Crawford game w/ opponent 4 away - how do you play this 5-2?

[Walt]

XGID=----abEBBB--aC--bbbcb---A-:0:0:1:52:4:1:1:5:10

X:Player 1 O:Player 2
Score is X:4 O:1 5 pt.(s) match.
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| X O O O | | O O X |
| X O O O | | O O |
| X | | O |
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | X |
| | | X |
| | | X |
| X X X | | X O |
| O X X X | | X O O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 141 O: 150 X-O: 4-1/5 Crawford
Cube: 1
X to play 52

[Bradley K. Sherman]

Walt <walt_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Score is X:4 O:1 5 pt.(s) match.
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | X O O O | | O O X |
> | X O O O | | O O |
> | X | | O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | X |
> | | | X |
> | | | X |
> | X X X | | X O |
> | O X X X | | X O O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+

> X:141 O:150, Cube:1, X to play 52

13/8,24/22

--bks

[peps...@gmail.com]

13/6. No, I'm not claiming that this is the greatest play since Shakespeare's theatre company staged Hamlet. My claim is only that everything else is worse. Clearly, as Bradley so wisely acknowledges implicitly, X shouldn't break up X's 4 prime. But how about 24/22? Is that a joyful act, bringing harmony, peace and love to all, or does this play herald mere angst and frustration?

In my past few threads, I've mentioned my schooldays a few times, and I'm afraid I'm going to continue with this theme. For my school dinners, I was often served a particularly disgusting type of mashed potato, from a packet of course, with ugly black bits of something them in them that were disgusting to bite into.

I would agree that this mashed potato was unappealing, but I find 24/22 similarly problematic -- this play needlessly makes it harder (by 5.5%) to get to the edge of O's prime which is why I'm eschewing it and playing 13/6 instead, just like I (almost) never ate the mashed potato we were given.

Paul Epstein

[badgolferman]

I'm just going to hit. 13/8, 5/2. I prefer taking my chances with
having two men in O's back field than moving up to the 22-point.

[badgolferman]

I meant 13/8, 6/4*. My second choice is 9/4*, 6/4.

[Tim Chow]

What I'd most like to do is to leap O's prime, but 24/22 doesn't
really help me do that. So I'm leaving the back checker alone. Then
it looks to me that our best chance lies in harassing O's two blots to
give us time to roll that 3 and that 6 that we need to escape. I'll
try 9/4* 6/4. Unstacking and hitting with 6/4* seems irresistible,
and then covering the blot cuts down on return shots, which I think is
more important than holding a prime that we can't hold for long
anyway.

---
Tim Chow

[Freeven]

The thing I most want in this position is to get my back checker past
O's prime. Advancing to the 22pt makes it harder to get to the edge of
the prime, and gives O something to attack, so this seems like the wrong
approach.

Flexibility is a problem and 13/6 makes my position less flexible, so
that should be something of a last resort.

6/4* is the "natural" 2, and it shows up in both the other plays I
considered: 13/8 6/4* and 9/4* 6/4. Of the two, I prefer 9/4* 6/4. It
doesn't leave a direct shot, leaves a flexible spare on the midpoint,
and makes a point I will want in all variations. It also leaves me with
a clean board, which is important, since I'll want to go back to
focusing on getting my straggler out and around next turn. Giving up the
9pt is a concession, but I think I have to live with that.

9/4* 6/4

[Bradley K. Sherman]

<peps...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...

>I would agree that this mashed potato was unappealing, but I find 24/22 similarly problematic -- this
>play needlessly makes it harder (by 5.5%) to get to the edge of O's prime which is why I'm eschewing it

> ...

However 24/22 does mean that O cannot rearrange the checkers in her prime with impunity.

--bks

[peps...@gmail.com]

Ok. If you're wrong to play 24/22, will you agree to eat the same mashed potato we ate at school?

Paul

[Walt]

On 5/15/2013 9:54 PM, Walt wrote:

And Goldilocks looked at the board and said, "24/22 13/8? That play is
too passive. I need to get my runner out of there so I need to step up
to the edge of the prime, but 24/22 just makes it harder. 13/8 is not
really bad, but it accomplishes little. Let's try something else."

"13/8 6/4*? That play is too aggressive. Hitting loose, keeping the
four prime , and bringing a 12th checker into the zone is strong when it
works. But the 15 shots from the bar make it too risky."

"9/4* 6/4? Ah, that play is just right. It puts O on the roof, makes
the valuable 4 point, and only leaves 10 shots. I'll play that."

1. Rollout� 9/4* 6/4 eq:-0.395
Player: 38.07% (G:12.74% B:1.15%)
Opponent: 61.93% (G:15.18% B:0.75%)
Confidence: �0.006 (-0.401..-0.388) - [100.0%]
Duration: 17 minutes 23 seconds

2. Rollout� 13/8 6/4* eq:-0.434 (-0.039)
Player: 36.78% (G:11.11% B:1.18%)
Opponent: 63.22% (G:16.46% B:1.07%)
Confidence: �0.006 (-0.440..-0.428) - [0.0%]
Duration: 15 minutes 45 seconds

3. Rollout� 24/22 13/8 eq:-0.446 (-0.052)
Player: 35.78% (G:10.48% B:0.86%)
Opponent: 64.22% (G:15.74% B:0.66%)
Confidence: �0.007 (-0.453..-0.440) - [0.0%]
Duration: 16 minutes 30 seconds

4. XG Roller++ 13/6 eq:-0.468 (-0.073)
Player: 33.37% (G:7.64% B:0.31%)
Opponent: 66.63% (G:13.16% B:0.43%)

5. XG Roller++ 24/22 6/1 eq:-0.472 (-0.077)
Player: 34.98% (G:8.26% B:0.26%)
Opponent: 65.02% (G:16.69% B:0.51%)


� 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller


eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10, MET: Kazaross XG2

--
//Walt