Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Problem of the Week #50: Solution

02-21-2010 , 02:52 PM
Problem of the Week #50: Solution


Cash game, center cube.




Black to play 4-3.


Note: All ‘cash game’ problems assume the Jacoby Rule is in effect. That is, you can’t win a gammon unless the cube has been turned.


We start off in Problem 50 with a basic choice: play safe or leave a blot. The only safe play is horrendously ugly; it’s 11/8 6/2, which leaves Black with a combination of stripped and stacked points. However, it’s the only play which doesn’t leave an immediate shot. There are a couple of constructive plays which volunteer a shot: 11/4 and 8/1*. Playing 11/4 starts a good point and leaves the minimum 11 shots, so Black gets hit only about 30% of the time. Playing 8/1* leaves the same number of shots but puts White on the bar. If White enters but misses the shot, he’ll have to enter on a high point, after which Black can attack the blot more easily.

Before we decide whether safer is better, let’s pick between the two plays that leave a shot. Here, hitting is better than slotting the 4-point by a wide margin. Hitting has two advantages: hitting nets a small but measurable increase in gammon chances when White dances (about 2%), and hitting forces White forward when he misses the shot, giving Black better chances to attack, as well as better chances to pass by more easily. So 8/1* dominates 11/4.

So now our choices are between volunteering a shot with 8/1* or playing safe with 11/8 6/2. Right now Black leads by 17 pips in the race, 95 to 112. After playing his 7 pips he’ll be up by 24. The general principle when bearing home is simple: don’t leave a shot unless you have to. However, there are exceptions. If White’s home board is weak and the safe play is very awkward, leaving the shot may be best. Take a look at this next position:




Position 50a: Black to play 4-3.

Black’s position is the same, but now White has an open 3-point, giving Black plenty of chances to survive after being hit. This one is a no-brainer: 8/1* is better by a lot.

In our original position, however, White’s home board is immensely strong. Against a board like that, it’s extremely rare to ever volunteer a shot. If Black gets hit, he’s basically dead unless he can immediately respond with a 6-1.

Nonetheless, rollouts show that 8/1* is still correct in this position, although by a very small margin. That in itself makes the position very interesting, as it gives us a measure of just how bad the safe play needs to be in order to volunteer a shot against a nearly-perfect home board. In this case, the position after 11/8 6/2 is just bad enough.

That insight in itself would make this a standout position, but we’re not done yet. There’s another factor working.

A couple of posters wondered why Black didn’t double before he threw his 4-3. He could have, although the double is very marginal. (The take is quite easy.) All Black’s doubles were good, as well as 6-1, 6-3, 3-1, 4-2, 4-1, and 5-1. That make 17 rolls that improve Black’s position in some way, with 19 rolls that are either neutral or cause his game to deteriorate.

Over the board, doubling would be a hard call because of the lack of obvious market-losers (sequences where Black rolls, White rolls, and now if Black doubles, White has a big pass). For instance, consider the sequence Black 4-2, played 8/4 6/4, and White 4-2, played 8/6 8/4. Black would be happy with this sequence, yet the resulting position is still an easy take. Players look for some big market losers when they think about doubling a position that’s obviously an easy take, and if they don’t see them, they tend to leave the cube in the middle.

However, the cube position has a big effect on our original position and roll! If either side owns the cube, the right play with the 4-3 is to play safe, 11/8 and 6/2. Only with the cube still in the middle is 8/1* actually correct. Here we run into the Jacoby Rule once more. No matter who has the cube, once it’s been turned gammons are activated, and Black gets gammoned about 10% of the time after hitting. With the cube in the center, White isn’t strong enough to double from the bar, but once he hits, Black will be dropping a double and the gammons never come into play. A noteworthy position.


Solution: 8/1* (with the cube still centered)
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-22-2010 , 03:58 AM
This doesn't seem right. I think 11/8 6/2 is best regardless of where the cube is, Jacoby rule or not. 8/1* just doesn't win enough games. XG RO agrees with this assessment. Not sure why Snowie would differ but it doesn't make sense to me.

1. Rollout¹ 11/8 6/2 eq:+0.371
Player : 58.98% (G:3.17% B:0.07%)
Opponent: 41.02% (G:5.79% B:0.12%)
Confidence: ± 0.006 (+0.365<E<+0.377)
Duration: 1 hour 20 minutes 40 seconds

2. Rollout² 8/1* eq:+0.337 (-0.034)
Player : 56.51% (G:5.81% B:0.09%)
Opponent: 43.49% (G:8.53% B:0.16%)
Confidence: ± 0.006 (+0.331<E<+0.343)
Duration: 1 hour 20 minutes 21 seconds


¹ 5201 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 20394
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply

² 5202 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 20394
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply


eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.11
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-22-2010 , 08:55 AM
In either case, those close rollouts' results aren't fully conclusive. I would play the safe play because there's a chance that White rolls a double and has to leave Black's 9-pt (or ace point) or crunch his board (although he could possibly switch points in his home board).

But, as explained by Bill Robertie, the hitting play will either leave White with an inefficient double/pass or a miss and leave Black as a favorite.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-22-2010 , 01:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberkuber
In either case, those close rollouts' results aren't fully conclusive.
Looks fully conclusive to me. I could lay you a billion to one here.

Snowie live cube RO strongly supports the safe play also so my guess is it has something to do with the weirdness of Snowie cube formula again.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-22-2010 , 05:38 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
All this is a surprising turn of events to say the very least.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-22-2010 , 07:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertie
Problem of the Week #50: Solution


All Black’s doubles were good, as well as 6-1, 6-3, 3-1, 4-2, 4-1, and 5-1. That make 17 rolls that improve Black’s position in some way, with 19 rolls that are either neutral or cause his game to deteriorate.

Doesnt this make for 18 good and 18 bad rolls instead of 17-19 (6 doubles and two ways each of making the six other combo´s)?
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-22-2010 , 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atrifix
This doesn't seem right. I think 11/8 6/2 is best regardless of where the cube is, Jacoby rule or not. 8/1* just doesn't win enough games. XG RO agrees with this assessment. Not sure why Snowie would differ but it doesn't make sense to me.

1. Rollout¹ 11/8 6/2 eq:+0.371
Player : 58.98% (G:3.17% B:0.07%)
Opponent: 41.02% (G:5.79% B:0.12%)
Confidence: ± 0.006 (+0.365<E<+0.377)
Duration: 1 hour 20 minutes 40 seconds

2. Rollout² 8/1* eq:+0.337 (-0.034)
Player : 56.51% (G:5.81% B:0.09%)
Opponent: 43.49% (G:8.53% B:0.16%)
Confidence: ± 0.006 (+0.331<E<+0.343)
Duration: 1 hour 20 minutes 21 seconds


¹ 5201 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 20394
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply

² 5202 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 20394
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply


eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.11
GnuBG rollout shows an even bigger difference (.057 eq loss for 8/1*)
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-23-2010 , 04:26 AM
With GNU-BG Checker Play Analysis set to "Supremo," and with "Use Jacoby rule" checked on the Cube Options tab, I created an new "Cash" game, and edited the board to setup Problem 50. Here's what the rollouts show:




Last edited by Taper_Mike; 02-23-2010 at 04:34 AM.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-26-2010 , 05:51 AM
I didn't see this problem when it was live, so I won't attempt a solution. But the discussion raises an interesting point about an emerging consensus: if XG says one thing, and Snowie says another, put me down for XG.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-26-2010 , 02:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertie
Problem of the Week #50: Solution


Cash game, center cube.




Black to play 4-3.




Nonetheless, rollouts show that 8/1* is still correct in this position, although by a very small margin. That in itself makes the position very interesting, as it gives us a measure of just how bad the safe play needs to be in order to volunteer a shot against a nearly-perfect home board. In this case, the position after 11/8 6/2 is just bad enough.




Solution: 8/1* (with the cube still centered)
I think your rollout is corrupt Bill.

My Snowie 4 3-ply Precise rollout 1296 trials has the ugly safe play correct by 0.054.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-27-2010 , 10:59 AM
My original Snowie rollout (Snowie version 4.7.1) was 2-ply/648 trials and made 8/1* better than 11/8 6/2 by 0.025. I just redid the rollout on 3-ply/1296 trials and it showed 8/1* better by 0.022.

I'm not sure what the problem is with this position and the various rollouts. Normally I wouldn't post a position with only a .022/.025 difference between plays, since I like clearer differences to discuss. What made this position attractive was that it seemed to be a counterexample to the principle that you 'always' play safe when faced with an essential perfect board for your opponent. I've been looking for a good position that showed it was possible to have a structure that was so awkward that you could correctly volunteer a shot, so when I saw this position and the rollout result I filed it away as a good problem.

What's puzzling here is that this isn't a position where the bots should all disagree. Backgame positions involve difficult checker plays; that's where you see the most differences between Snowie 2-ply and Snowie 3-ply rollouts, and I would only trust a 3-ply rollout for backgames. But the checker plays after either opening roll here look pretty clear cut. I would expect the Snowie rollouts to match up (they did, at least on my machine) and also I would expect all the bots to match pretty closely.

I think I'll go out and buy a copy of XG and compare the checkers plays going forward, and see if there are differences. This is a puzzling problem, however.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-27-2010 , 02:53 PM
It's also puzzling that two Snowie 4 rollouts (I would guess with two Snowie versions, 4.7.1 for BR and ? for insidebackgammon) with apparently the same settings (3-ply/1296 trials) differ like that. But it's not like there was a big difference between both plays.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-27-2010 , 03:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertie
My original Snowie rollout (Snowie version 4.7.1) was 2-ply/648 trials and made 8/1* better than 11/8 6/2 by 0.025. I just redid the rollout on 3-ply/1296 trials and it showed 8/1* better by 0.022.

I'm not sure what the problem is with this position and the various rollouts. Normally I wouldn't post a position with only a .022/.025 difference between plays, since I like clearer differences to discuss. What made this position attractive was that it seemed to be a counterexample to the principle that you 'always' play safe when faced with an essential perfect board for your opponent. I've been looking for a good position that showed it was possible to have a structure that was so awkward that you could correctly volunteer a shot, so when I saw this position and the rollout result I filed it away as a good problem.

What's puzzling here is that this isn't a position where the bots should all disagree. Backgame positions involve difficult checker plays; that's where you see the most differences between Snowie 2-ply and Snowie 3-ply rollouts, and I would only trust a 3-ply rollout for backgames. But the checker plays after either opening roll here look pretty clear cut. I would expect the Snowie rollouts to match up (they did, at least on my machine) and also I would expect all the bots to match pretty closely.

I think I'll go out and buy a copy of XG and compare the checkers plays going forward, and see if there are differences. This is a puzzling problem, however.
when I did a 3-ply 1296 gnubg rollout (the initial one was 2-ply 1296) the numbers came closer to what atrifix posted, something like 0.038 better for a safe play, so it could be a problem specific to that particular version of snowie
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-28-2010 , 05:06 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alpha Fish
when I did a 3-ply 1296 gnubg rollout (the initial one was 2-ply 1296) the numbers came closer to what atrifix posted, something like 0.038 better for a safe play, so it could be a problem specific to that particular version of snowie
I don't think it has to do with a version of Snowie; I think it is the rollout settings and Snowie's use of Janowski formula.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-28-2010 , 09:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberkuber
It's also puzzling that two Snowie 4 rollouts (I would guess with two Snowie versions, 4.7.1 for BR and ? for insidebackgammon) with apparently the same settings (3-ply/1296 trials) differ like that.
It probably has something to do with the settings...plys/trials is not a complete list of rollout settings. My Snowie 3-ply live cube strongly liked the safe play whereas cubeful liked hitting. Weird move filters, specific-ply weird cube actions, truncation...these things sometimes matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by uberkuber
But it's not like there was a big difference between both plays.
Again in at least some cases the difference is big enough that attributing it to randomness would be incorrect (or at least exceptionally improbable).
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-28-2010 , 12:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atrifix
It probably has something to do with the settings...plys/trials is not a complete list of rollout settings. My Snowie 3-ply live cube strongly liked the safe play whereas cubeful liked hitting. Weird move filters, specific-ply weird cube actions, truncation...these things sometimes matter.



Again in at least some cases the difference is big enough that attributing it to randomness would be incorrect (or at least exceptionally improbable).
Thanks for the details about the settings, atrifix.

I don't attribute the difference to randomness. But with what you just said, knowing that different settings yield different answers, I think that the best two plays should be somehow close in real equity.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-28-2010 , 08:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atrifix
Again in at least some cases the difference is big enough that attributing it to randomness would be incorrect (or at least exceptionally improbable).
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberkuber
I don't attribute the difference to randomness.
Although I'm no expert on bots, what I've read supports this. Differences in equity of 0.03 and greater are deemed significant by almost all sources. It's only when the variation in equity is a fraction of a percent, that is, less then 0.01, that writers are willing to acknowledge that the difference is insignificant. Even that doesn't mean the computer is wrong. It just means that we need stronger evidence before drawing any conclusions.

In his book Classic Backgammon Revisited, Jeremy Bagai is a little more conservative. He uses 0.05 as his threshold for declaring the computer solution to be better than the famous authors he is "correcting."

Last edited by Taper_Mike; 02-28-2010 at 08:55 PM.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-28-2010 , 11:46 PM
I would guess the real equity is very close to what the XG RO reports.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
02-28-2010 , 11:50 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taper_Mike
Although I'm no expert on bots, what I've read supports this. Differences in equity of 0.03 and greater are deemed significant by almost all sources. It's only when the variation in equity is a fraction of a percent, that is, less then 0.01, that writers are willing to acknowledge that the difference is insignificant. Even that doesn't mean the computer is wrong. It just means that we need stronger evidence before drawing any conclusions.

In his book Classic Backgammon Revisited, Jeremy Bagai is a little more conservative. He uses 0.05 as his threshold for declaring the computer solution to be better than the famous authors he is "correcting."
No, this is not the right way of thinking. .01 can be as significant as anything and .100 or .200 can be explained away due to variance. It all depends on the position, the settings, the number of trials.

As a general rule 2-3 joint standard deviations (JSDs) away from the mean is extremely high confidence that a similar rollout on the same bot would yield the same results. Since there are over 8 here it is basically a 100% certainty.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
03-01-2010 , 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atrifix
I would guess the real equity is very close to what the XG RO reports.
Why XG more than Snowie let's say?
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
03-01-2010 , 10:52 AM
I just finished a 2-ply/3240 trial rollout on Snowie with a live cube. (The larger number of trials is necessary because cubeful rollouts don't incorporate Snowie's variance reduction techniques.) Cubeful rollouts yield both cubeless and cubeful results. The cubeless results favored 8/1* by .03, consistent with the previous results. The cubeful rollouts favored 6/2 11/8 by .06, which pretty much concur with the other results here. The problem seems to lie in Snowie's estimation of the effect of the cube in a cubeless rollout.

Hence, an amended result:

Solution: 11/8 6/2.

I'd still like to find an exception to the general rule that you must play safe rather than volunteer a shot when facing a monster board, but this problem (alas) isn't it. The search continues.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
03-03-2010 , 11:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by atrifix
As a general rule 2-3 joint standard deviations (JSDs) away from the mean is extremely high confidence...
Thanks, Atrifix. This one sent me scurrying for Google to lookup joint standard deviations. The result was worth the time. Truly advanced stuff!
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
03-11-2010 , 11:59 PM
I understand that BG-forum newb questions are categorically ignored?




Quote:
Originally Posted by Nezh
Originally Posted by Robertie
Problem of the Week #50: Solution

All Black’s doubles were good, as well as 6-1, 6-3, 3-1, 4-2, 4-1, and 5-1. That make 17 rolls that improve Black’s position in some way, with 19 rolls that are either neutral or cause his game to deteriorate.



Doesnt this make for 18 good and 18 bad rolls instead of 17-19 (6 doubles and two ways each of making the six other combo´s)?
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote
03-12-2010 , 10:12 AM
No, we actually welcome newbie questions. This one I just missed. My sincere apologies.

You are correct, of course. Six doubles + 12 non-doubles = 18 good rolls.
Problem of the Week #50: Solution Quote

      
m