Igor wrote:
The cube is never brought up in the analysis included in the book, so it is a poor choice of position since the right move depends on the location of the cube.
I still think the position is a perfectly reasonable one for the book.
Every once in a while someone will post a problem here on BGO where the bot recommends some seemingly bizarre move, and where the explanation is that the player missed a double before the roll. For example:
| White | 124 |
|---|---|
| |
| Blue | 86 |
| GNUBg Id: bW2ggAYa/2MAAA:cInxAAAAAAAA XGID=--ABbaJ--B--aa-----bbabba-:0:0:1:43:0:0:0:7:8 | |
As the position stands, 6/3 6/2 is the best play, but that's only because Blue blundered by failing to cube before the roll. If Blue had cubed, 9/5*/2 would be the best play. In fact 9/5*/2 is the best move under almost all circumstances except when Blue has blundered by not cubing. This is very different from a position where Blue doesn't have a double immediately before the roll, but where the checker play depends on the cube position. The latter is arguably too subtle for an intermediate-level book. But I don't think that the position above is too subtle for an intermediate-level book, even if the cube is not discussed explicitly, provided the cube is placed in the correct location. The fact that the play would change if Blue had blundered is an advanced observation that can be safely ignored in an intermediate-level book, and doesn't disqualify the position from inclusion IMO.