start) can benefit the stronger opponent.
>If a near world class player can not estimate an opponents weaknesses before >playing into them, then I do not think they are near world class at all. >Playing to weaknesses that either are not very weak, and giving up equity in >the process makes no logical sense.
>So maybe the question to Monty is - if you're near world class in actual >skill, how do you rate yourself in knowing the opponent?
>Someone asked this in another thread, but can you point out the weaknesses >in my playing ability, and the places where you took advantage of it? To >know there is a weakness is to know the opponent has made the errors before. >So you'll need multiple examples of similar situations that lead you to >conclude I would make the error you expect (I have never played Monty until >this series so there is no past history but these matches to go by). Next >you'll have to show that in these given difficult spots that I actually gave >up more equity than the initial wrong play.
>My conclusion is this. Either a) Monty is near world class, but doesn't have >a clue what his opponents weaknesses are but uses it as an excuse for his >errors, or b) Monty is an Intermediate Advanced player like myself who play >at nearly the same level of play.
>If I were to guess. It isn't A. So I will go with B. But I am open to Monty >showing all these weaknesses of mine over time that were a NET benefit to >him because they were exploitable.
>For the record, I played into a weakness of Monty. On cube plays I often >cubed when it was too early, knowing that there was a good chance he would >drop. I can especially show this pattern in his first few matches, BUT I am >also aware that if he perceived me as the weaker player that he would drop >them (Basically, I was willing to give up equity on cubes hoping Monty >practiced what he preached on this forum). I also believed he felt I was a >WEAK opponent before the first roll.
>I believe that since my error rates were within my expected norms, that I >likely was a NET beneficiary of cube errors compared with a supposed >"stronger" opponent. In the overall series stats its interesting to note >that Monty had 16 bad passes (Compared with 8 of mine), and 2 bad takes (0) >for me. ON Takes/Passes alone Monty gave up a huge amount of equity >(Comapred to my errors). Unfortunately it wasn't enough to overcome the luck >- and that's the nature of backgammon.
You have put considerable time and energy in this response. I truly hope you are not expecting a coherent logical response from Monty's keyboard.
Firstly, it is very unlikely that Monty will answer your question of what about your style of play, that he can exploit. He will weave and dodge to avoid answering, most likely explaining that he will give you an advantage by telling you, if you play a series of matches again.
Secondly, Monty's response to your post is likely going to boil down to the fact that he won the match 5-2 and results are what count. He will insist that he will consistently be ahead after a similar series of matches in the future although in one of his responses, he suggests that he does not want to do it again. He only wants to play nine point matches for one Euro on TMG/XG. Monty will not be able to provide any objective evidence to support his assertion that he can consistently come out ahead in future matches with you. The two of you are so closely matched that luck is going to be the deciding factor in any matches you play IMO. But the last thing that Monty will do is admit that he won the match because he got lucky. He is far too narcissistic to do that.
On 5/11/08 2:50 PM, in article 7586ed9d-7d5e-4d6e-a515-482a370b9...@l64g2000hse.googlegroups.com,
"monty1...@lycos.com" <monty1...@lycos.com> wrote: > It's not just tricking someone into making inferior moves, but simply > creating complicated positions, or making the position simpler for > myself.
Are you saying against a weaker opponent you would make a less complicated move for yourself if it means the weaker player gains in the process?
> I'd like to continue to play (9 pt. match at TMG/XG for a > Euro is the only format that will hold my attention, unless you want > to offer me the same deal as before), and things will clarify. I > won't offer an opinion on what your weaknesses are, because that would > obviously defeat the purpose of the whole thing.
I am asking you to show me the weaknesses you already said you took advantage of in the first 7 matches. You have already aid your error rate was higher to get me into harder positions. I am asking for you to point in the 7 matches we played examples where you knew from experience that I would play a certain way, and that you were able to take advantage of it.
I've already described how it is I played into your major weakness. Since you told me you did the same, I'd be more than happy to see all of these weaknesses that demonstrate your superiority in knowing what I'll do.
Since you said you HAD already taken advantage of my weaknesses, I am asking you to point them out. No need to play more matches to answer the question. Remember, you brought it up, not I.
I think my error rate was higher mostly because I made some "goofball" blunders, which I do when I play online, because I just play too quickly. However, I do think that if we played a large number of 9 pt. matches, assuming there was no huge difference in luck (and also if you continued to play on the same level, obviously, rather than improving significantly), I would be at least a bit ahead. If we played best of 101 nine pt. matches, for example, I think I would have at least 52 wins. Only one way to find out, and that is to play. Talk about "objective evidence" makes no sense in this context, because this is an opinion based upon human intuition. There is no software presently available that can assess how one style of human play will fare against another human's style of play, so how could there be "objective evidence." If you want to continue to play, that's fine, but at present, my opinion is what it is, based upon my BG experiences. Luck is clearly a huge factor, so the minimum would be something like best of 101 nine point matches.
On 5/11/08 3:11 PM, in article C44CBD34.58D92%mpe...@capp-sysware.com,
"Michael Petch" <mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote: > and that you were able to take advantage of it.
Should have read:
"and that you were able to take consistently advantage of it."
Basically to know I will play a certain way or am weak a certain way means I had to have demonstrated it already. So first show me where you learned of the deficiency, then specific examples of how you took advantage of it later on, and how it substantially improved your overall ability to win.
The thing here is that I have weaknesses. You need to prove you triked me into them, or made things complex for me, and I did the wrong thing repeatedly in similar circumstances.
If you wish I can start by showing you specifically where consistently cubing you early worked to my advantage to make you drop clear takes. I mean, When I cube you and you have race chances and potential to maybe hit, why drop because its easier to play from scratch? Why give me free equity for not having to continue the current game ;-). I can also demonstrate how I knew you would make such bad drops. The key to knowing you would drop clear takes in race positions is directly related to your belief that I am clearly the weaker opponent (in your eyes).
<mpe...@capp-sysware.com> wrote: >Since you said you HAD already taken advantage of my weaknesses, I am asking >you to point them out. No need to play more matches to answer the question. >Remember, you brought it up, not I.
Is it not obvious that Monty said this, only to give a plausible explanation for making inferior moves? He won't be able to point them out because they don't exist. Not only would he have to point out the moves that were errors but also that you misplayed the subsequent moves to a greater degree than him. Since he knows he cannot do it, he will completely avoid it.
Monty may be a pathologic narcissist but he aint stupid. He got you to give him free money. And all you got for the trouble is more of Monty's tortured logic. Now I see you want to give him more money. You sure are a glutton for punishment. Monty will likely take your money and give you more of the same.
And if you happen to beat him in the next round, he will whine about his bad luck.
If your purpose is to prove that Monty is not as good as he claims that he is, I would suggest you save your money since all you would be doing is belaboring the obvious.
In the last match, I decided to use all my techniques against you, and it worked, as it usually does against the players I've encountered up to now. Your claim that I dropped clear takes is only relevant, IMO, against those playing at a very high level (such as GNUBG). Thus, there is an impasse, as I what I think were appropriate plays (against you) you think are "mistakes." Again, only one way to clear this up.
On Sun, 11 May 2008 14:21:35 -0700 (PDT), monty1...@lycos.com wrote: >I think my error rate was higher mostly because I made some "goofball" >blunders,
First Monty says his error rate was higher because he deliberately made plays to exploit weaknesses in his opponent. Then when challenged about this, he changes it to being because he plays too quickly. But Monty is not making excuses:-) Excuses are like assholes; everyone has one and they all stink.
> which I do when I play online, because I just play too >quickly.
No one forces you to play quickly. You choose to play quickly. And now you are using it as an excuse for your higher error rate.
> However, I do think that if we played a large number of 9 >pt. matches, assuming there was no huge difference in luck (and also >if you continued to play on the same level, obviously, rather than >improving significantly), I would be at least a bit ahead.
That would only be the case if you were luckier than Michael. You would not have to be that much luckier than him to achieve this but based upon your error rates, you clearly would need to have some luck on your side. If there was zero luck, then Michael would be slight favorite to be ahead after a large series of matches.
> If we >played best of 101 nine pt. matches, for example, I think I would have >at least 52 wins.
At least 52 wins based upon what objective evidence?
> Only one way to find out, and that is to play.
How about doing that and if Michael comes out ahead, you pay him back the money that he gave you. He gave you free money. If you are so sure that you would come out ahead, you have nothing to lose.
>Talk about "objective evidence" makes no sense in this context, >because this is an opinion based upon human intuition.
In other words it is just you blowing hot air out of your ass.
> There is no >software presently available that can assess how one style of human >play will fare against another human's style of play, so how could >there be "objective evidence."
So what makes you so sure of your opinion?
> If you want to continue to play, >that's fine, but at present, my opinion is what it is, based upon my >BG experiences. Luck is clearly a huge factor, so the minimum would >be something like best of 101 nine point matches.
And if one person wins 52 and the other 49 that would prove nothing even if it was you who was ahead.
