The score (after 0 games) is: Stick 0, Readers 0 (match to 7 points)
| Stick | 180 |
|---|---|
| |
| Readers | 242 |
Position ID: 0HlwAThgDg7AbQ Match ID: cAnyAAAAAAAA | |
| # | Ply | Move | Equity | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| • | 1 | 2 | bar/21(2) 24/20*(2) | +0.0339 |
| 0.5140 0.1616 0.0154 - 0.4860 0.1732 0.0110 | ||||
| 2 | 2 | bar/21(2) 24/20*/16 | +0.0289 ( -0.0050) | |
| 0.5188 0.1684 0.0167 - 0.4812 0.1931 0.0171 | ||||
Annotation
bar/21 (2) and 24/20* are forced leaving only one 4 to play. I knew the overwhelming vote would be to make the 5pt and I'd make the same play. Still, in such a complicated game with 7 men back it's important to look at any other candidates.
GNU finds that playing 20/16 with the last 4 is equal to making the golden anchor. An easy argument can be made for this play since you have no real need for the 5pt anchor. You have two anchors already, one advanced, and I'm not threatening to make my 5pt any time soon.
20/16 gives you outfield presence and my hitting numbers, 5s & 4s, are duplicated in the sense that's where I'd like to enter so I can anchor up. Even if I do enter and hit it would leave me very disjointed and not really be any progress.
I'd be interested in what a rollout thought of the position but it would take so long I'm not going to put in the effort. The lesson here is in such an uncommon type of game, aka 7 men back thanks to playing nackgammon, it's important to inspect all candidate plays. I suspect many of you that said "next" would eat that word upon further reflection.