Re: Bearing in against 32 backgame

David C. Ullrich wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:23:53 +0200, MaX <user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Stick wrote:
7/6(3) 6/5 with no second choice.
How about explaining why ? :) Just a few lines ...

I imagine his reasons are the same as the reasons
Adam suggested the same play. (Adam's reasons were
the same as the reasons _I_ was going to suggest
that play...)

Twelve lines:

Thanks.
Actually I didn't really need the explanation for myself, but I found posting just the move a slight waste of bandwidth. Once again, almost everybody can find out which move is best (at least using a bot), but not everybody can explain why (Adam did).

MaX.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: X to play 65
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... Anyway, I don't think _anyone's_ opinion here is of much value, ... certain to play 1. ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Construct-a-position problem
    ... because then the play doesn't matter. ... David C. Ullrich ... However, at DMP, I ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
  • Re: Optimal Backgammon (was: Re: Game Theory)
    ... of course that was a typo for "game theory". ... >value regardless of your opponent's play. ... >David C. Ullrich ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: My talk about Godel to the post-grads.
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... I think you are stupid because you think that a term can play a role even though it plays no role. ... B is empty, or that x is an element of A and B can contain things ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Interesting Position
    ... David C. Ullrich wrote: ... and gnubg agrees I did the right thing! ... Just play on. ...
    (rec.games.backgammon)
Loading