Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

1 view

Skip to first unread message

Jan 24, 1992, 5:36:35 AM1/24/92

to

A few people have asked me to post Jeff Ward's racing

formula (from Jeff Ward, _The_Doubling_Cube_In_Backgammon_Vol._I_,

Aquarian Enterprises, San Diego 1982, pp. 74-76).

Here it is:

Let's say the side on roll has the X checkers, the other side the O's.

Ward's formula gives predictions as to whether X should double or

redouble, and whether O should take.

First take the raw pip counts: call X's pip count X, O's pip count O.

Next adjust X and O as follows: add 2 for each checker on the 1 point

beyond the second, and add 1 for each checker on the 2 point beyond the

second. I.e. "extra" checkers beyond the second (the third checker,

fourth, etc.) count for 3 pips in the adjusted count.

Then, for either X or O, subtract 1 for each extra inner-board point

occupied. E.g. if X had one gap and O had none, you'd subtract 1 from

O because O occupied 6 inner-board points and X occupied 5. Caveat:

Ward says gaps must be treated on a case-by-case basis, because some

gaps are more harmful than others. For example, he wouldn't adjust

for a gap on the 3 point with the 6, 5, and 4 points evenly filled,

because 3's play well to fill the gap anyway.

Then add 2 for each extra checker on the board.

Then add 1/2 for each extra checker outside the inner board.

Then multiply X's adjusted count by 1.1.

Now you have both sides' final adjusted counts: call them X' and O'.

If X' <= O'+1, X should redouble.

If O'+1 < X' <= O'+2, X should double but not redouble.

If ((X+O) / 2) >= 100, O takes if and only if O' <= X'+4.

If ((X+O) / 2) = 75, O takes if and only if O' <= X'+3.

If ((X+O) / 2) <= 50, O takes if and only if O' <= X'+2.

Ward doesn't say anything about the cases 75 < ((X+O) / 2) < 100

and 50 < ((X+O) / 2) < 75; I guess you linearly interpolate in

the absence of any information. At an average raw pip count of 62.5,

O can take if and only if O' <= X'+2.5, I suppose.

There are some problems with Ward's formula, as with any other:

(1) it's not clear how to adjust for gaps (Ward gives a couple of

examples, but not enough);

(2) the adjustment for extra outside checkers doesn't penalize the

side with the extra outside checkers enough. For example, applying

Ward's formula to Problem 24 from the last two issues of Inside

Backgammon predicts redouble-take, whereas high-power race-crunching

software evaluates the position as redouble-pass, worth about

1.08 x cube for the strong side (cited by Goulding, "Inside Backgammon",

Vol. 2 No. 1, p.17):

01 02 03 04 05 06 | | 07 08 09 10 11 12

O O O O | | O O

O O O O | |

O O O | |

O | |

O | |

| |

| |

X | |

X X | |

X X X X X X | |

X X X X X X | |

01 02 03 04 05 06 | | 07 08 09 10 11 12

X on roll: cube action?

Even if you subtract 2 pips from X's count for the gap-adjustment

(Ward would recommend subtracting 0 or 1 because the high gaps

are unlikely to hurt O much; maybe he'll end up with a fast-decaying

5-point gap), we get X' = 58.3, O' = 59, predicting a take.

Recent work by Kleinman has shown that extra crossovers hurt very

much, in general. In using Ward's formula, I used to add 1/2 pip per

checker, plus another 1/2 pip for each 4 pips away from the home board

each outside checker was: even this didn't penalize enough for extra

outside checkers.

But Ward's formula is pretty good otherwise. Seems to be better than

Thorp's, though a little harder to use. And any formula is much better

than nothing.

Hope this helps.

Play well,

Marty

Jan 24, 1992, 3:12:21 PM1/24/92

to

It seems to me that given David Applegate's race programs, we could do

a search of the space of easy-to-compute functions to find good simple

approximations like Thorp's and Ward's. Personally, I never have the

patience to do a pip count, so I'd like an even simpler (if less accurate)

formula based on, say, the number of checkers outside the inner board,

number of checkers on the 6 point, etc.

a search of the space of easy-to-compute functions to find good simple

approximations like Thorp's and Ward's. Personally, I never have the

patience to do a pip count, so I'd like an even simpler (if less accurate)

formula based on, say, the number of checkers outside the inner board,

number of checkers on the 6 point, etc.

I suppose the thing to do is, try to come up with a good set of potential

features by hand -- features you'd be willing to compute in your head --

and then write a program to compute their effect on expected rolls to

bear off and standard deviation. To first order, you can assume they're

independent (say, that a checker on the 6 point takes 0.7 rolls to bear off

no matter where the other checkers are) but it will be important to

identify the important cases where this is inaccurate, by looking at

combinations of features that are highly dependent.

By choosing sets of features that you personally find easy to

approximate, you can roll your own racing formula.

Marc (average club player)

Jan 27, 1992, 4:03:05 AM1/27/92

to

In article <1992Jan24.2...@cs.cmu.edu> mn...@cs.cmu.edu (Marc Ringuette) writes:

> It seems to me that given David Applegate's race programs, we could do

> a search of the space of easy-to-compute functions to find good simple

> approximations like Thorp's and Ward's. Personally, I never have the

> patience to do a pip count, so I'd like an even simpler (if less accurate)

> formula based on, say, the number of checkers outside the inner board,

> number of checkers on the 6 point, etc.

Well, the simplest formulas I know are based on the pip count.

"8-9-12" is one of them: double from the center if you're ahead

8% of your pip count; redouble if you're ahead 9% of your pip count;

pass if you're behind more than 12% of your opponent's count.

The length of the race is such an important factor that I don't know

how you can avoid using it in a formula.

>

> I suppose the thing to do is, try to come up with a good set of potential

> features by hand -- features you'd be willing to compute in your head --

> and then write a program to compute their effect on expected rolls to

> bear off and standard deviation. To first order, you can assume they're

> independent (say, that a checker on the 6 point takes 0.7 rolls to bear off

> no matter where the other checkers are) but it will be important to

> identify the important cases where this is inaccurate, by looking at

> combinations of features that are highly dependent.

Danny Kleinman has done lots of work along these lines; see

_Double_Sixes_From_The_Bar_ (available from Danny Kleinman, 5312 1/2

Village Green, Los Angeles CA 90016, for ~$25 I think).

Counting rolls instead of pips considers the length of the race, which

is good. But it seems like doing involved roll-counting will force you

to do some mental arithmetic that's more tedious than counting pips.

>

> By choosing sets of features that you personally find easy to

> approximate, you can roll your own racing formula.

This kind of work is worthwhile--you learn a lot about evaluating races

and you may even come up with a good, compact formula.

Still, the most useful formulas I know of use the pip count. Counting

pips accurately is therefore essential if you want to make good cube

decisions.

There's a saying, I forget whose: if you can't find anything to

evaluate in a position, take a pip count. It's good advice.

> Marc (average club player)

Play well,

Marty

Jan 27, 1992, 12:15:30 PM1/27/92

to

>It seems to me that given David Applegate's race programs, we could do

>a search of the space of easy-to-compute functions to find good simple

>approximations like Thorp's and Ward's. Personally, I never have the

>patience to do a pip count, so I'd like an even simpler (if less accurate)

>formula based on, say, the number of checkers outside the inner board,

>number of checkers on the 6 point, etc.

> [rest deleted]>a search of the space of easy-to-compute functions to find good simple

>approximations like Thorp's and Ward's. Personally, I never have the

>patience to do a pip count, so I'd like an even simpler (if less accurate)

>formula based on, say, the number of checkers outside the inner board,

>number of checkers on the 6 point, etc.

A simple method that's easy to use (i.e. even I do it!) was pubished in

Bruce Becker's 'Backgammon for Blood'. It count *throws* to get home based

on the fact that the average dice roll is 8 and that the board neatly

divides in to groups of 4 points, each requiring, on average, half a throw

to get home.

i.e Points Throws

~~~~~~ ~~~~~~

7 - 10 1/2

11 - 14 1

15 - 18 1 1/2

19 - 22 2

23 - 24 2 1/2

Bar 3

ok, it's not perfect but it is easy and it's quite good for comparing

positions. To count the number of throws to bearoff, count one throw for

every pair of pieces on the 1,2 3 points, count 1 1/2 throws for every pair

on the 4, 5, 6 points. Add 1/2 throw for every gap.

0 new messages

Search

Clear search

Close search

Google apps

Main menu