Exciting matches today!

One moment I found interesting was in (Day 1) Match 3, Game 6 where there were a few decisions in sequence where Sander makes (apparent) errors by playing offensive (i.e., priming and blitzing) moves on his side instead of working on his (four) back checkers. Marc (on commentary) found the decisions interesting and was musing about why XG preferred connecting plays over attacking. Marc eventually attributes match score as the main probable cause (gammons being worth less for Sander at 3-away).

The action happens on the YouTube stream starting at 4:00:00 through 4:05:30.

Here is the last position in the series that had the most dramatic effect (this particular move happens at 4:01:37).

Sander plays 11/2* here where XG (2-ply?) prefers, at this score, the play 24/18 21/18.

Here is a rollout of the top four ++ moves at the score [edit]~~4-away/3-away~~ 3-away/4-away:

```
1. Rollout¹ 11/2* eq:+0.925
Player: 77.98% (G:45.00% B:9.54%)
Opponent: 22.02% (G:4.80% B:0.42%)
Confidence: ±0.011 (+0.914..+0.936) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 24/18 21/18 eq:+0.894 (-0.031)
Player: 78.85% (G:38.40% B:7.55%)
Opponent: 21.15% (G:3.25% B:0.25%)
Confidence: ±0.012 (+0.882..+0.907) - [0.0%]
3. Rollout¹ 24/15 eq:+0.879 (-0.046)
Player: 78.37% (G:40.64% B:10.12%)
Opponent: 21.63% (G:3.99% B:0.31%)
Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.866..+0.893) - [0.0%]
4. Rollout¹ 21/15 18/15 eq:+0.851 (-0.074)
Player: 77.50% (G:42.88% B:12.71%)
Opponent: 22.50% (G:3.44% B:0.33%)
Confidence: ±0.014 (+0.837..+0.866) - [0.0%]
Duration: 2 inutes 08 seconds
¹1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
```

And here are the top two from above at the (more) normal score of 7-away/7-away:

```
1. Rollout¹ 11/2* eq:+1.180
Player: 78.82% (G:41.86% B:3.39%)
Opponent: 21.18% (G:4.45% B:0.33%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+1.172..+1.189) - [100.0%]
2. Rollout¹ 24/18 21/18 eq:+1.106 (-0.074)
Player: 80.13% (G:31.23% B:2.19%)
Opponent: 19.87% (G:3.47% B:0.17%)
Confidence: ±0.006 (+1.100..+1.112) - [0.0%]
```

So, while the score does have a significant effect, it is not enough to make 11/2* wrong (and Sander apparently knows what he is doing ).

(Note: I noticed that the stream analysis for 11/2* was only 2-ply after doing the rollouts, which made the result a bit less exciting… but I made it this far so figured I would post anyway `¯\_(ツ)_/¯`

)

(Note 2: XG++ says 11/2* a tossup (-0.010) BUT, on my system/setting, XG doesn’t even consider this move to be worth the extra ++ effort and defaults only to 3-ply)