| |
BGonline.org Forums
Another one of those rules that Stick likes to claim credit for
Posted By: Stick In Response To: Another one of those rules that Stick likes to claim credit for (Timothy Chow)
Date: Saturday, 18 February 2017, at 6:15 a.m.
I'm not sure of the tone of the subject line. If it is meant solely as a catchy (click bait) title then good choice and a job well done. However, if it is meant in seriousness it makes me sound grandoise. I think somewhere in the past we may have had a discussion on 'who gets credit for what rules'. You know those rules in backgammon that become mantras, maxims, or mottos. 'Make the 5pt', 'Run the last checker', etc... This title, if not meant to play on the first thing I mentioned, makes it sound like I like to lay claim to anything backgammon under the sun that nobody has taken credit for. I hope people don't think that's the case and in case there are any new readers here at BGO I don't want them to get that idea from this title.
While it is true that in one of the links Timothy provided I wrote 'I broke my own rule here' I didn't mean that in the sense of it being a rule I invented but a rule that I've adopted or follow. There are certain sayings that existed before I even started playing this game that I've adopted, we all do, and others that I reject. So when I quote something in passing like that as 'my rule' I meant it as a rule I found worth using. Other ones like 'prime 2 attack 1' or 'PRAT for cube decisions' etc... I find rather worthless and don't use.
I also think I said in the past that even though many of these rules may have existed in the past, thanks to these forums and my loud online mouth and the fact that I myself and others have adopted some of them they have become more commonplace to the entire bg world. I am far removed from being the first person to say "next" or "make the 5pt" for example. The former I picked up from Kit's OLM over at this forums. When I started there though I was a little more vocal about it with either a "Next!" or "NEXT!" etc... because I thought it was a complete waste of time to spend a day on a decision where everyone (or even nearly everyone) knew the correct decision and would vote that way. Who knows who started the "make the 5pt" staple but I sure have impressed it into my own game and twisted it to form another of my own rules.
Not only does Play B really have to twist my tit to override my natural desire to make the 5pt but I also apply it to when to leave the 20pt anchor, the other 5pt. If we're so happy to make our own 5pt shouldn't we be just as hesitant to leave the other one once it's made? In my early years I left this anchor far too early and realizing the value of our own 5pt helped me understand why you need to break my leg to get me off that anchor.
As for making the 4pt with the double aces in the example Timothy gave, I highly doubt I can lay any claim to that. While I never remember seeing it anywhere that doesn't mean that countless people before myself didn't think the same thing. It's a fairly simple rule I think most players would create for themselves in the natural progression of learning.
Off the top of my head there are only a couple things I can think of where I think I can put my fingerprint. First, there are the long race doubling windows of the Keith Count which I discovered. The Keith Count says double if our count exceeds the opp's by no more than 4. This is good for most races but if we happen to get in to a long to super long race we can actually double when it exceeds the opp's by no more than 5 (80-100 pips), 6 (100-120 pips), or 7 (120+). This improves on Keith Count's accuracy a shade when comparing it to other methods such as Isight. (also not docking players in races for a gapped 4pt or 5pt when they will obviously be filled in during the bear in, that's just common sense)
After that the 3a 7a rule for doubling tips its hat in my direction I believe. In short, as is stated in that post:
At 3a 7a or greater (and very often 3a 6a) do not double as the 3a player when there is significant contact (could be phrased as 'gammons') for either side
Continuing on we have one of my favorites that I've received some opinionated feedback on in both directions. Make the dmp play I don't know if I've ever tried to find the proper wording for this on the forums either but I'll do it on the fly now and we can tweak it when someone points out why that sucks.
When the dmp play is clear, make it
That sure is simple. Let me note of course this applies only to normal match scores. (or dmp type scores) Inherent in the rule is also a knowledge of common exceptions. Obviously at dmp we'd stay back for every last ditch shot we can and not worry about gammons and backgammons, we will never do that at a normal score. This is the most obvious exception but once you are familiar with using this concept many other exceptions will also become clear. Leaving anchors for example without a good reason should already be in your repetoire of exceptions.
It is tough to define the word *clear*. In the past I've tried to define it as the dmp play winning 2% more than other plays but it doesn't even need to be that so I'd rather not use a %. How many of us are going to know the percentage anyway? When I say clear I mean obvious. If you can ask yourself the question "What is my play at dmp" and the answer pops to you, that's clear and that's the play you should be making.
I'm sure there are more in the mix and I should have started a separate thread and we could include them all. (we may have done it already?) We know where to direct things like Pottle's Law and O'Hagan's Law but who gets credit for 'if you have slotted the ace point cover it as soon as possible' for example? And there are very few exceptions for that which once you learn make it even more useful. I wrote an article on it but again, it is highly doubtful that I was the first person to realize this or even write about it.
Stick
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.