Yes, that was a nice position. I would probably have made Michy's play OTB, misjudging the importance of outfield control.
By the way, I have a comment about Bob's cube decision on the previous roll:
| White | 139 |
|---|---|
| |
| Blue | 83 |
| GNUBg Id: 2m1AwAw9Dz4EAA:MAFgAQAAAAAA XGID=-ADbDb---E--aA-----bbcba--:0:0:-1:00:0:0:0:11:16 | |
A couple of weeks ago, Stick expressed skepticism about my claim that this position was a useful reference position. But here's an instance where it helped me assess what was going on. In "my" reference position, the backgamer had the best five-point board and 20 hitting rolls, while the opponent had a somewhat fragile position with future shot jeopardy and gammon risk. Here, the backgamer has only a four-point board plus a blot, and 18 hitting rolls, but the opponent has a much more fragile position. It seems clear that these factors should cancel each out somewhat, making it still an easy take. The reference position isn't close enough to allow me to judge the D/ND decision with any confidence, but the point is that knowing the reference position is a lot better than knowing nothing at all, and—for my learning style at least—better than a bunch of vague, half-remembered positions that I can't recall any specific details about.
Furthermore, once I have one reference position nailed down, it becomes easier to accumulate other reference positions around it. Supposing I get the D/ND decision wrong here; I can then file it away in my mind as another reference point. Over time, I should accumulate more and more positions in my mind and map out the territory more and more accurately. I claim that accumulating such a mental map is what most of us do anyway, whether consciously or unconsciously. I believe that consciously nailing down some positions is a more effective learning process than leaving it all to chance.
By the way, for those not already aware of the fact, Backgammon Boot Camp has a few more useful positions of this type (backgamer gets a shot; cube action?).