playBunny:  If I read that right, the hit is better?  Cool, thanks.

playBunny & alanback & czuch: thanks! after reading your comments you had me convinced that i should have jumped over instead of hit .. i wasnt sure what to do when i made the move but i hit the checked just because i like to hit and to go for gammon although it might make no sense .. and even if i hit the checker and was hit back again later .. it might just prolong the game a little more ... i thought

so that was my reasoning for hitting .. quite impressive eh .. very well thought and analyzed ;)

but gnu proved me right!!!!!!!!
(ok gnu would have made the same more ;) ... i wouldnt expect that after your comments .. its something i will keep in mind ..)

can we also find in the roll out of gnu why hitting was better ?
(i am not used to reading gnu roll outs)

Hrqls:  Gnu doesn't give explanations!  All it can tell you is (according to its algorithms) which move produces the most wins ... assuming both players play like gnu.  PlayBunny's explanation is as good as you are going to find.

alanback: ok thanks :)
now that you know gnu's rollout .. how would you personally move ?

(i sometimes wonder why some experts advice a certain course .. and when i try to play that way i will fail because i dont make the correct followup moves .. so its not always wise for me to follow gnu's advice :))

Hrqls: lol. In this case that isn't an issue since every move you make is essentially forced (except for whether to hit, but assume yes in most cases and you should be fine).

Hrqls: it might be not wise to hit later one if i get sent back all the time and my opponent has moved a bit further

or it might be wiser to hit just then

ah well ... since i started playing hypergammon i hit most of the time :)