Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
A very strange XG recommendation A very strange XG recommendation

09-25-2021 , 09:01 AM
Position: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

In this position, we are at "double match point" (Blue doubled at the start so everything turns on the outcome of this game). Blue has borne off all but three of her checkers, but is likely to leave a shot on her next roll. Meanwhile, White must somehow prepare for this eventuality.

In the actual game, I (White) played 16/8 with my 22. The idea, of course, was to slot the back of my prime in the hope of extending it (to better contain Blue if I managed to hit one or more of their checkers). XG, on the other hand, recommends 19/17 7/5(3). XG's second and third favourite plays have a similar flavour insofar as both involve shifting checkers from the 7 point to the 5 point.

I must be missing something here, but I really can't see any merit in these XG plays. They weaken White's prime, which looks like a mistake given that the ultimate goal is containment. In addition, they produce a stack on the 5 point. In addition, the idea can't be to reduce gammons since gammons are irrelevant at the match score (and in any case, these moves don't reduce gammons according to the XG numbers).

So what am I missing?
A very strange XG recommendation Quote
09-25-2021 , 07:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_free_lunch
Position: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...it?usp=sharing

In this position, we are at "double match point" (Blue doubled at the start so everything turns on the outcome of this game). Blue has borne off all but three of her checkers, but is likely to leave a shot on her next roll. Meanwhile, White must somehow prepare for this eventuality.

In the actual game, I (White) played 16/8 with my 22. The idea, of course, was to slot the back of my prime in the hope of extending it (to better contain Blue if I managed to hit one or more of their checkers). XG, on the other hand, recommends 19/17 7/5(3). XG's second and third favourite plays have a similar flavour insofar as both involve shifting checkers from the 7 point to the 5 point.

I must be missing something here, but I really can't see any merit in these XG plays. They weaken White's prime, which looks like a mistake given that the ultimate goal is containment. In addition, they produce a stack on the 5 point. In addition, the idea can't be to reduce gammons since gammons are irrelevant at the match score (and in any case, these moves don't reduce gammons according to the XG numbers).

So what am I missing?
This may be some kind of strange artifact of the eval. It just doesn't seem right to me and I would think that some play that involves moving around in the outfield would get first choice. I actually don't really like your play because we're not really ready to cover the 8 yet. I would just make some sort of general advance in the outfield to prepare to make those points.
A very strange XG recommendation Quote
09-26-2021 , 12:17 AM
There's no merit to the XG's top choice here. You definitely should not give up your 7 point.

It's happening due to a combination of XG not being great at this type of position and all plays being close due to you having very low winning chances no matter what you do.
A very strange XG recommendation Quote
10-04-2021 , 12:57 PM
Great, thanks for the replies!

And yes I do agree my slotting play probably came a little early given the lack of builders.
A very strange XG recommendation Quote
10-09-2021 , 06:26 PM
FWIW BGBlitz opinion (no rollout, just 3-ply)

Position-ID: DgAAALsDVA0CAA Match-ID: cAnpAFAAMAAA
XGID=-----BCC-------AAAAB---cA-:0:0:1:22:6:5:0:7:10


Evaluation (EMG)
==========
1. 0.156 mwp / -2.378 19/17, 15/13, 13/11, 6/4
0.072 0.000 0.000 - 0.928 0.761 0.705

2. 0.155 mwp / -2.379 (-0.001) 19/17, 16/14, 14/12, 12/10
0.075 0.000 0.000 - 0.925 0.765 0.694

3. 0.155 mwp / -2.379 (-0.001) 19/17, 16/14, 15/13, 14/12
0.074 0.000 0.000 - 0.926 0.763 0.692

4. 0.155 mwp / -2.380 (-0.002) 16/14, 14/12, 12/10, 7/5
0.077 0.000 0.000 - 0.923 0.767 0.698

Looks very reasonable to me. A lot of moves, very close together.
A very strange XG recommendation Quote

      
m