| 54S-61P-55M-11 (at 𣯔) | 160 |
|---|---|
| |
| 138 | |
To be honest and blunt, my opinion is that the analysis got it almost completely wrong.
The 11 semi-joker creates a better prime with one behind it. White now wants to extend the prime, and keep contact as much as possible. Splitting and making an advanced anchor are race-oriented plays, which are uncalled for. Additionally, splitting allows blue to attack and play tactically, which delays white prime building. You need a stable defense and then concentrate of building and extending the prime.
[From your other post] ... thematically it is not correct to split and to aim for a high anchor, when behind in the race. Was 24/23(2) 6/5(2) overlooked as a possibility?
I wondered that, too. It is unclear whether in support of F (Float, 24/23 6/5(3), the play actually made), the author preferred F to E (Each, 24/23(2) 6/5(2), the play you and I like) or only considered I (Inside, 6/5(3) 5/4) and/or P (Point, 6/4(2)) as alternatives.
The play caught my eye because it seems that one of the most common blunders, even today, is to split 24/23 against an early 55P. (In this game, the 8pt spare is back on the 10pt, but there's still ten checkers in the zone, close enough.) For example, for 32D-55P-11 (or 43D-55P-11), N (Near, 8/7(2) 6/5(2)) is clearly best while M (Mayfair split, 24/23 11/10 6/5(2)) is fourth best and a whopper. Likewise with 51$-55P-11, the fourth ace of 6/5 (or 11/10 in the case of 21$-55P-11) is way better than 24/23.
The most similar third roll position (to the diagram) is 61P-55P-11 (lift 10pt builder to 8pt and put a 13pt spare back on 24pt), where E is best, I is a whopper and F is a bigger whopper. In the game, I suspect that F (the play made) is only a small blunder or big mistake; as I see it, the authors' analysis of this position, while arriving at the wrong conclusion, has some redeeming qualities.
Nack