Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Problem of the Week #87: Solution

12-15-2010 , 06:57 PM
Problem of the Week #87: Solution


Cash game, Center cube.





Black to play 6-2.


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.


Problem 87 is an example of what we’ve labeled the proto-backgame. Both sides have been busy whacking each other for a while, with the result that Black now has seven men back, and White has three. Neither side has managed to make either a new home-board point or a new blocking point, so each side is free to maneuver, and the cost of getting another man hit is very small. Now Black has a 6-2 to play from the bar. Clearly he’ll come in with Bar/23, after which he can choose among five legal sixes, none of which are absurd. It’s a tough problem, to be sure.

Let’s start by reviewing the key ideas for handling proto-backgame positions. After that, we’ll list Black’s five legal choices and see how they stack up. Although none of Black’s plays are horrible, some will drop off our radar screen quickly once we see what we’re really trying to do.

Key Idea #1: Don’t kill checkers. This rule is important in all types of games, but it’s especially important in proto-backgames. You must keep your checkers active and in front of your opponent. Burying checkers on your 1-point and 2-point is death; don’t do it.

Key Idea #2: Make your opponent play the backgame. A common mistake in proto-backgames is assuming that the player who initially has the most men back will inevitably be the one playing the backgame. These positions, however, usually lack any defined structure because so much of the early game is spent hitting and being hit. Without structure, it’s relatively easy for the side with more men back to get a lucky hit or two and reverse the situation. To paraphrase General Patton: “Don’t play a backgame; make the other poor bastard play a backgame.”

Key Idea #3: Make strong points. All the points that are normally good to make in the opening are even better to make in a proto-backgame. Your blocking points (the 4, 5, 7, and 9-points) are even stronger because there are more checkers to block. Your anchors (the 21, 20, and 19-points) are even better because you have more checkers to recirculate to the outfield.

Key Idea #4: Recirculate. Don’t fall in love with backgame points; keep your checkers moving to your opponent’s outfield. From his outfield, you’re threatening to make points in your outfield, which are blocks for whatever men he has back.

Key Idea #5: Watch out for your middling doubles. Check your position to see if particular numbers are blocked around the board. If that’s the case, your game could blow up with an awkward double. The problem won’t come from 1-1 or 2-2, which are small enough to be handled in most positions. It also won’t come from 6-6 or 5-5, since your opponent won’t have had a chance to form a prime yet. The real danger numbers in proto-backgames are 3-3 and 4-4, which are susceptible to the kind of small blocks that form in these positions. Usually the culprit is a careless play earlier, where an accurately-played ace or deuce could create a position where all numbers play well.

That’s a general summary of the ideas to keep in mind when both sides have a bunch of men back but no real structure yet. Now let’s look at Black’s actual options and see which play makes the most sense.

Bar/23 24/18. Moving out to the 18-point is the worst play. It doesn’t hit, doesn’t make a new point, and leaves two blots on the points White most wants to make, his 7-point and 9-point. White now has a few point-making numbers and lots of double-hits, which often result in White’s building a quick little prime. This is exactly what Black wants to avoid.

Bar/23 16/10. This is an improvement on 24/18, since Black doesn’t leave blots where White is trying to make points. In addition, the blot on the 10-point puts a little pressure on some points Black would like to make, which is good. Still, the play has two significant downsides:

> White gets to hit with threes, which is currently his least effective number around the board.

> The move leaves Black a little thin in White’s outfield, with no presence there and a stripped midpoint.

Bar/23 13/7*. This was the play I actually chose when the position came up. (It’s from a match against Nack Ballard at one of the Reno Invitationals back in the late 1980s). I realized breaking the midpoint was dangerous, but I saw that the 23-point was an awkward point for White to have a couple of checkers. I thought if I could make a small block of three points, White might get squeezed, needing to build some front points quickly while at the same time needing to move his back men.

That’s exactly how the game played out, so I thought I had made a really good move. Years later, when Snowie had gotten good enough in backgames to trust its rollouts, I realized that the play was just too loose. The three blots on my bar-point, midpoint, and 16-point give White too much of an opportunity to stick me in a true backgame. My move does win more games than the second-best play, but loses too many gammons.

Bar/23 22/16. Not a bad play. It keeps the 20-point and makes the 16-point, giving Black a good anchor and a clear route to the outfield. The downside of the play is that Black is consolidating into an inferior position. White has a lot of rolls to make a good point somewhere, and this play leaves Black more likely to end up in some sort of backgame/holding game. Since White still has no structure, Black is entitled to play more aggressively.

Bar/23 20/14*. This is the right idea when White has no new structure: hit to keep White off balance and gain ground in the race. Hitting gains 14 pips, so instead of trailing by 34 pips in the race, Black will trail by only 20. After another such sequence, Black could actually catch up, and that’s a great result. You always want to make your opponent play the backgame, not you, and this is the best play to get out of backgame mode as soon as possible.

Leaving the 20-point carries some risk, but it’s very small; White needs to roll an immediate 1-1 or 3-3 to make the point. Otherwise, Black has a triple shot to remake it. Meanwhile, Black picks up some builders to make a point in his outfield. This play gives Black the best overall distribution and board control, and beats out 22/16 by a modest margin.


Solution: Bar/23 20/14*
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-15-2010 , 11:25 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertie
My move does win more games than the second-best play, but loses too many gammons.
The main reason (among others) why I chose B/23 13/7* was because gammons weren't activated yet. Had they been, I would certainly have discarded this options because of the risks it carried.

However, couldn't it be a viable option in a cash game/center cube context? When you made that move, Bill, it was during a tournament, right?
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-16-2010 , 06:58 AM
Because of the 400 pips to play, staying on the golden point and making the 16 to activate the checkers on midpoint as builders for the front position, was for me paramount. A 3ply RO (which i will crank up with my core 2 duo) backed up my decision. Again i will point out the philosophical question: if RO's are not the archimedic point in our backgammon world, what else? And if we have a dissenting vote according to the rollout, how to handle this?
Second. There are strong players, who go up to 4ply for openings and difficult decisions. I am working on the interesting 54 backgame position, making a massive 3ply rollout, 20k-40k RO for the best moves, by now the same as the 4ply settings. Is the accuracy of a 3ply not enough?


1. Rollout¹ Bar/23 22/16 eq:-0,112
Player : 47,82% (G:11,81% B:0,53%)
Opponent: 52,18% (G:16,38% B:0,76%)
Confidence: 0,020 (-0,132<E<-0,092)
Duration: 8 hours 41 minutes

2. Rollout¹ Bar/23 20/14* eq:-0,128 (-0,015)
Player : 47,69% (G:11,62% B:0,61%)
Opponent: 52,31% (G:16,59% B:1,04%)
Confidence: 0,024 (-0,152<E<-0,104)
Duration: 9 hours 12 minutes


¹ 2592 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply
eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.21
Laptop Pentium M 1.73 Ghz/150.000 pos.

Last edited by higonefive; 12-16-2010 at 07:06 AM.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-16-2010 , 10:06 AM
Looks like Snowie and Extreme Gammon play this sort of position very differently. Snowie's backgame preferences tend to concur with my own experiences, so I'll usually rely on Snowie in this sort of situation. You may feel differently, which is OK.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-16-2010 , 11:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertie
Looks like Snowie and Extreme Gammon play this sort of position very differently. Snowie's backgame preferences tend to concur with my own experiences, so I'll usually rely on Snowie in this sort of situation. You may feel differently, which is OK.
Thanks for your answer. I work also with Snowie, because i think, his AI is very strong. But first, training matches with XG showed me, that his understanding and handling of the timing is also very strong. The real problem i think in difficult decisions of positions which will last, is the order from noise. Therefore, you have to crank up the trials significantly. This is with snowie, who was written for single core cpu, nearly impossible. In very difficult positions with candidates very near together, a 5 to 10k 3ply is minimum. That is only possible with multicore support.
Holding the fort is for me a more strategic approach and shooting from the more tactical. Ortega in Costa Rica 93 Snellings vs. Senkiewicz quoted little differences explicit as "no error", which means, we don't know the best. The last positions here showed me for sure, that backgammon is far from being solved by the bots. Where is the big spender, which backed up jellyfish? Perhaps he can back up snowie in a double cash game fight against atrifix/XG ?!
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-16-2010 , 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robertie
Looks like Snowie and Extreme Gammon play this sort of position very differently. Snowie's backgame preferences tend to concur with my own experiences, so I'll usually rely on Snowie in this sort of situation. You may feel differently, which is OK.
Can you post your snowie RO results so we can compare with what XG had to say?
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-16-2010 , 06:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by higonefive

¹ 2592 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply
eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.21
Laptop Pentium M 1.73 Ghz/150.000 pos.
I'm curious about 13/7 too if you have the spare CPU time. Pretty sure the other 2 moves can be safely dismissed.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-17-2010 , 02:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomCowley
I'm curious about 13/7 too if you have the spare CPU time. Pretty sure the other 2 moves can be safely dismissed.
XGRoller+ put this as second, taking the RO in account. So i stop the "interesting 54 backgame RO" and put #87 on my core2duo. Perhaps Bills very first choice down in reno will be vindicated from XG. My experience of the last two months, working with XG and snowie, showed me, that you have to crank up the trials beyond 5k, to reduce variance honestly. And watching a RO going up from 2 to 5 and then 10k is sometimes surprisingly. The guys on bgonline.org are working with 4ply and 40k on the openings, but at difficult decisions sometimes the confidence interval is for my gusto far to high. What i don't understand: the rybka engine is sold for single and multi core cpu support. Then it must be possible, to set the snowie AI one multi core support. And if we look at the different rybka engines created by now, it is also possible, that snowie and XG playing both strong but at some point different. But Neil Kazaross is right if he compares the dilatory snowie with the ford edsel. By the way, where is the hold'em engine from the snowie group?
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-17-2010 , 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by higonefive
XGRoller+ put this as second, taking the RO in account. So i stop the "interesting 54 backgame RO" and put #87 on my core2duo. Perhaps Bills very first choice down in reno will be vindicated from XG.
Don't forget that when Bill made that move, gammons were activated. In #87, they aren't.

When you say it came 2nd in your rollout, were you in tournament settings or Jacoby settings?
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-17-2010 , 06:38 PM
Coming home from work, RO finished. Set as cash game, jacoby and beaver, cube centered.

1. Rollout¹ Bar/23 22/16 eq:-0,114
Player : 47,86% (G:11,65% B:0,51%)
Opponent: 52,14% (G:16,58% B:0,79%)
Confidence: 0,015 (-0,129<E<-0,099)
Duration: 16 hours 22 minutes

2. Rollout¹ Bar/23 20/14* eq:-0,141 (-0,027)
Player : 47,50% (G:11,51% B:0,57%)
Opponent: 52,50% (G:16,60% B:0,97%)
Confidence: 0,017 (-0,158<E<-0,124)
Duration: 17 hours 39 minutes

3. Rollout¹ Bar/23 13/7* eq:-0,175 (-0,061)
Player : 47,54% (G:10,99% B:0,58%)
Opponent: 52,46% (G:19,51% B:1,01%)
Confidence: 0,019 (-0,194<E<-0,156)
Duration: 1 day 00 hour 21 minutes

¹ 5184 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves and cube decisions: 3 ply
eXtreme Gammon Version: 1.21

So 5k is almost enough, 10k would be waterproof. Far more then 648 trials necessary. For my gusto, holding the golden point is a more human approach. Therefore my choice in grunch mode. Surprisingly also the choice of a bot. And the RO shows that hitting from the midpoint is to loose with gammons going up, perhaps more committing with sacrificing connectivity.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-17-2010 , 07:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by higonefive
And the RO shows that hitting from the midpoint is to loose with gammons going up, perhaps more committing with sacrificing connectivity.
Gammons aren't activated yet.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-17-2010 , 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberkuber
Gammons aren't activated yet.
I'm not entirely sure about the intricacies of rollouts, but wouldn't this matter if there's an upcoming double/take? Even though gammons are not activated, they might be in the future as the game plays out, and therefore they still matter.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-18-2010 , 06:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by uberkuber
Gammons aren't activated yet.
Do you think, that matters?! XG took that into account. See the RO settings, i've posted. Generally, that matters if you are short before you're going to lost your market. But that was a cashgame cubefull rollout, taking this into account.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote
12-18-2010 , 12:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by higonefive
Do you think, that matters?! XG took that into account. See the RO settings, i've posted. Generally, that matters if you are short before you're going to lost your market. But that was a cashgame cubefull rollout, taking this into account.
You're right.

And Aaron's right too, it matters, but not as much as when the cube is already turned, but it still matters indeed.
Problem of the Week #87: Solution Quote

      
m