The luck of the Backgammon player
jp3...@oreka.com
level?
The player of middle level who uses correctly openings, probabilities and
the classic arsenal of serious player of Backgammon, what is the reason that
makes that it remains of middle level and why lose it at least the half of
these games? Is this the luck that makes the difference? Was the strong
player born under a better star?
Regards
JP
Webby
The key imo is the abiltity to understandind the equity of positionin order
to base a solid cube strategy and understanding the positional strategic
nuances which can be very subtle. The only answer imo is practice (pattern
recognition) and study (Magriels Backgammon/Roberties Advanced series)
easier said than done as the more you learn.,. the more questions need
asking.
jp3...@oreka.com schrieb in Nachricht <8p3vrd$2532$1...@news5.isdnet.net>...
Douglas Zare
Even at a substantial skill disadvantage, one should still win a lot of the
time. One nice thing about backgammon is that you can make errors and bounce
back; this also means that after making many errors, you will still be
penalized for making more. In games without chance you should have already
lost.
Strong players still make a lot of mistakes. They are just smaller and less
numerous than the errors of weak players. Even Snowie makes mistakes, but it's
hard to be sure she is wrong.
Some errors in checker play arise when the rules of thumb conflict. (Should you
hit, or make another inner board point? Should you make a bold play while ahead
in the race but with a stronger board? Should you make a solid prime, escape,
or start a blitz?)
Some errors arise when the rules of thumb make no suggestions. Some positions
are so complicated or subtle or strange that the heuristics do not help, and
stronger players may find it worthwhile to steer towards these knowing that the
intermediate players will make more errors. The point of the right play may be
to gain timing rather than a racing advantage or any fixed asset. Often, there
are several good plays, and one must choose based on intuition.
Some errors arise when the rules of thumb are wrong. Sometimes "ugly" plays are
right, and stronger players are better at judging when this is the case.
Sometimes the "pretty" plays have no winning game plan; they will just look
good for a bit before collapsing. (See http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+659
, my favorite article in the rgb archive, and ask yourself whether you would
consider the plays made, and if you would reject them, how would you plan to
win the game and what do you think your chances would be? I still get a kick
out of reading it.)
In addition, intermediate players are often terrible with the cube. Tip for
intermediates: play JF a lot, rapidly, or watch the demo mode. Get a feeling
for when JF doubles, and double at least at those times against a human player.
Backgammon is surprisingly deep. The classic arsenal of heuristics can be
learned in a week, so it is predictably insufficient.
Whether I qualify as a strong player depends on your definition. My rating on
FIBS jumped up recently after I read some of Robertie's books, but every recent
move from my matches that I entered into Snowie was pronounced a blunder. (One
double, which my opponent dropped, required a 64% chance for my opponent to
drop for it to be correct. I guess doubling at -2:-4 is dangerous even with a
6-prime and my opponent's ace-point made, with very low gammon chances.) On the
other hand, maybe that means that I now know which positions I'm confused
about, rather than being so confident of erroneous plays that I don't check
them.
Douglas Zare
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
<za...@math.columbia.edu> wrote:
[...]
>Sometimes the "pretty" plays have no winning game plan; they will just look
>good for a bit before collapsing. (See http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+659
>, my favorite article in the rgb archive, and ask yourself whether you would
>consider the plays made, and if you would reject them, how would you plan to
>win the game and what do you think your chances would be? I still get a kick
>out of reading it.)
I remember this article, but I think I also remember that the bots
didn't like Kit's two aggressive plays there very well and went for the
more quiet approach. It might be double matchpoint, but you won't get
away too often (~20%) leaving a double shot two times (except on FIBS
where I missed a similar crucial double shot *three* times in a row
yesterday ;-/ but I guess that's why they call it the cruelest game!).
--
Robert-Jan/Zorba
Douglas Zare
It is true that leaving a double shot twice will usually result in being hit, and
the plays might have been very wrong. I'm not qualified to judge though the bot
rollouts _might_ be. However, his plays deserve to be considered: getting hit would
have improved Kit's flexibility. Without his plays, he would have projected little
power into the outfield, and had little chance of preserving his board or advancing
his anchor. I think a bold play was more appropriate than the basic heuristics
would suggest.
Douglas Zare