| |
BGonline.org Forums
Play Matchplay the Cooke Way
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Why isn't backgammon played for table stakes? (leobueno)
Date: Sunday, 5 June 2011, at 5:30 p.m.
Leobueno describes how backgammon would be played for table stakes, and indeed how he does play it. As long as you play till one player or the other wins all the chips, it is akin to a match, though potentially unlimited of course. Stick points out that table stakes - due to cubes and recubes killing backgammons then gammons for example - 'is much like match play in some respects'. A key difference being that, in conventional match play, the extra points are normally only killed for the trailer! Playing a table stakes type match the trailer could not win more chips than he has. In tournament poker a player can only win as many chips from each of the other players as he owns himself at the start of the hand; any residue going into a sidepot, of course. Why is this principle not applied to tournament backgammon?
When I discovered the game over thirty years ago, it occurred to me that the fairest way for matches to proceed would be that the trailer could only win as many points as the leader needed to win the match. Then I read 'The Cruelest Game' by Barclay Cooke & Jon Bradshaw, and discovered that the authors felt exactly the same way:
"The Crawford Rule is an attempt to protect the player with the greater score, but in our view it does not go far enough. A fairer rule would be one that prohibits your opponent from winning more points than you can potentially win in any one game. For example, in a 15 point match, if Player A is ahead 1-0, the most Player B could win in the next game would be 14. If Player B is ahead 10-7, the most Player A could win would be 5, and so on."
Surely there can be no doubt that such a rule would increase the stronger players chance of winning the match? Even if the match length was slightly shortened to allow for a reduced number of points per game, hour for hour the stronger player would be favoured, as he is more likely to be in front and therefore benefit from the restrictions.
The argument that was used against such a rule, in tournament backgammons' embroyonic phase back in the 60's and 70's, was that it could lead to a long series of (allegedly) dull games where the cube wasn't turned. In the pre-clock era this argument was very valid: it is far less so now, particularly if time controls were tightened, as stronger players seem to prefer. As for the 'dull game' argument, does anyone really think that allowing the post Crawford trailer to play subsequent games on a two cube rather than one makes the games any more interesting? Or that the increase in back games that would result from the new restrictions would generate boring games?! DMP type games have a surprisingly high skill factor.
But the biggest change would be the effect on match equities and doubling windows; without any overage they would be much more like money play. The take point at -2, -2 for example, would be 25%. Doubling windows, particularly redoubling windows would change much more smoothly. It is my honest belief that only a small minority of players can calculate doubling windows OTB. With a change in the rules such players would still have their formulas and their edge, but the majority of players who cannot do such calculations would find that applying their mathematical intuition to how the score affects such matters would have a far more potent effect. Instead, many players are blundering in the dark here, which actually increases the luck factor. When new players look at tables of recube take points, with their very haphazard nature, do we really feel that such things will entice them to the game? Interestingly, when asked in interview by Phil Simborg as to what his favourite tournament or type of game was, Mochy stated that he thinks tournament backgammon is "distorted" from original backgammon and, though his edge would be reduced he would love to play more heads up money games.
Of course, many stronger players have memorised doubling windows and gammon prices for all scores to 5 or 7 away. Is it any wonder that they are pressing for matches to be played in 5 or 7 point sets, rather than the more natural, longer single set matches?
When playing beginners in tournaments - to whom you may have had to explain the Crawford Rule - it is not uncommon to find that they do not double or redouble when they have nothing to lose by doing so. I believe that, rather than simply an oversight this is often because they don't realise they can; that it seems wrong that they should be able to. Their instincts are right. My feeling is that to allow such doubles is really a misuse of the doubling cube, and that, though change is stressful, the tournament game would benefit in the long term from disallowing any overage.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.