Interest in one point matches has increased recently, as the highest rated two players on FIBS, one human and one computer, play only one point matches. The rest of us trail behind. Player 'one-pointer' has been kind enough to share with us some of the stragegic differences applicable to one point matches, and many of us have tried to learn by watching 'loner' and discussing its plays.
Some players eschew one point matches because (they claim) they don't want to pervert their instincts for regular match play. Various others have pointed out that double-match-point is exactly like a one-point match, and that match score -2, -2 can quickly turn into the same situation.
Although I'm sure it's been said before, let me point out that in the Crawford game at match score -1, -3, both players should also play as though in a one point match. (The trailer *does* have to play very slightly more conservatively than in an actual one-pointer, to avoid backgammon, but only very slightly -- backgammons are pretty rare even in actual one-pointers; I submit that the equity gain from switching yourself to the one-pointer mindset is far greater than the equity risk of the backgammon, especially if you keep the BG in mind and watch out for it.) (Also, the equity difference of the possible "free drop" in the following game is so negligible as to be disregarded, when compared to the equity gain of the one-pointer mindset).
My point is that there is a big difference in how you should play in a one-pointer situation vs. a regular old match game. You need to realize from the first move that you are in this kind of game, and adjust your mindset and your play accordingly. Both the leader and the trailer in a Crawford -1, -3 game better know how to play a one point match correctly.
