🚀 go-pugleaf

From: wmun@cix.compulink.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Saitek Champion Backgammon
 
 
I just purchased a Saitek backgammon table top machine (on impulse);
it is supposed to be the best dedicated unit on the market. Would
have gone for the Komodo Mac software from the Gammon Press (meant to 
be stronger), but they don't take credit cards and I live in England
:-(. 
 
It gives a below average game, with a plethora of positional errors
and seems to have no concept of timing. (I would consider myself an
aggressive average player). Never seen it play a back game.
It features 10 levels with 3 styles of play for each level (optimal,
conservative, aggressive). The default is the highest level with an
average response time of a second (I daren't try the lower levels).
 
It is very conservative when doubling, seeming only to do so when
there is a gammon in the offing, and readily accepts doubles in the
early game, which really should be dropped. Though in its favour, it
doesn't just rely on the point count to determine doubling decisions. 
Anyway, according to the Gammon Press, it loses 120 points in 100
games against an expert player.
 
It is possible to set up positions for analysis, but the results with 
positions from Dwek's book (17 years old) were invariably incorrect.
 
On the plus side it offers a chance to learn to play variations of
backgammon such as Moultezim, Plakoto, TricTrac and Jacquet, though
its play is not strong enough to get a feel for strategy.
 
On balance, I can't seem to see what the market for a machine like
this would be (apart from gadget-freaks such as myself). Novices will 
find it frustrating to lose to a machine which seems to 'cheat' (the
salesman was convinced his constant defeats were due to 'rigged'
dice). Experienced players will find its lack of a coherent doubling
strategy, lack of tournament emulation (with Crawford rule) and lack
of proper analysis facilities (such as rollouts) rather limiting.
 
This reminds me of the early days of chess computers when they were
predictable and relied almost solely on tactical as opposed to
positional considerations and could always be beaten by a combination 
one-ply deeper than its search depth. Today, for my level of play
they offer a superb challenge and a very 'human' feel. I hope that
will happen for Backgammon software, though I fear that the
'brains-of-the-game' might find other, more lucrative sources of
income.
 
WM
 
---- Wai Mun Yoon                           ----
---- wmun@cix.compulink.co.uk               ----
---- Compuserve: 100023.3557@compuserve.com ----
 
 
 
 
 
PS. My first post - please excuse any errors.