| |
BGonline.org Forums
Easy 1-1?
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Easy 1-1? (Karl Frogner)
Date: Thursday, 21 February 2013, at 2:04 a.m.
Ripping 3 checkers gives us some chances to win this match outright with a backgammon, but only if White rolls 41 or 51, so I think 3/2* 1/off(3) is indeed as crazy as it looks.
We can't lose this game with either 3/2*/off 3/2 or 3/2*(2) 1/off(2) because if White hits then we just cash. What differentiates these two plays?
1. After 3/2*(2) 1/off(2), Blue may reblot if White dances with 22; reblotting is impossible after 3/2*/off 3/2. This is a small argument in favor of 3/2*/off 3/2.
2. What about backgammon chances? After 3/2*(2) 1/off(2), White does not immediately get off the backgammon with 22 32 42. After 3/2*/off 3/2, White does not immediately get off the backgammon with 11 31 41 51. That's one extra roll, so this is another small argument in favor of 3/2*/off 3/2.
3. 3/2*(2) 1/off(2) lets White save the gammon with a 1, which is otherwise a bad racing roll; 3/2*/off 3/2 lets White save the gammon with a 2. Since rolling a 1 is worse than rolling a 2, again this is an argument in favor of 3/2*/off 3/2.
All three arguments favor 3/2*/off 3/2, which should therefore be better.
Now what about the "obvious" play of bearing off no checkers, with 3/2*/1(2)? White then has no hitting rolls that force Blue to cash. However, by not bearing off a checker, Blue costs himself a roll, which is bad for the gammon race. White needs 20 pips (5 crossovers) to get off the gammon, and there's a big difference between having two rolls to do so versus having three rolls to do so. Of course the price for saving a roll is that Blue lets White save the gammon with any immediate 2, and rolling a 2 is otherwise bad for White's racing chances. However, I still think that ripping one checker is worth it.
3/2*/off 3/2.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.