| |
BGonline.org Forums
2 checkers back vs. 1 checker back against a superbackgame
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: 2 checkers back vs. 1 checker back against a superbackgame (Timothy Chow)
Date: Thursday, 10 December 2009, at 8:47 p.m.
I would run the front checker in your first two positions (rolls of 62, 43), but in your third position (62) I would run the back checker. After anchoring in the outfield, the payoff of subsequently rolling double 6s (or other double, depending upon where White chooses to crack next) before you roll a single 6/other is compelling, and there are hit/fan and double-hit slime sequences on the launch pad as well.
I disagree with one comment I saw: "Being anchored at the edge of the prime with no opponent checkers lurking in the rear, you are pretty much guaranteed to escape one of the checkers anyway." Perhaps that's true against a bot, but a human will play it much better, breaking the 14pt, 13pt or 12pt (while making the 9pt and/or slotting the 8pt) and/or slotting the 16pt with an ace, playing for an immediate trap. Bots greatly underuse their available resources in prime-creeping positions.
In other words, while running the front checker is by far your best chance to get one checker home against a good player, anchoring is your best chance to get both home.
Anchoring isn't automatically right; it depends on how much time and flexibility the opponent has to trap you. For example, consider the situation below (ignoring that it is less likely to arise in real play). Here, a bot would probably anchor -- and the (poorly played) rollout might well confirm itself -- but I would try to limp the front checker home.
Nack
Money game: Blue to play 62
White 242
Blue 63 Position ID: ANsG4B7/hwEgQA Match ID: UQkZAAAAAAAA
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.