| |
BGonline.org Forums
How about 8/1* ?
Posted By: Nack Ballard In Response To: How about 8/1* ? (Paul Weaver)
Date: Monday, 1 November 2010, at 4:13 a.m.
When I started playing backgammon more than thirty years ago, the accepted play in this position was 8/1*. I remember how weird it looked to me the first time I saw Magriel play S in this position. I give Magriel a lot of credit for somehow figuring out the best play.
I assume you mean Z (reverse split, 24/21 13/9) rather than S (Split, 24/20 13/10).
My understanding is that Jason Lester, a protege of Paul M. (from the same Mayfair Club, Manhattan), championed 63S-43Z (and opening 43Z) before Paul M. did, though even Jason may not have been the first on the East coast.
Meanwhile, on the West coast, in the late 70s I recall playing 63S-43Z which I might have picked up from Nick Maffeo, but in truth I don't remember ever being attracted to any other move (perhaps 63S-43S) — perhaps that was just from lack of imagination. Chuck Papazian (my other mentor) played 63S-43H, with which possibly I experimented, but I never liked it because of the lopsided 8pt/6pt distribution.
Chuck also played 63S-53X and 62S-53X (about –.025 and –.031, respectively — much closer than 43H). In Backgammon Master Games (Kennedy/Papazian, 1981), game 46 between Papazian himself and Oswald Jacoby, the latter correctly played 62S-53P; the analysis says, "The best play is to hit on the 1 point and split to the 4 point, making White's 6s awkward."
In game 50 (same book), against Ralph Powell, Paul Magriel replied with 62S-53X.
In game 16, Magriel vs Jorge O'Farrill, the latter played 62S-53S, which is a closer play than most people think; about –.010 for money and clearly best at gammon save. Again, the authors supported X.
Opening 62S or 63S was played many times in the book, and 43 was the second roll many times. However, as luck would have it, those two events never intersected; otherwise we could see how someone played it. :)
Bill and Chuck wrote an excellent book. It's just interesting to glimpse examples that demonstrate how far opening theory has advanced in the last thirty years.
Regarding H (Hit, 8/1*) and other plays, you'll find the data you seek in this post, but I'll also answer your header question directly here: according to a Snowie rollout H is a blunder at –.068 (5k trials) for money, and the closest it gets is –.023 at gammon go.
Nack
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.