info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Any volunteers?
102 views
Skip to first unread message
Timothy Chow
Jan 20, 2022, 9:42:02 AM1/20/22
to
XGID=--Bb--DbD--AcD---c-da-----:1:-1:1:64:0:0:0:0:10
X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O | +---+
| X O | | O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| X | | X |
| O X | | X |
| O X O | | X O X |
| O X X O | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 123 O: 172 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 64
---
Tim Chow
X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O | | O O | +---+
| X O | | O | | 2 |
| X O | | O | +---+
| X | | O |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| X | | X |
| O X | | X |
| O X O | | X O X |
| O X X O | | X O X |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 123 O: 172 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 64
---
Tim Chow
MK
Jan 20, 2022, 1:55:28 PM1/20/22
to
On January 20, 2022 at 7:42:02 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
> XGID=--Bb--DbD--AcD---c-da-----:1:-1:1:64:0:0:0:0:10
Position looks like a "hopper skipper" to me.
> XGID=--Bb--DbD--AcD---c-da-----:1:-1:1:64:0:0:0:0:10
And my play 11/1 costs 0.39, so maybe a "bigmac with pickles"?
Or maybe a "bigmac with taco sauce" to give it a lttle more smell??
I'm bored and nobody plays with me. :( Sigh...
MK
Timothy Chow
Jan 22, 2022, 9:34:54 AM1/22/22
to
that leaves no shots is 11/1, which isn't pretty, but doesn't look
terrible at first glance. The trouble is that X's position remains
inflexible, and he is highly likely to leave more shots soon, when
O's board is likely to be stronger than it is now. XG favors the
bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4!
1. Rollout¹ 11/5 8/4 eq:+0.080
Player: 58.20% (G:16.44% B:0.51%)
Opponent: 41.80% (G:8.73% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.010 (+0.069..+0.090) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 13/9 11/5 eq:-0.005 (-0.084)
Player: 55.08% (G:17.32% B:0.49%)
Opponent: 44.92% (G:10.17% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (-0.015..+0.006) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 11/1 eq:-0.059 (-0.139)
Player: 53.64% (G:13.54% B:0.28%)
Opponent: 46.36% (G:10.07% B:0.37%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (-0.070..-0.049) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 11/5 6/2 eq:-0.074 (-0.153)
Player: 53.39% (G:14.37% B:0.38%)
Opponent: 46.61% (G:10.60% B:0.39%)
Confidence: ±0.012 (-0.086..-0.061) - [0.0%]
5. Rollout¹ 8/4 8/2 eq:-0.093 (-0.173)
Player: 52.27% (G:15.92% B:0.43%)
Opponent: 47.73% (G:11.39% B:0.46%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (-0.104..-0.082) - [0.0%]
¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.207.pre-release
---
Tim Chow
MK
Jan 23, 2022, 1:26:56 AM1/23/22
to
On January 22, 2022 at 7:34:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
> Magriel's criteria mostly point toward a safe play. The only play
> that leaves no shots is 11/1, which isn't pretty, but doesn't look
> terrible at first glance. The trouble is that X's position remains
> inflexible, and he is highly likely to leave more shots soon, when
> O's board is likely to be stronger than it is now. XG favors the
> bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4!
11/1 is the right play. Because a (copy of a copy of tweaked
> Magriel's criteria mostly point toward a safe play. The only play
> that leaves no shots is 11/1, which isn't pretty, but doesn't look
> terrible at first glance. The trouble is that X's position remains
> inflexible, and he is highly likely to leave more shots soon, when
> O's board is likely to be stronger than it is now. XG favors the
> bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4!
trained) bot plays differently, you are trying to explain why it
does so. I wish I could know how TD-G.01 would play this.
"Slotting" is different than "leaving blots" either in desperation
or to totally crush the opponent.
In this position there is no reason to leave a blot, certainly not
two blots. So, to me it's "slotting". Like XG's playing an opening
21 as 13/11 6/5 or in response to opponents opening 54 played
as 24/20 13/8. In the first case I double and accept the beaver.
In the second case I raccoon. You can see examples of those
moves in the experiments that I have posted. I believe that they
win more or at least not lose more for me. Perhaps somebody
like Axel can run a short experiment to see find out.
It seems like everybody and their uncles either have some rules
named after them or have some mottos. If I were to start having
mine, I would begin with a rhyming and easy to remember motto:
"You slot; you slut!"
MK
Stick Rice
Jan 23, 2022, 1:36:31 AM1/23/22
to
Stick
MK
Jan 31, 2022, 4:01:51 AM1/31/22
to
On January 22, 2022 at 11:36:31 PM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:
> On January 23, 2022 at 1:26:56 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
>> On January 22, 2022 at 7:34:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
>>> Magriel's criteria mostly point toward a safe play. The only play
>>> that leaves no shots is 11/1, which isn't pretty, but doesn't look
>>> terrible at first glance. The trouble is that X's position remains
>>> inflexible, and he is highly likely to leave more shots soon, when
>>> O's board is likely to be stronger than it is now. XG favors the
>>> bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4!
>> 11/1 is the right play. Because a (copy of a copy of tweaked
>> trained) bot plays differently, you are trying to explain why it
>> does so. I wish I could know how TD-G.01 would play this.
Reading this again before replying to shtick, I realized that you
contrasted "safe" vs. "bold", talking without saying anything or
taking sides just like a prostitute politician...
I couldn't help wondering "what if you, shtick, et. al. favored the
bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4 but XG played the safe 11/1 a la
Magriel"...?
Good attorneys like good politicians can argue both sides of an
argument equally well. Do you think you could pretend to be a
prostitute attorney and argue why the 11/1 would be the right
play instead?
>> "You slot; you slut!"
Just to counter any negative reaction to my motto simply based
on the word "slut", it appears that at least in the past it was used
to mean "untidy woman (or man)", "loose woman (or man)". So,
you can try to hear it as being used to describe "slotting play" as
"untidy play", "loose play"...
> The double slot is a next.
And my question to shtick: "How do you kow what you assert?!"
MK
> On January 23, 2022 at 1:26:56 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
>> On January 22, 2022 at 7:34:54 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
>>> Magriel's criteria mostly point toward a safe play. The only play
>>> that leaves no shots is 11/1, which isn't pretty, but doesn't look
>>> terrible at first glance. The trouble is that X's position remains
>>> inflexible, and he is highly likely to leave more shots soon, when
>>> O's board is likely to be stronger than it is now. XG favors the
>>> bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4!
>> 11/1 is the right play. Because a (copy of a copy of tweaked
>> trained) bot plays differently, you are trying to explain why it
>> does so. I wish I could know how TD-G.01 would play this.
contrasted "safe" vs. "bold", talking without saying anything or
taking sides just like a prostitute politician...
I couldn't help wondering "what if you, shtick, et. al. favored the
bold double-slotting 11/5 8/4 but XG played the safe 11/1 a la
Magriel"...?
Good attorneys like good politicians can argue both sides of an
argument equally well. Do you think you could pretend to be a
prostitute attorney and argue why the 11/1 would be the right
play instead?
>> "You slot; you slut!"
Just to counter any negative reaction to my motto simply based
on the word "slut", it appears that at least in the past it was used
to mean "untidy woman (or man)", "loose woman (or man)". So,
you can try to hear it as being used to describe "slotting play" as
"untidy play", "loose play"...
> The double slot is a next.
MK
Stick Rice
Jan 31, 2022, 10:54:54 AM1/31/22
to
Stick
MK
Jan 31, 2022, 4:46:30 PM1/31/22
to
On January 31, 2022 at 8:54:54 AM UTC-7, Stick Rice wrote:
> On January 31, 2022 at 4:01:51 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
>> And my question to shtick: "How do you kow what you assert?!"
started to try predicting your possible answers and
to come up with rebuttal comments to them but I have
to admit that you got me pretty bad by completely
throwing me off here... :(
I didn't expect that you could be capable of such a
stupid "next" answer.
MK
> On January 31, 2022 at 4:01:51 AM UTC-5, MK wrote:
>> And my question to shtick: "How do you kow what you assert?!"
> Via the backgammon money in my bank account.
Right after I posted my above question, I had already
started to try predicting your possible answers and
to come up with rebuttal comments to them but I have
to admit that you got me pretty bad by completely
throwing me off here... :(
I didn't expect that you could be capable of such a
stupid "next" answer.
MK
Nasti Chestikov
Feb 1, 2022, 12:39:39 PM2/1/22
to
On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 21:46:30 UTC, MK wrote:
>
> I didn't expect that you could be capable of such a
> stupid "next" answer.
>
> MK
The guy calls himself "Stick".
>
> I didn't expect that you could be capable of such a
> stupid "next" answer.
>
> MK
You should have anticipated a curve ball. Anyone heroic enough to call themselves "Stick" is capable of anything.
Timothy Chow
Feb 2, 2022, 12:13:23 AM2/2/22
to
---
Tim Chow
MK
Feb 3, 2022, 7:36:29 PM2/3/22
to
On February 1, 2022 at 10:13:23 PM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 2/1/2022 12:39 PM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 21:46:30 UTC, MK wrote:
>>> I didn't expect that you could be capable of such a
>>> stupid "next" answer.
> On 2/1/2022 12:39 PM, Nasti Chestikov wrote:
>> On Monday, 31 January 2022 at 21:46:30 UTC, MK wrote:
>>> I didn't expect that you could be capable of such a
>>> stupid "next" answer.
>> The guy calls himself "Stick".
>> You should have anticipated a curve ball. Anyone heroic
>> enough to call themselves "Stick" is capable of anything.
> Sock puppet to the rescue!
I don't need to be rescued. I don't even need support.
>> You should have anticipated a curve ball. Anyone heroic
>> enough to call themselves "Stick" is capable of anything.
> Sock puppet to the rescue!
I'm doing just fine humiliating stick by myself.
What he said doesn't even add anything to my point.
On the other hand, stick needs help and that's indeed
why you not oly showed up here but also revived an
old thread from November in order to restore some
credit to him, unfortunately in vain...
MK
Timothy Chow
Feb 4, 2022, 8:29:13 AM2/4/22
to
On 2/3/2022 7:36 PM, MK wrote:
> I'm doing just fine humiliating stick by myself.
Yes, that's what I said!
> I'm doing just fine humiliating stick by myself.
---
Tim Chow
MK
Feb 4, 2022, 7:06:27 PM2/4/22
to
On February 4, 2022 at 6:29:13 AM UTC-7, Tim Chow wrote:
> On 2/3/2022 7:36 PM, MK wrote:
>> I'm doing just fine humiliating stick by myself.
> Yes, that's what I said!
Yes.
> On 2/3/2022 7:36 PM, MK wrote:
>> I'm doing just fine humiliating stick by myself.
> Yes, that's what I said!
MK
0 new messages