Game 4, move 25 blitzxz and 26 Forum : Forum 2-1

[diane]

Well, blitzxz danced again with 6-3, so Forum, blue, to move 2-1 - so many possibilities!!

Hope this doesn't just split the vote to 1 vote for each move 

OH88AEA2GwnBGA:QQmlACAACAAA

[ah_clem]

Spoiler

Slot the bar, move the other checker within range of the four. 9/7 11/10. We'd like to make either the four point or the bar point and this move threatens to do both. I count 17/36 rolls that accomplish one or the other.  No other "threaten to do something" roll accomplishes so much.  

The other move to consider is making a blocking point now with 11/9 15/24 - a bird in the hand as they say - but I like the more aggressive play.  He's on the bar, and we've got two anchors so it's a good time to take chances.  

[close]

[stog]

Spoiler

15/13 11/10 i chose as it gives us 2 direct numbers to hit or be hit!, but i like mr clem's 6 point thinking too and another's 15/12..
many choices - is it too early to bring a checquer forward from his 2 point = i think so...any of the 2 other votes so far i could switch to..... or making that 9 point

[close]

[dorbel]

Spoiler

I think outfield control is the name of the game here and I prefer 15/13, 11/10. I doubt if there is much in it though. When we had the 5-5, the minority wanted to hit, but the majority couldn't agree on how best not to hit! This clearly demonstrates the futility of first past the post voting. Interesting eh? I bet making the bar was the better play.

[close]

[ah_clem]

note: bot results of previous move discussed below.

Spoiler

I think outfield control is the name of the game here and I prefer 15/13, 11/10. I doubt if there is much in it though. When we had the 5-5, the minority wanted to hit, but the majority couldn't agree on how best not to hit! This clearly demonstrates the futility of first past the post voting. Interesting eh? I bet making the bar was the better play.

It depends on who you believe. (c:  I punched the last move into gnubg, and the hitting play was favored slightly (.02) in the 2-ply analysis.  But, the 0-ply rollout favored making the bar point by about .05.  How we made the bar didn't matter much as far as gnu was concerned - 15/10(2) was a statistical tie with 15/10 11/6.

I've no idea how this relates to the current move, and I'm not sure how 15/13, 11/10 gives better outfield control than slotting the bar...

[close]

[diane]

This clearly demonstrates the futility of first past the post voting.

That was always a recognised pitfall here..

the countermeasures to that are:
This thread is a discussion area - anyone can put up an argument for or against a move - and you usually do.  Maybe more need to do that.
Post move bot analysis - to allow us to see why things are a mistake, and guide.

Contributers to that:

The move towards 1 day only voting will remove opportunity for discussion [albeit there is provision to extend voting for more interesting choices, but be aware that the author of the thread can't really get too involved in that, because they have almost always seen the bot analysis.]

Delayed bot analysis [more often than not now it is being left out altogether.]

A misconception that we are doing this to beat 'Blitzxz' or any other player, or that the guest player is here to beat the Forum....we are doing this with the intention of playing the best possible game we can - and learning from it.

[dorbel]

Spoiler

I'm not sure how 15/13, 11/10 gives better outfield control than slotting the bar...

It's just a feeling! Slotting does work better when he dances again, but at the cost of 6 fly shots rather than 4, not trivial. We are winning the game now but we'll be losing if we get hit. The checker on the 15 pt covers the outfield better if it moves to the 13pt. That's about it really, if my doubles partner strongly wanted to slot the bar I wouldn't spend time arguing against it.
My comments on the voting method don't really relate to this move, except that we can see now how important the bar is when trying to contain a straggler, more important than owning the 2pt IMO.

[close]

[blitzxz]

This clearly demonstrates the futility of first past the post voting.

No matter what voting system is used there is always some sort of problems.

[stog]

it isn't as simple as 'first past the post voting', as we all have ability to change our vote - depending on which arguments we are swayed by  -- this gives us the best chance to learn, and make the best move most of the time - hence the benefit of as many of us making 'spoilered' comments in the first place.....  enjoy

to change vote - click "remove vote" and start again -- only available until vote closes of course

[ah_clem]

In this case, we had two basic ideas - hit on the 2pt or make the bar point. The bar point theme got more votes, but those votes were split between two options, resulting in the hitting play winning the poll despite getting fewer votes than the bar-point theme.  When this happens, those favoring the less popular option of the leading theme should change their vote to support the front-runner.

It's an open question whether the moderator should extend the vote when this happens to give folks more time to change their votes.  I tend to favor that approach, but there are good reasons not to i.e. stog's observation that anyone could see it coming and change their vote, and the fact that extending the vote may precipitate a tie where there wasn't one before.

I'd say leave these calls to the discretion of the moderator, and I think Diane made a perfectly reasonable call here. 

[dorbel]

Yes I broadly agree with these points. I didn't intend to criticise the moderator or the way in which this forum is conducted, I just thought that it was an interesting point generally. Still think we should have made the bar though!

[blitzxz]

I just thought that it was an interesting point generally.

This is getting offtopic but I got stuck to this. It's actually mathematically proven fact that it is impossible to come up with any voting system that could always combine individual preferences into preferences of the group. In every voting system (where there is more then 2 options) there remains possibility that voting leads to choice that only small minority wanted in the first place.

Ah_clem's voting tactics might have worked here if all the bar point makers really prefered the other bar point move to hitting and if everybody would really do as he suggested. But it's not immediatly clear why the minority bar point makers would want to change their move to the other bar point choice. They might just as well stick to their guns and demand that the majority bar point voters have to change their vote or nobody gets nothing (forum hits). The majority has only the same treat as the minority which doesn't make it's position any better. Best strategy would propably make some sort of long term alliances here, some sort of voting groups with promises to scratch your back if you will scratch mine. And this is just the beginning. What if there were several different "themes" with small number of votes? The problem would then be nobody even knows who prefers what and what is the winning "theme". And nobody propably wants to tell his/her real preferences, because this could affect the result of the deals between different voting groups. And somewhere in between all of this the whole cause, which is backgammon of course, was lost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_paradox