The other thing John - which I also got wrong until I asked some GM's - is the breakdown of single wins and gammons. The 21% gammons is NOT out of 73, it's out 0f 100. So, 52 singles and 21 gammons. Also, you would rarely lose out by not doubling here. There are very few rolls and replies in this position that lose your market, so you can play on for the gammon without giving away the cube.
yes you are right with the % as you have confirmed. im still not worried about giving away the cube, its a long long way for red to turn this game around, and there is no accounting for what the opponent might do, when i cube i like to see it accepted :)
Needing only 2 points, white should play risking a bit more to get the gammon, as the reward is higher. He should alter his checker play accordingly, and would win 21g and 52 singles. Needing three, the gammon gains nothing if the cube is turned , as it will come back at 4. So white should then play more for the simple win, winning 55 singles and 17 gammons. At 5:36, the bot's move, 8-4, leave 4 shots now, but fewer shots later, and gives 8 numbers to make the 3 - point next roll, your move gives only 4 numbers, and leaves more shots next roll. If red comes in with a 3, you leave shots with 6/1 (double shot!), 6/5, 5/3. you have to give up a point with 3/1 and 4/1, and are in peril of leaving shots AGAIN for the next roll or 2 or 3 because you haven't cleared the bar-point! If you clear it on this roll, you lose most of the jeopardy on subsequent rolls! The Greats of the game advise clearing outfield points while the opponent is on the bar, with very few, if any, exceptions. The 5-3 is another interesting one. If you make the 3-point on the opening roll, it is certainly not "useless" - it's useful right through the game. Any inner point is a plus when you are doing a blitz attack (one must have the correct technique). You may roll 3-1, 4-2, 1-1, 4-4, or some of them, in subsequent rolls anyway, so you will often have NO gap! Same applies to 6-4, it wins slightly more gammons, but the differences are not huge. The 5-3 in the next position is interesting. Making the 8-point is actually VERY useful, as it removes the blot, can form part of a prime to get home safely, and is a bit more flexible - its a landing spot too, and you still have the spare on your 6. I hope that was interesting.
The 3-1 play is not open for debate. You cannot make a decision now based on the possibility of what you might roll in the future. The fact is that getting hit now would be critically damaging. Do not 🚫 give your opponent this chance. If we have to give a shot later because we have no choice, so be it. But it's not guaranteed we will, as demonstrated in how this played out. The 53 point is not useful until it's useful Making it as your opening play just uses your only spare on the 8pt and does nothing to get your back checkers mobile. The only points that are worth making with your single spare on the 8pt is 4/5/7. There are other factors that might change this, but by and large this principle is permanent. Then in the discussion about the cube at match score 3-0 A natural gammon is not very likely at all, definitely not 1/5 good. The position is just not that volatile. Especially if you don't make the 3pt in move 5. As I said, the bot lacks vision and consistency.
@@jedimasterbg It's not about what you MIGHT roll in the future, it's about the probability of getting into trouble. Debating is not going to resolve it, but I would think that any GM would play it 8-4, following their adage of breaking the point while opp. is on the bar. I doubt that Robertie, Goulding, Kazaross and 20 others know less than you! However, I suggest doing a few 100 rollouts with real dice - THAT would possibly show a trend: I may try it myself, because I'm curious! As regards 5-3: It serves useful purposes from the moment you make it! It stops the opponent from anchoring there, stops them from playing 24/20 with a double 2, and keeps them on the bar with 4 rolls when they are hit.
@@jedimasterbg Actually, a hand rollout of a few 100 would be inaccurate, as you would get too many repeats of first rolls. The computer - whatever you think of it - can play a simple position like this very accurately with both move a) and move b), blot/not. As this is a common situation (to clear or not to clear while opp. is on bar), if you always play it one way for 1000+ games, and then always the other way for 1000+ games, it might be fairly conclusive as to which is safer.
Just did 1296 rollouts with each move. 5/1 wins 83.7 games overall, including 28 gammons. 8/4 wins 84.2, including 32 gammons. 5/1 also loses 1.3 gammons, whereas taking the risk now loses only 0.8 gammons. The reason humans are sometimes reluctant to take the risk of 4 shots now is fear, and the embarrassment of getting hit straight away. That emotion interferes with our ability to reason that, if we don't get hit this roll, we are overall more likely to get hit later. They were working out moves like this in the 70's, with long hand-rollouts! And they were still playing "pure" as an article of faith. Hey, if you enjoy playing your way, that's fine, you will sometimes win a final anyway: being a couple of percent off here and there is not going to exclude that possibility. Backgammon is fun, and these details are not the end of the world. So I wish you well, just with the proviso that, if you post things that the world's top 200+ players disagree with (just as they disagree with Costin on "dice"!) you can expect it to be "up for debate"! 🙂All the best!!
@@PeterOzanne I appreciate your effort and input into this debate But you cannot use XG to solve an issue over whether XG is right or wrong What would you expect to find in a roll out, obviously XG arrived at it's original decision by virtue of such calculations as you have achieved with your roll out. The 3point argument on opening roll let's agree to disagree XG wouldn't play 24/20 anyway it would play 24/22+13/11
I'm honestly starting to think this guy is just in the business of creating backgammon satire at this point. His commentary just underscores the fact that he understands frighteningly little about this game.
you make me laugh Scotty, you are a toddler in backgammon matters, why you think you can educate me on anything is hilarious, but keep it up, nice to know i get under your skin.
@@jedimasterbg You don't get under my skin. You crack me up. Keep trolling the backgammon groups on Facebook. We enjoy watching you make an ass out of yourself.
The other thing John - which I also got wrong until I asked some GM's - is the breakdown of single wins and gammons. The 21% gammons is NOT out of 73, it's out 0f 100. So, 52 singles and 21 gammons. Also, you would rarely lose out by not doubling here. There are very few rolls and replies in this position that lose your market, so you can play on for the gammon without giving away the cube.
yes you are right with the % as you have confirmed. im still not worried about giving away the cube, its a long long way for red to turn this game around, and there is no accounting for what the opponent might do, when i cube i like to see it accepted :)
Needing only 2 points, white should play risking a bit more to get the gammon, as the reward is higher. He should alter his checker play accordingly, and would win 21g and 52 singles. Needing three, the gammon gains nothing if the cube is turned , as it will come back at 4. So white should then play more for the simple win, winning 55 singles and 17 gammons.
At 5:36, the bot's move, 8-4, leave 4 shots now, but fewer shots later, and gives 8 numbers to make the 3 - point next roll, your move gives only 4 numbers, and leaves more shots next roll. If red comes in with a 3, you leave shots with 6/1 (double shot!), 6/5, 5/3. you have to give up a point with 3/1 and 4/1, and are in peril of leaving shots AGAIN for the next roll or 2 or 3 because you haven't cleared the bar-point! If you clear it on this roll, you lose most of the jeopardy on subsequent rolls! The Greats of the game advise clearing outfield points while the opponent is on the bar, with very few, if any, exceptions.
The 5-3 is another interesting one. If you make the 3-point on the opening roll, it is certainly not "useless" - it's useful right through the game. Any inner point is a plus when you are doing a blitz attack (one must have the correct technique). You may roll 3-1, 4-2, 1-1, 4-4, or some of them, in subsequent rolls anyway, so you will often have NO gap! Same applies to 6-4, it wins slightly more gammons, but the differences are not huge. The 5-3 in the next position is interesting. Making the 8-point is actually VERY useful, as it removes the blot, can form part of a prime to get home safely, and is a bit more flexible - its a landing spot too, and you still have the spare on your 6.
I hope that was interesting.
The 3-1 play is not open for debate.
You cannot make a decision now based on the possibility of what you might roll in the future.
The fact is that getting hit now would be critically damaging.
Do not 🚫 give your opponent this chance. If we have to give a shot later because we have no choice, so be it. But it's not guaranteed we will, as demonstrated in how this played out.
The 53 point is not useful until it's useful
Making it as your opening play just uses your only spare on the 8pt and does nothing to get your back checkers mobile.
The only points that are worth making with your single spare on the 8pt is 4/5/7.
There are other factors that might change this, but by and large this principle is permanent.
Then in the discussion about the cube at match score 3-0
A natural gammon is not very likely at all, definitely not 1/5 good. The position is just not that volatile. Especially if you don't make the 3pt in move 5.
As I said, the bot lacks vision and consistency.
@@jedimasterbg It's not about what you MIGHT roll in the future, it's about the probability of getting into trouble. Debating is not going to resolve it, but I would think that any GM would play it 8-4, following their adage of breaking the point while opp. is on the bar. I doubt that Robertie, Goulding, Kazaross and 20 others know less than you! However, I suggest doing a few 100 rollouts with real dice - THAT would possibly show a trend: I may try it myself, because I'm curious!
As regards 5-3: It serves useful purposes from the moment you make it! It stops the opponent from anchoring there, stops them from playing 24/20 with a double 2, and keeps them on the bar with 4 rolls when they are hit.
@@jedimasterbg Actually, a hand rollout of a few 100 would be inaccurate, as you would get too many repeats of first rolls. The computer - whatever you think of it - can play a simple position like this very accurately with both move a) and move b), blot/not. As this is a common situation (to clear or not to clear while opp. is on bar), if you always play it one way for 1000+ games, and then always the other way for 1000+ games, it might be fairly conclusive as to which is safer.
Just did 1296 rollouts with each move.
5/1 wins 83.7 games overall, including 28 gammons.
8/4 wins 84.2, including 32 gammons.
5/1 also loses 1.3 gammons, whereas taking the risk now loses only 0.8 gammons. The reason humans are sometimes reluctant to take the risk of 4 shots now is fear, and the embarrassment of getting hit straight away. That emotion interferes with our ability to reason that, if we don't get hit this roll, we are overall more likely to get hit later. They were working out moves like this in the 70's, with long hand-rollouts! And they were still playing "pure" as an article of faith. Hey, if you enjoy playing your way, that's fine, you will sometimes win a final anyway: being a couple of percent off here and there is not going to exclude that possibility. Backgammon is fun, and these details are not the end of the world. So I wish you well, just with the proviso that, if you post things that the world's top 200+ players disagree with (just as they disagree with Costin on "dice"!) you can expect it to be "up for debate"! 🙂All the best!!
@@PeterOzanne
I appreciate your effort and input into this debate
But you cannot use XG to solve an issue over whether XG is right or wrong
What would you expect to find in a roll out, obviously XG arrived at it's original decision by virtue of such calculations as you have achieved with your roll out.
The 3point argument on opening roll let's agree to disagree
XG wouldn't play 24/20 anyway it would play 24/22+13/11
I'm honestly starting to think this guy is just in the business of creating backgammon satire at this point. His commentary just underscores the fact that he understands frighteningly little about this game.
you make me laugh Scotty, you are a toddler in backgammon matters, why you think you can educate me on anything is hilarious, but keep it up, nice to know i get under your skin.
@@jedimasterbg You don't get under my skin. You crack me up. Keep trolling the backgammon groups on Facebook. We enjoy watching you make an ass out of yourself.