| |
BGonline.org Forums
52S-63R-41S-41T-63, etc.
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: Anchor or hit? 5th roll (Timothy Chow)
Date: Thursday, 30 September 2010, at 4:35 p.m.
When one's midpoint is reduced, it's typically better to make a key anchor rather than to hit. I'm pretty sure that's the case here, except at GG.
52S-63R-41S-41T-63
That is, @ (anchor, 24/18 21/18) for me. X (hit-and-split, 21/15 13/10*) gets the consolation prize. (Between P (Point, 9/3 6/3) and x (alt hit-and-split, 24/18 13/10*) I'm not sure -- both are pretty bad.)
Off the top of my head, here are a couple of related positions:
I think most people would play X (hit-and-split, 20/14 13/11*) here, but it's third best. I can't remember which of P (Point, 10/4 6/4) and @ (anchor, 24/18 20/18) rolled in first -- it was only a trunc and for those two plays it might have been TCTC.
43S-64R-62
This position is photographed on the front cover of Backgammon Openings (Dullard/Weaver, 2007). Blue should make his 5pt (which is better than his 4pt in the previous position), and anything else is a blunder. But if we compare just @ (anchor, 21/20) to the best hitting play, @ is a bit better.
54S-63R-31
Note that in the latter two positions, Blue has four checkers on his midpoint. In 52S-63R-41S-41T-63 (the position Tim posted and the first one diagrammed here), Blue's midpoint is already reduced to only three checkers. It is not the only difference in the positions, but that factor alone suggests to me that hitting is unlikely to be best when a strong anchoring play is available.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.