| |
BGonline.org Forums
OLM 20160123A The Prime Factors Consultation
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: OLM 20160123A The Prime Factors Consultation (Jason Lee)
Date: Saturday, 23 January 2016, at 7:07 p.m.
I'm going to assume that the three plays that received votes are the only ones to consider.
6/3, 5/1: I don't really know what this accomplishes. It looks like it's just waiting for 44 or 55 plus some other stuff to try and race, meanwhile planning on stacking the low part of our homeboard while we await the lucky rolls. Leaves five checkers on the combination 1- and 7-points (six apart). I guess you could call it a racing play but assuming the race is meant to followed by a bearoff, you set up the homeboard for a poor one of those.
7/3, 4/1: Small rolls (including Small die + large die) make a 5-point board and large numbers (except the ugly 54) run off the 18 point. Four checkers on the 1- and 7-points.
7/3, 7/4: Every roll will make the 5th homeboard point except 55 and 65. 55 is best racing number and 65 (similarly 64) is going to be played by running around from the 18-point no matter how we play this turn, putting even more checkers on the 1- and 7-point combo!
(Ironically my original second choice was 5/1, 7/4 which didn't receive any votes. That may be because if you're playing 7/4 you decide 7/3 is the better four.)
If you just look at the resulting positions (as I did), 7/3, 7/4 sure looks best to me. As I mentioned in my other post, the only reason I can find to choose an alternative is to save a six. HOWEVER I don't think saving a 6 gets any kind of priority here. We need a board worse than we need to protect some kind of nebulous race.
7/3, 7/4
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.