What is a Holding Game - Revisited
Casual_Observer
and opened in its entirety so its all here!
Sorry,
Richard
Casual_Observer wrote:
>
> Hello Folks,
>
> I saved all of the replies to the original
> post back in December by Alan Webb. I have
> read and reread it and have felt that all
> together these responses constitute nothing
> short of another chapter in Magriel.
>
> I have taken the liberty to do some minor
> editing (deleted headers and corrected some
> minor punctuation) and compiled all of it
> together in a one text document which is
> attached.
>
> If anyone is interested in this document
> and has difficulty downloading it, please
> contact me at:
>
> divd...@home.com
>
> and I will be happy to e-mail it to you.
> It is about 10 pages of text so I felt it
> inappropriate to post the whole thing.
> If there is sufficient interest I will
> be happy to post it here in its entirety.
>
> ENJOY!
>
> Have a Happy Day,
> Richard
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Subject: Holding Games?
> Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 12:00:20 +0100
> From: vsg...@t-online.de (VSG)
> Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
>
> I recently started a thread which referred to Back games. I have to say the response was more than I hoped for so I thought Id push my luck and ask another question :)
>
> What is a holding game?
>
> Ive read Bill Roberties "Backgammon for Winners" and "Backgammon for Serious Players" both of which do not seem to address the concept and strategy of Holding games.
>
> My impression is that it is the making of an advanced anchor, which should not be broken, so that if you find yourself behind in the game, it acts to slow down your opponents bearing in and gives you the opportunity to build your board and hope for a hit.
>
> Surely that cant be it?
>
> I mean it seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to bear in as you can easily move behind? I think there must be something I'm missing here :) and I have the feeling its to do with WHEN to break up the advanced anchor. Problem with that is if you move one out your likely to get blitzed (which was covered in the books) as your opponent will have a whole bunch of builders ready to zap you.
>
> I guess its a question of timing, which is likely only to come with
> experience, or is there a pip count rule.. i.e. under so many percent RUN RABBIT RUN!! :)
>
> I hope this question provides food for thought and look forward to any
> Replies here or per email on vsg...@t-online.de
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Alan Webb
>
> PS. thx once again for the backgame replies. BTW "2-3, 1-3, 2-4" seemed to be the most popular, and another thing i learned was.. "Backgames as a last resort.." pleased to see this newsgroup caters for keen learners :) and isn't full of "I know that..huh!" attitudes
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> Brian Sheppard
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:06:57 GMT
>
> You nailed it: a holding game involves a high defensive anchor that provides
> some chance of getting a shot.
>
> The distinction between "high" and "low" defensive anchors is important
> because of cube-handling. If you hold the 18 or 20 point you can almost
> always take a double, but the 21 point does not always provide enough equity
> to justify taking and it gets still worse as you go still lower.
>
> I would put the dividing line for holding games at the 22 point, calling
> Games with lower anchors "ace-point" or "deuce-point" games.
>
> Brian
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Donald Kahn
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:44:21 GMT
>
> Pretty close. These checker play in these games is not among the most
> intricate. I don't pose as an expert on the matter, but here are a
> few random observations.
>
> If opponent has three points inside or better, breaking the point can
> be dangerous. You tend to wait for a "convoy" (set of doubles).
> Otherwise, expect to be "worked over", as my old teacher Art Dickman
> put it. Remember if he hits you loose, you are not a favorite to
> survive.
>
> Certainly never run off voluntarily when you are behind in the race.
> It can't be right to race, when you are losing the race.
>
> If he still has the midpoint to clear, you can use some sets of
> doubles to move into the outfield to "oppose" it.
>
> The real art, from both sides, is the cube element. This separates
> the men from the boys. If you have a 20-pt anchor, what racing lead
> and how many outfield points does the racing leader need to double
> you? When is it a take?
>
> Used to be you had to have played a **lot** of backgammon to have your
> feet on the ground on this kind of stuff. But with such as JellyFish,
> you set up variation after variation, ask the evaluation, roll it out
> if it's close, and deduce your own set of rules for active play.
>
> Deekay
>
> *******************************************************************
>
> David Montgomery
> Date: 22 Dec 1998 11:12:28 -0500
>
> The term isn't really well-defined. There are positions that everyone
> would call a holding game, but there are also a lot of positions that
> some would call holding games, while others would call them something
> else. I call a lot of positions anchor games that others call holding
> games.
>
> The fundamental idea is maintaining contact in order to be able to
> hit the opponent while they are coming home (bearing in or clearing
> their last few outside points).
>
> Usually you maintain this contact with a point, although often a blot
> a ways behind the point provides additional contact, making it harder
> for the opponent to play safely behind you.
>
> The point(s) held usually include the 22, 21, 20, or 18 points.
> However, you could also have a 15 point vs 15 point holding game,
> and a midpoint holding the 18 point isn't that uncommon.
>
> I tend to think of a position as a holding game only when there is
> a credible chance of getting a shot while the leader is bearing home.
> So I wouldn't call holding the 22 (or 21 or 20) point against a six prime
> a holding game -- I would call it an anchor game. However, if I held
> the 22 point against the 4, 5, 6, and 9 points, it looks more like a
> holding game.
>
> If your main holding point is an anchor, you may need a second point
> in the outfield to have a good chance of a shot. Let's say your
> opponent is bearing in and needs to clear the mid and 8 points.
> Holding the 22 point alone, I would tend to think of this as an
> anchor game. With the 22 point and the midpoint (or some other
> outside point bearing on the opponent's mid) I would call it a
> holding game.
>
> Holding games are distinguished from backgames primarily by when you
> intend to hit your opponent. In a backgame, often the plan is not
> to hit until your opponent is bearing off. In a holding game, usually
> you will hit as soon as possible, as long as your offense isn't a
> shambles. (However, in advanced backgames, like a 54 or 53 backgame,
> you usually do intend to hit while the opponent is bearing in.)
>
> David Montgomery
> mo...@cs.umd.edu
> monty on FIBS
>
> ********************************************************************
>
> Julian Hayward
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 17:04:14 +0000
>
> Not quite. The point is not to slow down your opponent's bearing in but
> to hinder him from clearing points to bear in safely. A typical position
> along these lines is:
>
> 24-23-22-21-20-19----18-17-16-15-14-13
> o o o x o o o x
> o o x o o o x
> o o
>
> x
> x x x x x o
> x x x x x o
> 1--2--3--4--5--6-----7--8--9-10-11-12
>
> The aim is to make life as difficult for O to clear the three remaining
> outfield points. In this position X is not badly placed - there are
> plenty of rolls for O which force him to leave 17 rather than 12 in
> order to avoid leaving shots, and 6-3 forces him off 18 (even better for
> you).
>
> The critical aims for you are:
>
> (i) You hold points that cover more or less all the outfield space that
> O has to play through, so if O leaves shots they will be direct ones,
>
> (ii) You have a relatively good home board *now*, so that O is under
> pressure to play safely,
>
> (iii) O's position is relatively stripped, so he is likely to be forced
> off his outfield points very soon.
>
> (iii) is very important - if you move O's two spares from 21/22 to 19/18
> he has three, maybe four rolls to get a 65 or any double. That
> flexibility means the game will turn out to be little more than a race
> in which you are far behind.
>
> Another common position is for you to hold 13 and 18, in which case O
> reduces to two men on his midpoint, then often gets forced to play one
> of them off with 6-x.
>
> If O sees this sort of situation developing, he can try to defeat it in
> several ways - use good numbers to clear points at the back rather than
> build the home board - accept an early shot to clear an awkward point
> *before* X has built up his prime - avoid building outfield points that
> don't extend the prime in front of X's back men without good reason.
>
> Hope that's helpful!
>
> Julian
>
> **********************************************************************
>
> Andrew Bokelman
> Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 14:33:56 -0500
>
> >In article <75l9j3$dqu$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>
> >vsg...@t-online.de (VSG) writes:
>
> > I mean it seems to me that it shouldn't be too difficult to bear in as you
> > can easily move behind? I think there must be something I'm missing here :)
>
> Your opponent can move behind you but the moves are more awkward. With
> each move your opponent is trying not to leave an exposed checker for
> you to hit, and sometimes this can lead to piling up chips on a few points
> and/or leaving blots inside.
>
> Scenario 1.
>
> While your opponent is trying to bear in, you are building a home board with
> even distribution in case you hit. You don't hit, but when you run your
> board is set up better for bearoff.
>
> Scenario 2.
>
> Your home board breaks during the holding game and your opponent is not
> in as much danger bearing in. But because your home board broke you are
> now playing checkers to the inner most points. When you finally run, your
> board is in even better shape for bear-off than in Scenario 1.
>
> Scenario 3.
>
> Your opponent has played checkers behind you but there are gaps and blots.
> And you have built a strong home board. So you can consider running
> one checker from your holding point and continue to hold with the
> other one for maybe a couple of rolls. This may make the difference in
> putting you ahead in the race.
>
> Scenario 4.
>
> Because you have left checkers back to hold, you are able to hit when your
> opponent is forced to break an outside point. This either puts you
> ahead in the race, or your home board is strong enough that you
> opponent gets stuck behind it and you are able to pull ahead in the race.
>
> ****************************************************************************
>
> Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
> Date: 23 Dec 98 07:23:54 +0100
>
> On 22-dec-98 20:33:56, Andrew Bokelman wrote:
>
> AB> Scenario 2.
>
> AB> Your home board breaks during the holding game and your opponent is not
> AB> in as much danger bearing in. But because your home board broke you are
> AB> now playing checkers to the inner most points. When you finally run,
> AB> your board is in even better shape for bear-off than in Scenario 1.
>
> Well, it depends on what you mean by "better shape". Absolutely
> speaking, lower points in your inner board represent less pips and so
> they are usually quicker to clear. But relatively speaking, moving
> checkers from your 6, 5 and 4 points to your 3 and especially 2 and 1
> points, is putting you behind in the race because you will probably be
> wasting more pips during the bear-off.
>
> So, if you have a choice between (safely) leaving your anchor and start
> racing with an (almost) equal or even lower pipcount than your opponent,
> I would prefer that to breaking my board.
>
> --
> Zorba/Robert-Jan
>
> *****************************************************************************
>
> Chuck Bower
> Date: 22 Dec 1998 21:56:40 GMT
>
> In article <75ogdc$p...@krackle.cs.umd.edu>,
> David Montgomery <mo...@cs.umd.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <75l9j3$dqu$1...@news02.btx.dtag.de>
> >vsg...@t-online.de (VSG) writes:
>
> >>What is a holding game?
> >
> (David responds:)
>
> >The term isn't really well-defined.
>
> Excellent point.
>
> (snip)
> >Holding games are distinguished from backgames primarily by when you
> >intend to hit your opponent. In a backgame, often the plan is not
> >to hit until your opponent is bearing off. In a holding game, usually
> >you will hit as soon as possible, as long as your offense isn't in a
> >shambles. (However, in advanced backgames, like a 54 or 53 backgame,
> >you usually do intend to hit while the opponent is bearing in.)
>
> Again, I agree. Note that some people call the 20,21 and 20,22
> point backgames (David's more common notation '54 or 53 backgame(s)')
> "holding games", which further emphasizes his first comment about holding
> games (and backgames, for that matter) not being so well defined.
>
> I think David's sentence: "In a backgame, often the plan is not
> to hit until your opponent is bearing off" is worth elaborating upon.
> Here I three positions to ponder:
>
> +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> | O O | | O O O |2
> | O | | O |
> | O | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | O X X | | X |
> | O O X X X | | X X O |
> | X O O X X X | | X X X O |
> +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
>
> O on to play 62.
>
> Here O is not ready to hit X, since his/her board is in such a
> premature state. (Also, X will maintain a nice 5-prime, possibly
> choking O. Lastly, giving up one of the two anchors this early is
> clearly suicidal.)
>
> Now look at:
>
> +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> | O O O O | | O O |2
> | O O O | | O O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> X| | | |
> X| X | | |
> X| X | | |
> X| X | | |
> X| X O O X | | |
> X| X O O X X X | | |
> +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
>
> REW NOTE: Corrected later to read:
> O on Roll (**X on roll**). Cube decisions by both sides?
>
> Now O's side of the board is ready! X will be almost defenseless
> if O can hit. 27/36 numbers hit, and most of those will be game winners.
> One thing which should be clear: X has a take. If O misses X can
> probably cash, but even if O will have a subsequent take the rewhip to
> 8 has to be juicy. And even if hit, X will scrape out a few wins.
> (I would pass as O after missing the triple shot.) Does O have a redouble
> in the illustrated position? I'm not sure if there are sufficient market
> losers but against most human opponents this is a nice pressure redouble.
> I would cube.
>
> Finally look at:
>
> +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> | O O O O | | O |2
> | O O O O | | O |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | X | | |
> | X | | |
> | X X | | |
> | X X X | | |
> | X O O X X | | |
> | X O O X X X | | X O |
> +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
>
> X on roll. Cube decisions by both sides?
>
> X is smarting after rolling 65. Now a take looks misguided
> mostly because X has failed to bear off a checker, in contrast to the
> previous position. I suppose a case can be made for O being too good
> but I think a redouble is O's best move against fallible opposition.
> (There are probably some 'steamers' who would take.)
>
> The fact that I used the 32 backgame (23,22 from O's POV) is no
> coincidence. These seem to produce a reasonable fraction of the last
> type of position illustrated (gammonee turning into the gammonER!).
> Again, I point out that David was aware of these exceptions (he said
> "...often...", not "...always..."). I just thought his post was a
> nice lead-in to touting one of the occasional bonuses of playing
> backgames. As far as the downsides.... Well, I think most of us are
> all too painfully aware of those.
>
> Chuck
> bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
> c_ray on FIBS
>
> ***************************************************************************
>
> Harald Retter
> Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1998 13:02:55 GMT
>
> In article <75p4io$mta$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
>
> <SNIP>
>
> > +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> > | O O O O | | O O |2
> > | O O O | | O O |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > | | | |
> > X| | | |
> > X| X | | |
> > X| X | | |
> > X| X | | |
> > X| X O O X | | |
> > X| X O O X X X | | |
> > +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
> >
> > X on roll. Cube decisions by both sides?
> >
> > Now O's side of the board is ready! X will be almost defenseless
> > if O can hit. 27/36 numbers hit, and most of those will be game winners.
>
> Not if you cubed before. And even if, I disagree.
>
> > One thing which should be clear: X has a take. If O misses X can
> > probably cash, but even if O will have a subsequent take the rewhip to
> > 8 has to be juicy. And even if hit, X will scrape out a few wins.
> >(I would pass as O after missing the triple shot.)
>
> The pass is mandatory, I am more curious, if it would be too good, note
> that X wins a pretty ammount of Backgammons!
>
> > Does O have a redouble
> > in the illustrated position? I'm not sure if there are sufficient market
> > losers but against most human opponents this is a nice pressure redouble.
> > I would cube.
>
> With 6 chechers born off? Chuck be serious, X has plenty of live after a
> hit, even after a double hit! And don't forget, there is only one side, which can
> be gammoned. I wouldn't turn it, even if it was an initial double and even
> against the majority of human players (Yes, there are exceptions). Never
> turn a cube that looks like serious blunder when taken (/beavered? ;-)), is a
> good advice to follow. Hit and look what happens, O will have plenty of Take-potential after a lot of hitting sequences. And even if your market is lost, it will *never* be lost by far, not in a single sequence of 1296!
>
> Regards, Harald Retter
>
> ***********************************************************************
>
> Chuck Bower
> Date: 23 Dec 1998 16:56:27 GMT
>
> In article <75qplu$ca7$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> <harald...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <75p4io$mta$1...@jetsam.uits.indiana.edu>,
> > bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
> >
> ><SNIP>
> >
> >> +24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
> >> | O O O O | | O O |2
> >> | O O O | | O O |
> >> | | | |
> >> | | | |
> >> | | | |
> >> | | | |
> >> X| | | |
> >> X| X | | |
> >> X| X | | |
> >> X| X | | |
> >> X| X O O X | | |
> >> X| X O O X X X | | |
> >> +-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
> >>
> >> X on roll. Cube decisions by both sides?
>
> (Hopefully most of you have realized I meant "O on roll.")
>
> >> Now O's side of the board is ready! X will be almost defenseless
> >> if O can hit. 27/36 numbers hit, and most of those will be game winners.
>
> (snip)
> >> Does O have a redouble
> >> in the illustrated position? I'm not sure if there are sufficient market
> >> losers but against most human opponents this is a nice pressure redouble.
> >> I would cube.
>
> Harald corrected:
>
> >With 6 chechers born off? Chuck be serious, X has plenty of live after a hit,
> >even after a double hit! And don't forget, there is only one side, which can
> >be gammoned. I wouldn't turn it, even if it was an initial double and even
> >against the majority of human players (Yes, there are exceptions). Never turn
> >a cube that looks like serious blunder when taken (/beavered? ;-)), is a
> >good advice to follow.
> >Hit and look what happens, O will have plenty of Take-potential after a
> >lot of hitting sequences. And even if your market is lost, it will *never*
> >be lost by far, not in a single sequence of 1296!
>
> Well, I guess I went swimming in the r.g.bg sea without a (robot)
> life-preserver (again) and got attacked by a shark! I'm bleading profusely,
> but the beach is in sight....
>
> I suppose I could argue (like some on this newsgroup would) that "most
> human opponents" are so bad that it would be a good cube against THEM. You
> know, all the millions of people who've played BG a few times; long enough
> to know the rules (and long enough to realize they don't like the game...).
> OTOH, those kind of players NEVER drop a cube! I guess I'm the one left
> defenseless.
>
> It would be interesting to know, following A) a single hit this time
> and B) a double hit this time what the equities look like. If O can close
> out ONE checker I estimate s/he will be about a 2/1 favorite cubeless (which
> isn't as strong here since X will be owning the cube). Obviously getting
> a second checker back will be a LOT better. The problem doesn't appear to
> be getting checkers back there, but KEEPING them there (and, when two are back,
> keeping them from anchoring). O has to get checkers around to complete the
> 6-prime. X tries and nuzzle up to the edge of the 5-prime to hop it.
>
> Can we trust the robots here? David Montgomerey has found weaknesses
> in SOME of the robots when it comes to getting a second checker back--the
> weakness is that they don't try hard enough to accomplish this. I don't
> know if he has had time to investigate this with the latest technology.
> I have noticed myself that SOMETIMES the deepest lookahead evaluations can
> be CONSIDERABLY OFF compared to rollouts in these late game positions.
>
> I guess I should do some rollouts, see if they agree with me, and if
> they do, post that result and say emphatically "...END OF STORY". If they
> don't then I waffle about robots not knowing how to finish backgames, play
> a (statistically insignificant) number of me.vs.robot games to get a feel
> of how to play the position (and where the robots are screwing up ;)
> and form a private opinion, all the while dodging the sharks who want to
> play this position against me as a prop. Or I could just admit I'm wrong.
> But it's too early for that. Some baywatch-babe-lookalike lifeguard is
> swimming towards me now. Maybe Harald will go after her and I can get away!
>
> Chuck
> bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
> c_ray on FIBS
VSG
Casual_Observer schrieb in Nachricht <369E51D8...@home.com>...
>OOPS - Bless Netscape commands - It attached
>and opened in its entirety so its all here!
>
>
i made the mistake of posting my queery just before heading off to England for
Christmas, so on my return 2 weeks later The replies were no longer on my server
(timed out) hence i didnt get to see ONE reply, really appreciate that I can see
them, Id given up on it.
Many thanks
Alan Webb
ps. You can start work on my True False quiz now j/k ;)