BGonline.org Forums

Backgame theory

Posted By: Michael Depreli
Date: Thursday, 29 October 2009, at 10:03 p.m.

In this position blue had rolled 11 and played it 24/23 13/12 5/4 3/2 maybe thinking that he would get some blots hit and therefore gain some timing and winning chances.

The question is should white hit with 17/13* or not hit, laugh in blues face and play 18/17 14/11?

Obviously white wins more gammons by hitting but loses more games. At DMP I think not hitting is clear.

When playing backgames at what stage do you think hitting more checkers actually lowers your equity?

Have there been any articles written on this subject?

Can we trust any bot to fully understand the timing issues involved here?

The score (after 0 games) is: White 0, Blue 0

Move number 35: White to play 31

White	115
Blue	169
Position ID: qh1oADZs2waiAA Match ID: EYEFAAAAAAAA

Messages In This Thread

• Backgame theory
  Michael Depreli -- Thursday, 29 October 2009, at 10:03 p.m.
  • Backgame theory
    Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 7:16 a.m.
    • Backgame theory
      Michael Depreli -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 8:53 a.m.
      • Backgame theory
        Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 10:00 a.m.
  • Backgame theory BOT DATA
    Michael Depreli -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 2:58 p.m.
    • Backgame theory BOT DATA
      Christian Munk-Christensen -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:25 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA
        eXtreme Gammon -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:36 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA
        mtuhtan -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:46 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA
        Michael Depreli -- Friday, 30 October 2009, at 4:47 p.m.
    • Backgame theory BOT DATA: Longer RO
      eXtreme Gammon -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 3:46 a.m.
      • Backgame theory continuation
        Michael Depreli -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 12:39 p.m.
        • Backgame theory continuation Correction
          Michael Depreli -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 3:36 p.m.
          • Backgame theory continuation Ignore this thread.
            Michael Depreli -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 7:47 p.m.
            • Backgame theory continuation Ignore this thread.
              Frank Berger -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 9:37 p.m.
        • Backgame theory continuation
          neilkaz -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 3:51 p.m.
          • Backgame theory continuation
            Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 4:08 p.m.
      • Backgame theory BOT DATA: Longer RO
        Ian Shaw -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 7:35 p.m.
        • Backgame theory BOT DATA: Longer RO
          neilkaz -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 9:38 p.m.
  • Backgame theory
    Timothy Chow -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 1:18 a.m.
    • Backgame theory
      Phil Simborg -- Monday, 2 November 2009, at 4:00 a.m.
      • Backgame theory
        Timothy Chow -- Monday, 2 November 2009, at 1:53 p.m.
  • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you? *NM*
    neilkaz -- Saturday, 31 October 2009, at 9:56 p.m.
    • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you?
      Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 10:07 a.m.
      • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you?
        neilkaz -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 3:02 p.m.
        • Did this position come from the last set of 10 I rolled out for you?
          Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 1 November 2009, at 3:41 p.m.