[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Has anyone ever thought of ...

Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier
Date: Thursday, 12 July 2007, at 6:06 p.m.

In Response To: Has anyone ever thought of ... (Stick)

The problem with using the "31P" system is that it's ambiguous. It could refer to 31 being played any number of ways. So notation like 8/5 6/5 works best, but that's too long to write out a whole game. One could shorten the notation by only using the destination move, but then it's still ambiguous. In chess there are names for openings, e.g. "Sicilian Dragon" is shorthand for the sequence 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 g6, and "Ruy Lopez, Zaitsev Variation" is short for 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Ba4 Nf6 5. 0-0 Be7 6. Re1 b5 7. Bb3 0-0 8. c3 d6 9. h3 Re8 10. d4 Bb7 11. Nbd2 Bf8. There's too many possibilities in backgammon to do that, so people use "holding game", "prime vs. prime", "1-3 back game", etc.

Not sure if I can come up with anything better than that. The biggest improvement would be to class middlegame positions that don't fit into any specific category. They're further developed from 31: 8/5 6/5, but they're a long way from a one-way 4-point holding game.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:

 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.