Replies to Opening Rolls 33
Richard Warnk
Opponent opens with a roll leaving his back men split to your 24 & 23 or
your 24 & 22. You roll 33. I realize that if the other part of the
opponent's roll leaves a blot that can be pointed that would be the
obvious choice for 2 of the 3's. However, let's assume that that is not
the case!
Choices are:
a) 8/5(2), 6/3(2)
b) 13/10(2), 6/3(2)
c) 24/21(2), 6/3(2)
d) 24/21(2), 13/10(2)
e) 13/7(2)
f) 24/18(2)
Out of this smorgasbord of delightful possibilities (a) leaves the blot
on the 8, potentially the victim of one of the two blots on your inner
board, the rest are good!
Such Choices - Anyone got an opinion or rollout on "best"? Or even top 2
would narrow it down some.
Thank you,
REW
"Poop Happens and Things Change!"
George Parker
Most of your opponents hits after (a) leave you with a potentially
deadly return shot. Of course, if you are not hit, you are in excellent
position to begin a blitz attack, either winning an early cube or an
easy gammon. If you instead choose to play without leaving a blot, you
will be playing passively to achieve much the same position you could
have had on your first roll, and in the meantime your opponent will have
had time to develop his position, either anchoring his back pieces or
making inner board points. A three point board when your opponent has
nothing is a very powerful weapon, which more often than not compensates
for the fewer than half the times your opponent hits the blot on the 8
point.
However, let me not discourge you from your other choices, they all
leave you with a fine position. Of these, I think diversification is the
right idea: either 13/10(2), 6/3(2) or 13/10(2), 24/21(2) or 24/21(2),
6/3(2)... probably in that order(I have no rollout results to go by.)
Also, don't forget that 8/2*(2) is an option... not one that I would
choose, mind you, but probably not that bad either.
My last word will be to advise you not to dismiss 8/5(2), 6/3(2) so
easily simply because it leaves a blot, look forward a few turns to see
how this option plays for you, even when hit. I think you will find that
most other players agree with me on making two inner board points in
this situation, if not... well, my face is red. Let's see...
George
Les Watson
An opinion.
According to Prince Joli Kansil's "The Backgammon Quiz Book",
the suggested play for 3-3 is a) 8/5(2), 6/3(2) , with an alternative
play of e) 13/7(2).
I haven't been playing long enough to form my own opinion but these two
look good and play out well.
So my question is ......
is Prince Joli Kansil's "The Backgammon Quiz Book" a decent book to be
basing my plays on?
Les
Chuck Bower
Good questions. Let me answer the last question first: NO!
Now to the earlier stuff. (Well, I must digress even now...) BG is
not a simple game. If it were, most of us wouldn't be playing it. Any
book or any person who gives one or two options for the best way to respond
to ALL opening rolls with a 33 is oversimplifying. For example, my next
post answers the question "What do Jellyfish rollouts say the correct way
to respond with 33 to an opening split of 24/23?". I then discuss how to
respond to the opening split of 24/22. The answer is different. And if you
need to respond to an opening 24/18, the answer is different still.
Back to the last question, sort of: Here is a list of books to read
if you are serious about backgammon:
1) "Backgammon" by Paul Magriel. (Definitely read this first!!)
2) "Advanced Backgammon" by Bill Robertie.
3) "How to Play Tournament Backgammon" by Kit Woolsey.
4) "Vision Laughs at Counting, with Advice to the Dicelorn" by Danny Kleinman.
5) "New Ideas in Backgammon" by Kit Woolsey.
6) "Winning: The Psychology of Competition" by Stuart H. Walker.
Write Carol Joy Cole (c...@flint.org) to find out about purchasing these.
And one more thing. Don't ramrod through these books. To do a decent
job, you need to spread this reading out over about a year (or longer)
period of time (and "one year" assumes you devote a HUGE amount of your time
to backgammon). Also, read them multiple times (not consecutively). There
are advanced players who reread Magriel every few years and continue to learn
from it!
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Chuck Bower
>Richard Warnk wrote:
>>
>> Opponent opens with a roll leaving his back men split to your 24 & 23 or
>> your 24 & 22. You roll 33. I realize that if the other part of the
>> opponent's roll leaves a blot that can be pointed that would be the
>> obvious choice for 2 of the 3's. However, let's assume that that is not
>> the case!
>>
>> Choices are:
>> a) 8/5(2), 6/3(2)
>> b) 13/10(2), 6/3(2)
>> c) 24/21(2), 6/3(2)
>> d) 24/21(2), 13/10(2)
>> e) 13/7(2)
>> f) 24/18(2)
>>
>> Out of this smorgasbord of delightful possibilities (a) leaves the blot
>> on the 8, potentially the victim of one of the two blots on your inner
>> board, the rest are good!
>>
>> Such Choices - Anyone got an opinion or rollout on "best"? Or even top 2
>> would narrow it down some.
>>
George's response:
>Is a three point board after your first roll not worth a 17 number shot?
>Most of your opponents hits after (a) leave you with a potentially
>deadly return shot. Of course, if you are not hit, you are in excellent
>position to begin a blitz attack, either winning an early cube or an
>easy gammon. If you instead choose to play without leaving a blot, you
>will be playing passively to achieve much the same position you could
>have had on your first roll, and in the meantime your opponent will have
>had time to develop his position, either anchoring his back pieces or
>making inner board points. A three point board when your opponent has
>nothing is a very powerful weapon, which more often than not compensates
>for the fewer than half the times your opponent hits the blot on the 8
>point.
> However, let me not discourge you from your other choices, they all
>leave you with a fine position. Of these, I think diversification is the
>right idea: either 13/10(2), 6/3(2) or 13/10(2), 24/21(2) or 24/21(2),
>6/3(2)... probably in that order(I have no rollout results to go by.)
>Also, don't forget that 8/2*(2) is an option... not one that I would
>choose, mind you, but probably not that bad either.
> My last word will be to advise you not to dismiss 8/5(2), 6/3(2) so
>easily simply because it leaves a blot, look forward a few turns to see
>how this option plays for you, even when hit. I think you will find that
>most other players agree with me on making two inner board points in
>this situation, if not... well, my face is red. Let's see...
Well, I don't know if the following is going to change your
complexion, George...
I have done JF v2.0 level-6 cubeless rollouts on MOST of the replies to
opening rolls. For the 24/23 splits, 24/21(2), 13/10(2) comes out better
than 8/5(2), 6/3(2) by about 0.07 in cubless equity, which is A LOT!
(BTW, 24/21(2), 6/3(2) looks to be second best.)
Your answer would have been popular back in the 70's (and maybe it
still is...) because the feeling then was "go for the best long term
structure (known as 'pure play') and if you get hit, you haven't lost
much". Fact is, you've lost quite a bit. The slow, less risky approach
OFTEN turns out better, at least when Jellyfish plays against itself.
As far as how to play 33 when the opponent splits to the 22 point,
I have not done rollouts, but feel pretty sure that now 8/5(2), 6/3*(2)
is better BY A TON! The return shots are very few now (3/36 compared
to 17/36 for the earlier case) and that's only the beginning! You've
put your opponent on the bar against a three point board. Without
consulting JF, it looks to me like the only possible case which could
even give your opponent the lead is a return roll of 44. Nine rolls
(that is, all fans) give you a HUGE double, which may well be a drop!
If I'm wrong about this part of Richard's question, I should give up
backgammon (but I won't...)
Daniel Murphy
On Fri, 18 Jul 1997 22:23:22 +1000, Les Watson
<squ...@cnl.com.au> wrote:
>An opinion.
>So my question is ......
>is Prince Joli Kansil's "The Backgammon Quiz Book" a decent book to be
>basing my plays on?
It's decent, but don't take it on faith. For a book with
solid advice you can rely on, read Magriel above all, or
Robertie's short introductory book, or Jacoby and Crawford,
or, for the opening rolls, Kit Woolsey's discussion on the
WWW Backgammon Page is perfectly adequate.
Prince Joli's Quiz Book is one of many backgammon books that
are good enough to be more enjoyable and worthwhile after
you've learned enough about backgammon to think about when
and why the author might be wrong.
______________________________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy San Francisco, California rac...@cityraccoon.com
FIBS, the First Internet Backgammon Server
http://www.fibs.com
telnet://fibs.com:4321
Backgammon By the Bay: monthly tourneys in San Francisco, annotated games:
http://www.backgammon.org/bgbb/
George Parker
Chuck Bower wrote:
Well, I don't know if the following is going to change your
> complexion, George...
Thank you for your reply and thank you for pointing out an inconsistency
in my game, and in my thinking about the game, which might have done
much to hinder my development as a player. My comments regarding this
question were in exact contradiction to a previous posting of mine
regarding the 5-3 opener in which I argued that a 6! number shot is not
worth risking when a reasonable, safe position can be constructed. I now
humbly agree with you regarding the 3-3 response to an opening split
24/23, having studied the position more.
My style of play tends to be hyperagressive at times... usually as a
result of impatience and often because I learned the game playing
opponents whose style is a somewhat confused relic of the 70's and the
"insidious" Bruce Becker! The short end of it is that I like to go for
the kill... and sometimes it's hara-kiri.
Having looked at the position after 24/21(2), 13/10(2), two features
strike me as obvious; one, the advanced anchor thwarts board building in
the opponents inner table, and two, the 10 point serves both as a block
and as an attack force should the opponent neither anchor nor escape.
These two features, in turn, serve to complement one another, especially
during an attempted blitz or when priming a lone checker. The logic in
this play is parallel to the logic I gave for the play 8/5(2), 6/3(2) ,
save for three obvious improvements; advanced anchor, additional
builders/attackers safely in the outfield, and...drum roll please... no
blot.
The truth be known, I had not considered making the advanced anchor to
be important in this position, the prospect of an all out attack held
too much savor; but the more I consider it, the more sense it makes and
for many more reasons than I have the patience to write, or anyone
reading this post has the patience to endure.
In conclusion, Mr. Bower, I was humbled by your corrections... not
shamed, but then humility is the ground in which knowledge comes to
flourish.
Thank you,
George Parker