| |
BGonline.org Forums
Cousins of GG and GS
Posted By: David Rockwell In Response To: Cousins of GG and GS (Nack Ballard)
Date: Monday, 31 May 2010, at 5:55 p.m.
The prototype score which I like to use for examples such as these is -4-c. It has the advantage of having no cube in play and the gammon value of .5093 for the trailer on R/K is very close to money. The limited number of opening rollouts I have done to investigate these values have been done at this score.
I believe there is either a lot of theoretical confusion or practical confusion about this score. I'm not sure which. I frequently hear people say "I really need a gammon here" or their play tells me that they are thinking this way. That is, of course, misguided. The trailer's need for a gammon is essentially the same as it is for money. The vital charachteristic of the score is that there is no value or loss in the leader winning a gammon. Throughout much of the game, the gammon values at this score will point towards the same adjustments to play as GG and GS anyway. But, there are times when the distinction is important. For example, when deciding whether or not to bearoff aggressively with one or two of the opponent's checkers closed out, the trailer will make the play that would be made for money, not the GG play.
The point of this long-winded discussion is that I feel a new naming convention would be best if it emphasized what is different at this score. I am fine with Nack's suggestion or anything else that garners favor. I will add for consideration what I have used privately - Gammon No - to emphasize the gammon value of zero for the leader. A distinction between leader and trailer would be needed.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.