| |
BGonline.org Forums
Opening 32Z: reply errors
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Opening 32Z: reply errors (Timothy Chow)
Date: Saturday, 2 January 2010, at 3:33 a.m.
Your guesses regarding the errors I see are on the mark. However, I don't think that the mathematical calculations you did fully capture what happens when I play 32Z. The calculations assume both of us play like a bot from then on. For sure, neither I nor my opponents play like that, so I do not believe that these calculations that you and Stick and David Rockwell are suggesting have that much direct relevance.
Nobody has to play like a bot. What is relevant (in terms of seeking a narrowing or overturn of the theoretical margin) is that your opponent will make more errors with 32Z-xx than with 32S-xx. After that (mis-)play, assume either a level playing field or your normal advantage/disadvantage after that; it makes no difference.
There is one factor I didn't mention before because I felt it would complicate the presentation. I'll sneak it in now: You have seen fewer 32Z-xxx-xx third roll positions than you have seen 32S-xxx-xx third roll positions, and that will cause you to make more errors as well, and your opponent's fourth roll errors will not be as large as your third roll errors. However, that's a very small effect, and it will become even smaller (or may even invert) as you practice playing 32Z and see more 32Z-xxx-xx positions.
This is how I would describe my situation. My typical opponents are fairly comfortable with the kinds of games that arise after (for example) 32D-32D. They have a fairly good understanding of priming and blitzing but don't have such a good understanding of the the merits of splitting and of running.
[Midway through your paragraph here] Okay, so you definitely don't want to play 32D against them.
Although I sometimes play 32D, I typically play 32S. My opponents won't always split in response even when it's "obviously" correct to do so. I'm throwing in 32Z just for variety because it occasionally precipitates an immediate error that I don't often see after 32S. I have in mind 32Z-64 and 32Z-44 versus 32S-64 and 32S-44.
32Z-64 vs 3ZS-44 versus 32S-64 and 32S-44 is a matchup of selective convenience. I assume you understand it is necessary to consider all 21 response rolls (minus the ones with patently obvious plays) for both openers. If 32S induces some errors but 32Z induces more, you can just factor that into the equation as I outlined in the previous post. Or, if they induce equivalent overall errors, why not just make the play with the higher equity (32S)?
The other reason I play 32Z sometimes is that it helps myself from becoming a slave to fashion. In every strategy game, certain kinds of moves get a reputation for being "bad" when they are really not that bad. A generation later, people are playing the "bad" moves and are laughing at the previous generation (of course, at the same time they are laughing, they are confidently labeling other perfectly reasonable moves "bad"). I feel that it's important to keep one's mind flexible to avoid this trap.
History tends to remember the reversals (they're more interesting) a lot more than the gaps that widen. Do you have a reason to believe that the current [S Z14.5] perception of value is more likely to invert to [Z S5.5] than to widen to [S Z34.5]?
Or is it psychological: for example, you agree that the chances of the above scenarios are equal but some day you will be more than seven times as happy when you picked a retro-winner than you'll feel unhappy when you picked a play that in retrospect becomes a bigger loser? If so, it wouldn't it make more sense to adopt the plays in the -.00 to -.01 range than in the -.01 to -.02 range? (Just having fun with you here.)
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.