HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:27:35 GMT
	<1992Apr10.215937.74701@cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43

In article <1992Apr10.215937.74701@cs.cmu.edu> jab+@cs.cmu.edu (Justin Boyan) writes:

:   >     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
:   >     |                 X   O  |   |     O               X  |
:   >     |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
:   >     |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
:   >     |                     O  |   |                        |
:   >     |                     O  |   |                        |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  | 1 |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
:   >     |                     X  |   |                     O  |
:   >     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
:   >     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
:   >     |                     X  |   |     X       X       O  |
:   >     | O                   X  |   | O   X       X       O  |
:   >     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
:   >
:   >                           X to play 42
:   >
:   >
:   >     Search your books, everyone!  This is in one of them.
:
:
:   I'm afraid I haven't got my books handy at the moment, but this is not
:   a close call as far as I'm concerned:  I'd make the 4-point.
:
:   [analysis deleted]
:
:   In conclusion, the 4-point is a long-term asset which we have been
:   blssed with the perfect opportunity to make.  Even if opponent makes
:   our bar point,  we've still got 3 points in our outer board to make it
:   difficult for him to leave that point safely.  Plus, we're at least
:   even in the race.
:
:   Okay Marty, now please tell me why my analysis is dead wrong and you
:   or any other decent player would immediately double me for having made
:   such a foolish mistake!


  Your analysis is almost dead right.

  X is ahead in the race 26 pips after playing 42, so why leave all those
  return shots?  Why make the waters murky when making the 4 point leaves
  no blots and strengthens X's game positionally and tactically?

  X's strongest game plan is to race.  If O makes X's bar and X clears his
  back man while maintaining his racing advantage, he'll double O out.
  O will most often hit if she can, so X wants to strengthen his board in
  case he hits back somewhere; the 4 point is also a safe landing spot for
  spares.

  Like 13/7*, running 20/14 is inferior; even if O misses X will have the
  problem of clearing without leaving return shots (O won't make X's bar
  if she misses w/o 66, but will leave her back wimmin where they are), and
  X's 4 point has lasting value, so it's hard to justify passing it up.

  The position is from Robertie's (red) book, _Genud_vs_Dwek_.  Genud was
  O and had just come out to Dwek's bar, and Dwek played 42 by hitting.
  Robertie didn't catch the error!
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Computer Backgammon Game Query
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:42:14 GMT
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43

In article <1992Apr7.194437.2972@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au> u2087546@ucsvc.ucs.unimelb.edu.au (The Jester) writes:

>   This may not be the ideal group for my post but, does anyone know of a GOOD
>   backgammon computer game for the pc.
>   Any replies are greatly appreciated.

  There ain't none.  GOOD means GOOD, so I have to disappoint you.

  There's other backgammon software that's good:  write The Gammon Press for
  a catalog:  PO Box 294, Arlington MA 02174.
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Summary: Play by plan
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: the world
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 04:16:43 GMT

In article <1992Apr10.200511.15978@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein) writes:
>In article <MARTYS.92Apr8204343@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:


|24 23 22 21 20 19| |18 17 16 15 14 13|
|.  .  .  .  X  O | | .  O  .  .  .  X|
|               O | |    O           X|
|               O | |    O           X|
|               O | |                 |
|               O | |                 |
|                 [$]                 |
|               X | |                O|
|               X | |    X           O|
|               X | |    X           O|
|               X | |    X     X     O|
|O  .  .  .  .  X | | O  X  .  X  .  O|
|1  2  3  4  5  6 | | 7  8  9 10 11 12|
X to play 42

>I like making the 4 point.  X is way up in the race.  The 4 point
>will be valuable if the checker on Os 5 point is attacked.  If
>O makes the bar point X can just play behind her.  X's plan should
>be to get his last checker home and win the race.
>X won't have too much trouble clearing his midpoint since he has
>lots of time to roll a double or a well timed 5-3 (if O does make  the bar)
>Actually IF O does make the bar and X gets his last checker free and 
>X's racing  lead stays around the same then X will have a good double.

Twice you talk about *if* X escapes the last checker.  I prefer to do
it now.  Followed by your play (making the 4 point).  Followed by a
far-distant 7-point hit, NO, followed by 20-116, 8-6, which is
probably third (!).

  --Elliott
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<1992Apr10.215937.74701@cs.cmu.edu>
	<MARTYS.92Apr13102735@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr14.185635.1759@nic.csu.net>
Date: 15 Apr 92 09:24:20

In article <1992Apr14.185635.1759@nic.csu.net> monty@futon.SFSU.EDU (David Montgomery) writes:

:   In article <MARTYS.92Apr13102735@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
:   >
:   >     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
:   >     |                 X   O  |   |     O               X  |
:   >     |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
:   >     |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
:   >     |                     O  |   |                        |
:   >     |                     O  |   |                        |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  | 1 |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
:   >     |                     X  |   |                     O  |
:   >     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
:   >     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
:   >     |                     X  |   |     X       X       O  |
:   >     | O                   X  |   | O   X       X       O  |
:   >     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
:   >
:   >                           X to play 42
:   >
:   >  X is ahead in the race 26 pips after playing 42  [ 8/4 6/4 ]...
:   >  X's strongest game plan is to race.  If O makes X's bar and X clears his
:   >  back man while maintaining his racing advantage, he'll double O out.
:
:   So, after the sequence: 
:	   X 4-2          8/4  6/4
:	   O 4-2 or 5-1  24/18*
:	   X 6-1         20/13
:	   O 2-1         13/11 6/5
:
:   you feel that X can double O out?  X leads 128:152, 24 pips.  You're
:   probably right, but I would be inclined to take this.

  X has lots of time to clear safely.  O's shot equity is very small.
  24 pips is a huge lead; if the position were a straight race, X would
  need 10 or 11 more pips in order to take.  O should definitely pass.


:   *There'll probably be some dissension on these plays - I'm not sure
:   they're right but they're what I would play over the board.

  I'd play the same way.  On O's first move, 51 18/13, 6/5* is a good
  alternative, but it's probably at least as risky as 24/18.  X has a
  strong threat to escape after 24/18, but he hasn't escaped yet...


			Play well,

			Marty

Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Re: Computer Backgammon Game Query
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:32:06 GMT

	All of them I can beat consistently (that I have seen),
including those that cheat with rolls.  There is a tendency to do
that, I found with two shareware games, so if there is the option to
roll your own dice, do so.
	A reasonably good Backgammon simulator is the one put out by 
Spinnaker.  It is quite beatable, but knows the backgame (reasonably
well) and how to play against it.  Try it. It's cheap...

		Rob
		rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: 42 problem
Summary: X-22 changes his tune
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: the world
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 01:24:04 GMT

|24 23 22 21 20 19| |18 17 16 15 14 13|
|.  .  .  O  X  O | | .  O  .  .  O  X|
|         O  X  O | |    O           X|
|         O     O | |                X|
|               O | |                 |
|                 [$]                 |
|               X | |    X            |
|               X | |    X           O|
|         X  O  X | |    X           O|
|.  .  .  X  O  X | | .  X  .  .  .  O|
|1  2  3  4  5  6 | | 7  8  9 10 11 12|
X to play 4-2.

In his article martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
> Walter Trice also likes hitting.  "Clearly right," he says.

This is one of the more important 'switcheroos' from the Magriel book.
Specifically, it looks like a hit, and generally, the race has made a
comeback, so to speak.  Or, more to the point, this viewpoint has
filtered down into general theory; Roger Low was keeping a running
pip count during his tournament matches in the early 80s, but most
players aren't willing to do such an thing.  [I'm a count-as-needed
sort of guy myself.]

Note the 'bad' re-entry numbers 4 & 6.  Note the good 6's for X if he
is hit, wherever.  All kinds of good things for X if he's missed (6's,
1's, 5-4 4-3 3-2).  Shooting for 1- or 0-men back.

And yes, you could get blown out of the water on a couple numbers, or
pretty close to it, if you *then* fan, etc. etc.

  --Elliott
From: HSTOWE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (Holly Lee Stowe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: BKGAMMON archive (was Backgame problem)
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:25:16 GMT
Reply-To: "Backgammon strategy" <BKGAMMON@indycms.iupui.edu>

On Wed, 15 Apr 1992 01:59:04 -0500 Larry Hunter said:
>Holly Stowe writes:
>
>  I can put it in the BKGAMMON archives on indycms.iupui.edu where
>  people can request to have it sent to them...
>
>That sounds interesting -- I'd never seen mention of the BKGAMMON
>archives before.  What's in it, and how does one use it?

I have rec.games.backgammon gated to Bitnet through a Listserv list
called BKGAMMON so messages from each go to the other.  In addition,
all the messages that come through BKGAMMON (therefore, rec.games.backgammon)
get logged into notebooks that are kept on a monthly basis.  (The notebooks
are only available those subscribed to the BKGAMMON list by direct request,
but I can send them to anyone who wants them, and someday when I get my
act together and caught up, I will try to make them available to the
general public by request.)  But, if someone has a need, I can put files
out there as well (with a little cooperation from the local Powers That Be)
that can be requested by the general public via a mail request to
listserv@indycms.iupui.edu.

To subscribe to BKGAMMON (which will send mail rather than having to use
rn or the like) you can send mail to listserv@indycms.iupui.edu with the
command:  SUBscribe BKGAMMON Firstname Lastname

If anyone has any other questions, send them to me at hstowe@indycms.iupui.edu
and I'll do what I can to answer them.

-Holly-
From: HSTOWE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (Holly Lee Stowe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Cube action problem
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:16:25 GMT
Reply-To: "Backgammon strategy" <BKGAMMON@indycms.iupui.edu>

On Wed, 15 Apr 1992 22:29:09 GMT Marty Storer said:
>            O inner board
>
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>     | X           O   O   O  |   | O   O   O   X          |
>     |                     O  |   |         O   X          |
>     |                     O  |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        | X |                        |  | $ |
>     |                        | X |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     | O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
>     | O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>                      X on roll:  cube action?

"Not I", said the little red hen.  O has all the time in the world
right now and is trying to force us to hit to improve that even more.
We're going to have a hellish time trying to bring checkers in and
bear off without leaving (probably multiple) shots, at which point
O will be in a position to hit anything that moves.  I've seen this
game lose more times than not, quite frankly.  We could end up with
multiple checkers back and nothing but incoming.

Cube action now seems like a good way to be looking at a 4 cube and
probably higher.

Your mileage may vary.  :-)

-Holly-
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Sexist backgammon limerick (was: Re: Backgame problem)
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<MARTYS.92Apr13152206@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr13.191332.1@indyvax.iupui.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 08:54:28

In article <1992Apr13.191332.1@indyvax.iupui.edu> stowe@indyvax.iupui.edu (Hol3ly) writes:

"   In article <MARTYS.92Apr13152206@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
:   > 
:   >   Checker:  A man; a piece; one of the round things you move.
:	            ^^^    ^^^^^
:   So much for genderless backgammon... *grin*
:
:   Funny... but most of the men I know consider "man" and "piece" to be
:   opposites.  ;-)


  I could tell some stories about the "screw you" and "screw me" bearoff
  formations...

  But a sexist backgammon limerick will have to suffice.  This appeared
  in the _Chicago_Point_ in 1985 (?):


	A brazen young wench, Antoinette,
	Invaded an all-male chouette.
	She stripped to her socks
	And cried, "Who wants the box?"
	They haven't stopped arguing yet!

		--MS

  No allusion to Antoinette Williams intended (I don't think).


		--Marty
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<1992Apr6.161812.14674@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
	<RCHAUNCE.92Apr13133211@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>
Date: 13 Apr 92 15:22:06

In article <RCHAUNCE.92Apr13133211@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey) writes:

>	   Could someone please explain to a novice player the terms
>   "time", "timing", "checker", and "dancing"?

  Time:  number of average rolls (8 1/6 pips = 1 average roll) or number of
         pips.  Ex.  "How much time do we have before we bust?"
         --"About 3 rolls. [About 25 pips.]"

  Timing:  "The position viewed in terms of the general future development
            of the game."  --Paul Magriel, _Backgammon_, p. 402.

            Amount of "playability" in a position, especially as compared
            to that in your opponent's position; number of average rolls
            or pips that can probably be played without having to make a
            major concession (like leaving a blot or breaking a key point).

  Checker:  A man; a piece; one of the round things you move.

  Dancing:  Staying on the bar.  E.g. _How_Can_I_Keep_From_Dancing?_ by
            Danny Kleinman.

>
>   Sorry, but I love backgammon, and want to be able to keep up with you
>   all...
>   I would have gone 8-5, 6-3 on this one, figuring on having the rolls
>   on the bar to wreck X's board.

  You mean 8-4*, 6-3 (or 8/4*, 6/3)--asterisk indicates a hit.


			Play well,

			Marty





Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: O to play 4-2
Date: 9 Apr 92 14:36:00 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <MARTYS.92Apr7205225@cordelia.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
>In article <BKGAMMON%92040520334543@INDYCMS.BITNET> HSTOWE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (Holly Lee Stowe) writes:
>
>>   13 14 15 16 17 18 | | 19 20 21 22 23 24
>>		   X | |  X  X        X  O
>>		   X | |  X  X        X
>>		   X | |  X  X
>>		     |X|  X
>>		     | |  X
>>		     |X|
>>		     | |                 O
>>		     | |        O  O     O
>>		     | |     O  O  O  O  O  +-+
>>		     | |     O  O  O  O  O  |2|
>>  12 11 10  9  8  7 | |  6  5  4  3  2  1  +-+
>>
>>   7 point match
>>   Score O:5 X:1
>>   O to play 4-2  (John... notice... there are *two* on the bar.  :-)
>>
>>   I played 24/22, 5/1.  My opponent (approximately the same skill
>>   level as myself) rather scoffed.  My reaction was that it was an
>>   attempt to psych me out.  I still think my play was right, but
>>   I'm not beyond doing a reality check.  :-)  (Yes, I won the game/match.)
>
>  I'd be a chicken.  I'd very much hate to get a second checker sent
>  back.  Escaping chances are good even if you stay back.
>
>  The worst possible thing would be to get hit and fluke-gammoned,
>  while X scoffs!  Actually, getting gammoned after a hit isn't
>  *that* fluky, because X has a good builder position and will take
>  many risks to get a gammon.  It's a long-shot, but still...
>
This is a tough one.  I don't have much of an intuitive feel for it,
one way or the other so I'm going to try plugging in some numbers but
my estimates may be way off.

for a money game.

safe play:  X wins: 60%,  loses 40%
risky play:
  a) miss (70%):  X wins 80%, loses 20%
  b) hit (30%):   X wins 40%, loses 40%, gets gammoned 20%

If these numbers are right (am I close?) then

safe play: X wins .2 (times the cube)
risky play: X wins .3 (times  the cube)

so from these numbers the risky play is right for money.
but if these numbers are even a little off (say, X wins 65% after safe play)
then the results could change.

In the match you don't care so much about winning points as about winning the
match:

t 7-1 you're 100%
at 5-3 you're ~70%
at 5-5 you're 50%

These have to be factored into the above calculations too.
But it probably won't change the results.

jk
From: rueping@fzi.de (Andreas Rueping)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: 42 problem
Date: 6 Apr 92 17:31:44 GMT
Reply-To: rueping@fzi.de
Organization: Forschungszentrum Informatik (FZI), Karlsruhe, Germany

In article <MARTYS.92Apr3110510@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>, martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
|> In article <HUNTER.92Apr2185041@work.nlm.nih.gov> hunter@work.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Hunter) writes:
|> 
|> >	  24  23  22  21  20 19        18  17  16  15  14  13  
|> >	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
|> >	|             O   X   O  |   |     O           O   X  |
|> >	|             O   X   O  |   |     O               X  |
|> >	|             O       O  |   |                     X  |
|> >	|                     O  |   |                        |
|> >	|                        |   |                        |
|> >	|                        |   |                        |  +---+
|> >	|                        |   |                        |  | $ |
|> >	|                        |   |                        |  +---+
|> >	|                        |   |                        |
|> >	|                     X  |   |     X                  |
|> >	|                     X  |   |     X               O  |
|> >	|             X   O   X  |   |     X               O  |
|> >	|             X   O   X  |   |     X               O  |
|> >	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
|> >	   1   2   3   4   5   6        7   8   9  10  11  12
|> >
|> >			     X to play 42
|> >
|> >   This is probably an inauspicious way to begin posting here; clearly
|> >   Marty wouldn't have posted this if it were as simple as it appears to
|> >   me, but hey, someone has to say the obvious and let the more subtle
|> >   thinkers show their stuff: What's wrong with 20/14*?  Eight of O's
|> >   rolls hit 12/14*, but then the positions are again even and there are
|> >   eight rolls that rehit her. Double 1s and double 3s are moderately bad
|> >   news for X, but not catastrophic.  Better than 2 out of 3 to come out
|> >   a full roll ahead in a game headed for a race.  So what's wrong with
|> >   this admitedly novice thinking?
|> 
|>   [text deleted]
|> 
|>   I'm not saying your play is wrong; I want more opinions before I give
|>   mine, which is pretty firm.

Well, if you want more opinions, here is mine.

My favourite is 13-7 since this has two advantages compared to 20-14*.
First, a smaller probability to get hit. Second, if X will not get hit
then a man on the 7-point is better than one on the 14-point.

The disadvantage of course is obvious: O doesn't get hit.

The decision between both draws is close, but I would prefer 13-7.

I'm looking forward to the suggestion Marty will make.


--Andreas

------------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Rueping

Forschungszentrum Informatik an der Universitaet Karlsruhe
Bereich Programmstrukturen
                                        e-mail: rueping@fzi.de
Haid-und-Neu-Strasse 10-14              phone:  (+49) 721 9654 617
D-7500 Karlsruhe 1                      fax:    (+49) 721 9654 609
------------------------------------------------------------------
From: HSTOWE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (Holly Lee Stowe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Wendy's opinion of O to play 4-2
Date: 12 Apr 92 08:14:48 GMT
Reply-To: "Backgammon strategy" <BKGAMMON@indycms.iupui.edu>

Just as an FYI for anyone who might be interested, I ran the O to play
4-2 problem by Wendy this evening at chou.  She also said the safe
play was right.  I have heard at least one person vote in favor of the
risky play, but the majority has certainly been in favor of just
clearing the 5.

And remember, the 40th Indiana Open is just 2 weeks away!  Be there or
be someplace else!

-Holly-
From: HSTOWE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (Holly Lee Stowe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: O to play 4-2
Date: 6 Apr 92 01:32:19 GMT
Article-I.D.: INDYCMS.BKGAMMON%92040520334543
Reply-To: "Backgammon strategy" <BKGAMMON@indycms.iupui.edu>

13 14 15 16 17 18 | | 19 20 21 22 23 24
                X | |  X  X        X  O
                X | |  X  X        X
                X | |  X  X
                  |X|  X
                  | |  X
                  |X|
                  | |                 O
                  | |        O  O     O
                  | |     O  O  O  O  O  +-+
                  | |     O  O  O  O  O  |2|
12 11 10  9  8  7 | |  6  5  4  3  2  1  +-+

7 point match
Score O:5 X:1
O to play 4-2  (John... notice... there are *two* on the bar.  :-)

I played 24/22, 5/1.  My opponent (approximately the same skill
level as myself) rather scoffed.  My reaction was that it was an
attempt to psych me out.  I still think my play was right, but
I'm not beyond doing a reality check.  :-)  (Yes, I won the game/match.)

-Holly-
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon