| |
BGonline.org Forums
Advanced Backgammon #185
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Advanced Backgammon #185 (Taper_Mike)
Date: Wednesday, 18 June 2014, at 3:44 p.m.
Taper_Mike wrote:
To me, that seems more likely than a theory that the containment value of a two-point block is the motivation for making the 9pt.
Ah, I guess I wasn't clear. I don't mean that making the 8pt and 9pt help contain White's checkers on Blue's 7pt. I mean that Blue wants to keep those checkers where they are so that they are in a good position to make points in Blue's board, in preparation for the moment a few rolls from now when White starts to crunch and Blue hits a checker that he wants to contain. This is what I meant by a "straight backgame." My impression is that you and Bob and Igor and David all want to salvage some forward-winning chances by getting some of those back checkers over White's prime, because the straight backgame looks so hopeless. Although my impression is also that Blue's timing is bad, my best theory for what the bot is telling us is that the straight backgame is not as hopeless as we think it is.
The key question seems to be, if Blue plays a straight backgame, what will Blue's board look like when Blue hits his shot? Will all his checkers be stacked on his 1pt? I don't think it will be that bad. Perhaps Blue will have two checkers each on the 1pt/2pt/3pt/4pt? That's not great but it's far from hopeless. I think it will be better than having only six checkers in his board, occupying the 1pt/2pt/3pt. If Blue can avoid collapsing any further than this then I think he will prefer having eight checkers forward rather than six checkers. It's only if he's going to be forced to bury eight checkers on fewer than four points that I think he prefers some of those checkers to be sent back. At least, this is my current theory, which I haven't tested, but it should be testable by setting up some hypothetical positions five to ten rolls in the future.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.