| |
BGonline.org Forums
Test OLM Thurs 2009-12-10 CHECKER (PLEASE VOTE ON THE CUBE FIRST!)
Posted By: Chuck Bower In Response To: Test OLM Thurs 2009-12-10 CHECKER (PLEASE VOTE ON THE CUBE FIRST!) (Jason Lee)
Date: Saturday, 12 December 2009, at 12:33 p.m.
Matt, aren't there a lot of concepts that could be flagged as 'overrated'? Does that mean they shouldn't be considered?
As far a Jason's point, I agree that not all positions with seven made points lead to the same problems. If one (or more) of those points can be easily broken, then it's a different issue than the alternative ("brittle" -- as Jason says, using one of Robertie's concepts).
When I looked at this problem I was asking myself "OK, if we make the 2-point, which of our seven points are we going to be willing to break next turn?" Yes, if White jumps out of our board (or if s/he stays and we can PoH) then there is more freedom. But I saw that this result wasn't automatic. How about the midpoint?
I guess I could have (and more importantly, should have) expressed myself as I did here rather than using the buzz-initialism. I know that often I write more words than I need to -- maybe this time I over-corrected.
Playing backgammon simply by finding an axiom that applies and then following it isn't the road to the top level of play. But in my case it helps to see a 'rule' and then look for the exceptions rather than to start with a clean slate everytime and build the decision from there.
Here making the 2-point may well be right (it's certainly the popular choice), regardless of the appearance of inflexibility that I saw (or imagined). If so, hopefully I'll make a small mental note that TMP wasn't enough of an issue in this position to override the board coverage 2(2) provides and be able to use that knowledge in the future.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.