| |
BGonline.org Forums
Opening 43, Historical references
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Opening 43, Historical references (Timothy Chow)
Date: Monday, 29 July 2019, at 5:30 a.m.
Sorry, that was my muddled thinking. I'm not sure when gammons (and later backgammons) were invented or popularized. However, my hastily written notes on the oldest book I accessed (Edmund Hoyle's Short Treatise on Backgammon, 1745) suggest that 31P, 42P, 61P, 53P, 65R, 64R, 63R, 62$, 54R, 43D, 32D and 52D should be played in all circumstances; 51$, 41$ and 21$ should be played normally; and 51S, 41S and 21S should be played just to win or to play safely. I don't remember exactly what was stated and how much might have been assumption on my part, but David Levy might be able to find and quote it for us.
Some books (though not the one cited above), even written as late as 1970 offered recommendation for playing opening doublets. (Even The Backgammon Book by Oswald Jacoby and John Crawford included a table of opening doublets -- "some people play you may start with one.") I read somewhere that the standard rules used to include opening doublets; I'm not sure when that started changing.
Incidentally, the notion of "playing safe" has had different views. On page 74 of the Jacoby/Crawford book, they state, "A really bad play with 52 is to use the 2 to split your back men... The split to the one and three points in the [opponent's] board is the worst split you can have, for one important reason. If your opponent rolls double 5, he makes both the one and three points and puts both your men on the bar. In a gambling game, unless you can then bring them both in immediately your opponent will have strong enough positions to end the game by doubling you."
This was not an isolated paranoia. For example, Barclay Cooke and Jon Bradshaw, on page 31 of Backgammon the Cruelest Game (1974), wrote for opening 21, which apply to 41 and 51 as well: "[Play $] -- This is an unfortunate roll, but red has no better option... He is exposed to a direct 4, but if he is not hit, his chances of establishing his 5pt are much improved. Under no circumstances should red split his back men by moving a man from [his 24pt to 23pt]." At this stage of the game, [the 24pt] is his main security. Were red to separate those two men, he would become vulnerable to [55 and 41]. Dropping an exposed man on [the 5pt] is considered bold by the inexperienced player. In fact, it is less bold than separating the men on [the 24pt], for in addition to the threat of double 5s and a 41, red's back men are also exposed to the threat of [44 and 66]. Such rolls will occur only 5 out of 36 times, but why give even that chance? In the beginning of the game, it could well be the end..." And so on. (It seems to me that if they mention 41 and 44 they should also mention 64, but I guess I shouldn't bother debating the finer points.)
This admonition seems extreme but it is not wholly without merit. There are times in the early game when one should slot rather than split at gammon save.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.