| |
BGonline.org Forums
BQ: Another bar point choice (and a couple of variants)
Posted By: Daniel Murphy In Response To: BQ: Another bar point choice (and a couple of variants) (leobueno)
Date: Saturday, 18 February 2012, at 12:28 a.m.
In all four positions, White has made the 4 point, Blue has no points in his board. If Blue provokes an exchange of hits, Blue stands to lose out from the increased chance of fanning or having to play awkward rolls.
Often, a double hit play in the early game is made because, frankly, there are no good alternatives. Using a whole roll to hit two checkers deep when there has been no development tends not to be a high equity play. In these four positions, there is a fine alternative: make the bar point in three of them, and make the 20 point in the other.
Often, you might hit twice deep in the home board because you smell the possibilities of a blitz. In these positions, the only offensive improvement Blue has made is having played 13/11. There's no smell of blitz in the air this morning.
Often, you'll hit on points that you don't particular want or expect to make because that gives you a tempo to accomplish something else or prevent your opponent from doing something. There's no need for that here. Opponent has only made one point and split his back checkers. He doesn't threaten to do much very often. And you don't need a tempo yourself, since you can simply make the bar point or the anchor with this 4-1 roll.
Making the bar point does not equalize this game. White's 4 point is stronger. But the bar point isn't bad. It's a permanent improvement. Let's suppose it makes White a small favorite. What if Blue hits twice instead? It depends on what White rolls. 66? Very good for you. 65 64 63 62? Good for you. 54 53 52 43 42 32? Bad for you. 55 44 33 22 11 21 31 41 51? Very bad for you. On average, those responses are not going to make you as well off as making the bar point does in three of the positions. You're even better off in the other position where you can make the 20 point anchor 24/20 11/10.
I don't know what "Mary's criterium" is. At http://www.bkgm.com/gloss/lookup.cgi?magriel+s+safe+bold+criteria there is Paul Magriel's safe vs. bold checklist. Perhaps that is what your reference is to:
- (a) opponent's home board strength;
- (b) presence of an anchor in opponent's home board
- (c) your home board strength
- (d) blots in opponent's home board
- (e) number of checkers you have back
- (f) number of checkers opponent has back.
By those criteria, nothing in these four positions suggests that Blue should or needs to play boldly. (a) and (c) suggest that Blue should instead play soundly, safely making an offensive point in three positions, and securing the best anchor in the other.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.