Lover's Leap or Lover's Plunge?
reddots
only recently started to study the game. Up until recently I've been
playing a safe running game, but since I've been reading this newsgroup,
playing FIBS, and reading books, I've started to play a more aggressive game
(with some success).
My question is related to the opening move with a 65. I've read all the
back posts on this newsgroup on this subject, including the computer
rollouts. I've started to play 65 as 24/18 13/8 Rather than play it as
"lover's leap".
Let me give you some background on my playing style. I don't have the skill
yet to develop a six prime early enough to pin the two checkers that start
in the back. My style is to fight early for the 18 point, then use my
checkers on the 18 and 13 to fight an aggressive shoot-out in the outer
boards. I use the time gained when I hit enemy blots to start building a
prime (usually from the 5 point to the 9 or 10 point). The last checkers I
evacuate are the ones on the 18. Basically the enemy bar point is the most
important point in my strategy, and I move 24/18 with any opening roll
containing a 6.
Is it insane for a newer player to develop a strategy around
anti-Jellyfish/Snowie moves? Let's face it, JF is about a million times
better a player than I am.
Is my strategy something that all newer players start with, then give up for
a different approach?
JF is excellent (IMHO) at winning gammons. Does playing the 65 as 24/13
just preferred because it caters to a stronger offense than defense?
What's the noise level? I see that in rollouts the numbers are given with
the standard deviation. I have no statistical training, but it seems to me
that the calculations used in backgammon are closer to pure statistics than
those used in bridge (my other hobby).
Is there an FAQ or style guide posted on www for this newsgroup? If I am
not adhering to rec.games.backgammon style, I apologize, and shall educate
myself before I post again:)
Thanks in advance for your answers.
--
V7~~7V Chris Clark
{oo} red...@meckwell.com
/ \ reddots on OKBridge and FIBS
_ooOO_(=()=)_OOoo_____ http://www.meckwell.com/unit498
'''' ~~U~ ''''
Jerri9465
24/13 is a better move than 24/18, 13/8. There is a proper strategy to play
when leading in the race and with fewer checkers back which is likely to occur
after a lover's leap. You will learn it eventually, so why not start now.
Magriel's Backgammon is a great place to start.
Jive Dadson
>
> I am a relatively inexperienced player. I've been playing all my life, but
> only recently started to study the game. Up until recently I've been
> playing a safe running game, but since I've been reading this newsgroup,
> playing FIBS, and reading books, I've started to play a more aggressive game
> (with some success).
>
> My question is related to the opening move with a 65. I've read all the
> back posts on this newsgroup on this subject, including the computer
> rollouts. I've started to play 65 as 24/18 13/8 Rather than play it as
> "lover's leap".
You've started making a bad play.
>
> Let me give you some background on my playing style.
No, thanks.
> <snip>
>
> Is it insane for a newer player to develop a strategy around
> anti-Jellyfish/Snowie moves?
Developing a "strategy" or style is a mistake. As some smart guy said,
"Play the dice you roll."
> Let's face it, JF is about a million times
> better a player than I am.
No doubt. What are you going to do about that?
>
> Is my strategy something that all newer players start with, then give up for
> a different approach?
Most newer players start with 24/13. 24/18 13/8 is very much a
sophomore play. Didja know, "sophomore" literally means "wise fool"?
>
> JF is excellent (IMHO) at winning gammons. Does playing the 65 as 24/13
> just preferred because it caters to a stronger offense than defense?
It runs a back man to safety. Duh!
Jive
Chase
wrote:
|My question is related to the opening move with a 65. I've read all the
|back posts on this newsgroup on this subject, including the computer
|rollouts. I've started to play 65 as 24/18 13/8 Rather than play it as
|"lover's leap".
|
|Let me give you some background on my playing style. I don't have the skill
|yet to develop a six prime early enough to pin the two checkers that start
|in the back. My style is to fight early for the 18 point, then use my
|checkers on the 18 and 13 to fight an aggressive shoot-out in the outer
|boards. I use the time gained when I hit enemy blots to start building a
|prime (usually from the 5 point to the 9 or 10 point). The last checkers I
|evacuate are the ones on the 18. Basically the enemy bar point is the most
|important point in my strategy, and I move 24/18 with any opening roll
|containing a 6.
In general, you should be fighting for the 20-point (your opponent's
5-point) rather than the 18-point. By anchoring on the 20-point, your
coverage of your opponent's outer board is just as good as it is from
the 18-point, but you have the advantage of owning the most valuable
point in your opponent's inner board. This will guard against your
getting primed or closed out, and give your hit checkers a comfortable
place to enter. The combination of these features will almost always
keep you in the game for a long time, no matter how poorly things go
for you.
|Is it insane for a newer player to develop a strategy around
|anti-Jellyfish/Snowie moves? Let's face it, JF is about a million times
|better a player than I am.
Rather than developing a strategy (and poor habits) based around an
inferior play, I think your time is better spent studying the best
plays and trying to develop an understanding of WHY they are best.
When you gain this understanding, you are not only developing a
strategy around a play that is more likely to succeed, but the
principles and priorities you learn will carry over into other types
of positions. You'll find yourself making better plays in positions
which may not obviously resemble the one you studied, but which hinge
on similar ideas.
|Is my strategy something that all newer players start with, then give up for
|a different approach?
Most new players play 24/13 with an opening 6-5 because it's
ultra-safe and playing safe is their main strategy. As they improve,
they will continue to play 24/13, not because it's ultra-safe, but
because they recognize it as the best alternative.
|JF is excellent (IMHO) at winning gammons. Does playing the 65 as 24/13
|just preferred because it caters to a stronger offense than defense?
No. Your play of 24/18 13/8 actually wins (and loses) more gammons
than 24/13. At some match scores--when gammons are valuable for you
and not your opponent--it becomes a reasonable alternative. 24/13 is
still best, however. The reason is that, at it's heart, backgammon is
a race. One of the great axioms of the game is: when ahead in the
race, race. Winning the opening roll is a racing advantage. Rolling 11
pips builds on that advantage. Any of the alternative plays for an
opening 6-5 invite contact, which, if it takes place, will tend to
make you lose that advantage. Looked at from your opponent's
perspective: you are ahead, so he will be happy for an opportunity to
hit you and try to equalize. Playing 24/18 13/8 gives him a chance to
do just that.
|What's the noise level? I see that in rollouts the numbers are given with
|the standard deviation. I have no statistical training, but it seems to me
|that the calculations used in backgammon are closer to pure statistics than
|those used in bridge (my other hobby).
Candidate plays for some opening rolls come out very close--close
enough so that personal preference and style should be your guide. The
correct play of an opening 6-5 isn't one of them. 24/13 is clearly
best.
Hope this helps.
Chase
_____________________________________________________________________
Vist GammonQuest, for a HOST of online tournaments!
http://www.mindspring.com/~dgay/GammonQuest/
To respond via email, replace "USERNAME" with "demiga" in my address.
Irentem
That's a pretty arrogant post. Reddots asked a question regarding strategy
and you respond with sharp, wise-ass quips. As an example, Reddots says
"Let me give you some background on my playing style."
Your response is "No, thanks."
If a person is not interested in reading a post, fine. But to respond to
a post that you show no interest in reflects on your character. Why waste
your time and ours.
I'll be looking for your sophomoric response.
Mark
Jive Dadson <jda...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:3B324636...@ix.netcom.com...
Chase
wrote:
|Jive,
|
|That's a pretty arrogant post. Reddots asked a question regarding strategy
|and you respond with sharp, wise-ass quips. As an example, Reddots says
|
|"Let me give you some background on my playing style."
|
|Your response is "No, thanks."
|
|If a person is not interested in reading a post, fine. But to respond to
|a post that you show no interest in reflects on your character. Why waste
|your time and ours.
|
|I'll be looking for your sophomoric response.
|
|Mark
I'd like to echo Mark's comments here. I almost responded to Jive's
post myself, as this isn't the first time he's done this.
Folks, if someone identifies themselves as a newbie, asks a sincere
question, and expresses an interest in improving, greet them warmly,
make them feel welcome. Ideally, we're all here to learn and to share,
and this forum has so much potential for that. If you've got nothing
constructive to say, perhaps it's best left unsaid.
Basic manners.
Hank Youngerman
24-18 13-8 for a while, because 24-13 seemed too - well, too
something. Not active enough, I guess.
He gave it up. It just wasn't as strong a play as 24-13.
On Thu, 21 Jun 2001 11:11:56 -0700, "reddots" <red...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>I am a relatively inexperienced player. I've been playing all my life, but
Chase
Youngerman) wrote:
|I may be mistaken, but I think that Paul Magriel experimented with
|24-18 13-8 for a while, because 24-13 seemed too - well, too
|something. Not active enough, I guess.
|
|He gave it up. It just wasn't as strong a play as 24-13.
I remember hearing this as well. I understand Magriel also
experimented with the double-slotting 13/7 6/5 for an opening 6-1 for
a while, but ended up giving up on that one as well.
On a related note, concerning the play of a 6-5, I watched a match
between Kit Woolsey and Ken Arnold last night in which Kit played an
unusual 6-5. Kit was leading 5-2 in a 7-pointer. Ken opened by making
his 2-point with a 6-4. Kit then rolled 6-5 and played 13/7 13/8! This
was an exhibition match and both players were commenting on their
moves. If I understood Kit's comments, because of the match score, he
wanted to take strong measures to insure that he wasn't gammoned, so
he chose not to break up the back men. Snowie hates this move and
evaluates it as a blunder. It also reports that 13/7 13/8 gives up
MORE gammons than the normal 24/13 (also winning more gammons for Kit,
which are valuable to him because they give him the match).
While it doesn't look like this move holds up, it's always nice to
consider a fresh approach and get us out of "automatic mode."
Irentem
it a non-factor??
Mark
Chase <USER...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3b3365b...@news.mindspring.com...
Douglas Zare
> On Fri, 22 Jun 2001 04:42:24 GMT, Red...@RedTopBG.com (Hank
> Youngerman) wrote:
>
> |I may be mistaken, but I think that Paul Magriel experimented with
> |24-18 13-8 for a while, because 24-13 seemed too - well, too
> |something. Not active enough, I guess.
> |
> |He gave it up. It just wasn't as strong a play as 24-13.
>
> I remember hearing this as well. I understand Magriel also
> experimented with the double-slotting 13/7 6/5 for an opening 6-1 for
> a while, but ended up giving up on that one as well.
That was at a time in which almost no one knew how to play well by today's
standards. One has to be careful that practice sessions against weak
players do not reinforce bad habits and incorrect ideas. It might be right
to err against a player with the expectation that this will induce more
substantial errors from your opponent, but you should know that you are
making a mistake.
> [...]Kit was leading 5-2 in a 7-pointer. Ken opened by making
> his 2-point with a 6-4. Kit then rolled 6-5 and played 13/7 13/8!
On a related note, I watched a money session in which a player rated over
1900 on GamesGrid made a blunder worth over 3 points on a 2-cube, breaking
his board rather than hopping a prime and completing the closeout (or the
blunder of hopping the prime and putting another checker on the roof).
According to Snowie, he made a normalized total of 1.8 points of errors in
12 moves in that game, which Snowie would call an error rate of 75. In the
rest of the session, I believe he more than made back that 3 points by
greatly outplaying his (~advanced) opponent. So it goes.
> This
> was an exhibition match and both players were commenting on their
> moves. If I understood Kit's comments, because of the match score, he
> wanted to take strong measures to insure that he wasn't gammoned, so
> he chose not to break up the back men. Snowie hates this move and
> evaluates it as a blunder. It also reports that 13/7 13/8 gives up
> MORE gammons than the normal 24/13 (also winning more gammons for Kit,
> which are valuable to him because they give him the match).
Well, Snowie's comments can't necessarily be trusted at match scores like
this where the gammon prices at the current and future levels of the cube
are so far from money and from each other. But I'd bet Kit was following
an idea, and upon reflection, would conclude that it was a bad idea, and
should only be done on special occasions, such as accidentally starting
with 8 checkers on the midpoint. We all have more ideas than good ideas,
and the evaluation and filtration process is important.
> While it doesn't look like this move holds up, it's always nice to
> consider a fresh approach and get us out of "automatic mode."
True.
Douglas Zare
Chase
wrote:
|Any word on how that worked out for Kit?? Or was
|it a non-factor??
|
|Mark
Ken missed the blot on Kit's barpoint, but ended up getting a third
man sent back anyway. Ken sent over an early cube. Kit then had a
fourth checker sent back, anchoring on Ken's 4- and 1-points.
I'm not sure if it was a direct result of Kit's 6-5 play or just the
way things worked out, but Kit was never really was able to take the
initiative in this game; he went on to lose a doubled gammon, and Ken
went on to win the match.
Jive Dadson
>
> Jive,
>
> That's a pretty arrogant post. Reddots asked a question regarding strategy
> and you respond with sharp, wise-ass quips. As an example, Reddots says
>
> "Let me give you some background on my playing style."
>
> Your response is "No, thanks."
The fact that I'm not interested in a "playing style" makes a point. In
the 1900's to 1920's, the best chess players had a style. Today, any
chess player who pays much attention to style is not going to reach the
highest levels. In the mid 70's, many backgammon players reverted to a
so-called pure style, (surprisingly similar to a treatise from the
1700's that was posted here recently). The players who played the
positions and the dice for what they were, disregarding style, ate the
"purists" for lunch. Having a style is an indulgence.
>
> If a person is not interested in reading a post, fine. But to respond to
> a post that you show no interest in reflects on your character.
.. as this post reflects yours.
> Why waste your time and ours.
That I can't answer. I can't think of any good reason why I should try
to help other backgammon players, particularly given the up-yours nature
of the USENET groups. But still I do it.
>
> I'll be looking for your sophomoric response.
Excellent. I am always happy to give others the opportunity to berate
and feel superior.
I used the word "sophomore" advisedly. Remember what Alexander Pope
said about a little knowledge? Beginners and experts make lover's leap
with an opening 6-5.
Jive
Jive Dadson
>
> ...
> On a related note, concerning the play of a 6-5, I watched a match
> between Kit Woolsey and Ken Arnold last night in which Kit played an
> unusual 6-5. Kit was leading 5-2 in a 7-pointer. Ken opened by making
> his 2-point with a 6-4. Kit then rolled 6-5 and played 13/7 13/8! This
> was an exhibition match and both players were commenting on their
> moves. If I understood Kit's comments, because of the match score, he
> wanted to take strong measures to insure that he wasn't gammoned, so
> he chose not to break up the back men. Snowie hates this move and
No doubt Kit is a great player, but (unlike Snowie), he's only human.
In one of the first matches I played against a good player after
returning to the game from a twenty year absence a few months ago, I
elected to keep my back men together on the opening roll, rather than
splitting them, for exactly the same reason Kit did. I don't remember
what the roll was (duh), but it wasn't 6-5. My opponent said my play
was wrong -- that I was more likely to be gammoned with the back men
sitting on the ace point. He set Snowie up to roll it out overnight,
and sure enough, Snowie agreed with him.
This next shaggy dog story is a bit off-topic, but I've been wanting to
tell someone: I've played Kit Woolsey once since the long vacation. (He
won.) Kit was leading 7-4 in a race to 9. He had the cube on 4. I had
two men on his seven point and a large but not totally impossible
deficit in the race. He had one stripped outer board point to clear and
he had a blot on his six point and gaps on the five and four. I had an
ace left to play. Should I split the men on the seven point? That
would give him two pick-and-pass numbers that hit in the outer board and
covered the six point, leaving me only an indirect shot, but it would
leave me a double shot if he rolled a bad six. It was one of those
infuriating positions that seemed ALMOST possible to calculate out
exactly. It probably didn't help that there were a half dozen or so
kibitzers.
I thought about it for maybe seven minutes as Kit sat patiently. Finally
I split the men, more on intuition than anything. I was not at all able
to "calculate it out". Kit rolled one of the pick-and-pass numbers, and
I missed the indirect shot. Kit followed with two big numbers, so I got
a direct shot on the next roll, but I missed that one also.
After the match, Kit said he was relieved when I split the men -- that
it was clearly wrong. Back home, I asked my friend to have Snowie roll
it out over night. Snowie agreed with my play by a small margin.
Here's the interesting point though... My board was not complete. I had
the five through ace points, with a blot on the six. It never occurred
to me that the state of my board would have much bearing on the proper
play. But if you changed the position to where my board was completely
closed, or if you made my racing chances even worse than they were, then
my play became a huge standout. Snowie saw something essential about
the position that I didn't even consider.
Jive
Jive Dadson
>
> Chase wrote:
> ...
> > I remember hearing this as well. I understand Magriel also
> > experimented with the double-slotting 13/7 6/5 for an opening 6-1 for
> > a while, but ended up giving up on that one as well.
>
> That was at a time in which almost no one knew how to play well by today's
> standards.
Well... since you qualified it with "almost", okay. I think Tom Weaver
played a very strong game back then, as did a guy I haven't heard of in
two or three decades, namely Median Anderson. I was lucky that Median
taught me to play. I avoided getting indoctrinated with a lot of the
fads. (I did experiment with mis-playing 5-3 for about a week, but that
soon passed.) We would gleefully pour over the backgammon books when
they came out -- looking for terrible plays that made for juicey
proposition bets. As I've mentioned before, Magriel and I had several
all-night analysing sessions. I think he was well aware that super
agressive slotting was experimental.
Jive
Daniel Murphy
wrote:
>I am a relatively inexperienced player. I've been playing all my life, but
>only recently started to study the game. Up until recently I've been
>playing a safe running game, but since I've been reading this newsgroup,
>playing FIBS, and reading books, I've started to play a more aggressive game
>(with some success).
>
>My question is related to the opening move with a 65. I've read all the
>back posts on this newsgroup on this subject, including the computer
>rollouts. I've started to play 65 as 24/18 13/8 Rather than play it as
>"lover's leap".
>
>Let me give you some background on my playing style. I don't have the skill
>yet to develop a six prime early enough to pin the two checkers that start
>in the back. My style is to fight early for the 18 point ...
Success at backgammon requires not "a" strategy but the right strategy
dictated by the dice you roll, match score, your opponent, and your
own skills and limitations. A running game might be the right
strategy, or the match score might urge to fight for another type of
game, or the dice might insist that you take a particular course.
An opening play does not tie you to "a" strategy, for the best
strategy in a game may change depending on subsequent rolls of the
dice, but it influences the direction the game is likely to go. You
are wise to explore different strategies, expand your bag of tricks
beyond a simple running game, and improve your ability to both direct
the flow of game and to respond to the demands of the match score and
the dice.
Eventually you will be able to say not that "My style is a simple
running game," or "My style is to fight for the 18 point," but
"Although I have a flair for certain types of positions, I'm flexible
and skilled in adopting my strategy to get the most possible advantage
out of whatever rolls I get."
Many opening rolls can be played in more than one way with little or
no difference in equity, but usually with some difference in the
percentage of games won and lost or gammons won and lost, and with
some difference in the likelihood that a game may go a particular way.
Let's look at two examples:
An opening 64 can be played 8/2 6/2, 24/18 13/9, or 24/14. The three
plays are roughly equal in strength but they do not have the same
strengths, and they anticipate and require different strategies to
best take advantage of those strengths.
The main strengths of 24/14 are that it moves one back man 10 pips and
leaves few decisive return shots. It is not a good play for a fight
for an advanced anchor, or to make a prime, but it improves the
chances of winning with a relatively gammonless running game. It does
not put much pressure on your opponent, but the follow-through is
simple; you get hit and fight it out on your opponent's side of the
board, or don't get hit and try to minimize contact and carry the
fight over to your own.
The main strengths of 8/2 6/2 are that it makes a blocking home board
point, makes it more dangerous for opponent to leave blots, and leaves
nothing to shoot at. It limits opponent's options in interesting ways.
It is not a good play for a running or holding game, but it may be the
start of prime or a blitz and may be advantageous in a subsequent blot
hitting contest.
The main strengths of 24/18 13/9 are that it starts an advanced
anchor, covers the entire board, and brings a point-making builder
down to the 9 point. Of the three plays it is the least committal to a
particular strategy and places the fewest limits on opponent's
responses. It aggressively stakes out territory, exposes your forces
and invites opponent to attack, relying on excellent chances for good
returns of your own to prevail in whatever kind of fight you've turned
out to have started.
You will find expert players who play 24/18 13/9 at normal match
scores, others who feel just as strongly about 8/2 6/2, and some "bot"
opinion that favors 24/14. You should try all three plays, see what
kinds of games they tend to lead to, and become comfortable with them.
The 52 opening roll can be played 13/8 24/22 or 13/8 13/11. The first
play is the flavor of the day, while yesterday's favorite 13/8 13/11
aims to toward a position that is more gammonish for both players.
With 52, actually, it's appropriate to speak of a player's "style"
because the plays are very close in strength. More than one world
class player continues to play 13/8 13/11 always, long after the bots
started telling us that the split is a little better.
21, 41, 51, 32, 62, 43, 63 and 54 all have alternative plays that are
only a little worse or may even be better at certain match scores. But
some opening plays can only be played one way. Any play but 8/5 6/5
with a 31 is a huge blunder. And any play but 24/13 with 65 is wrong.
65 is a great running roll but a poor roll for any other strategy. As
a running roll, it plays best as 24/13. Trying to twist 65 into
serving another strategy simply doesn't make the best of the dice. I'm
not surprised you do well playing it as 24/18 13/8; with that play
you're about as well off as if you had played a 64 as 24/18 13/9. But
you're not as well off as after 24/13. Rather than forcing 65 to adapt
to your "fight for the 18 point" strategy, and no matter how skilled
you become at complicated, agressive positions, you should realize
that sometimes the best expert strategy is the beginner's simple
running game.
By all means, though, continue experimenting and exploring and
building your own skills and perceptions. That's the way to better
backgammon.
Daniel Murphy
Raccoon on FIBS, GamesGrid
spurs
"Daniel Murphy" <rac...@best.com> wrote in message
news:3b3413ef....@news.cybercity.dk...
> An opening 64 can be played 8/2 6/2, 24/18 13/9, or 24/14. The three
> plays are roughly equal in strength but they do not have the same
> strengths, and they anticipate and require different strategies to
> best take advantage of those strengths.
One of the considerations is that these are OPENING roll suggestions.....
the tactic will obviously vary if it is your FIST move in reply to opponents
opener.
> The main strengths of 24/14 are that it moves one back man 10 pips and
> leaves few decisive return shots. It is not a good play for a fight
> for an advanced anchor, or to make a prime, but it improves the
> chances of winning with a relatively gammonless running game. It does
> not put much pressure on your opponent, but the follow-through is
> simple; you get hit and fight it out on your opponent's side of the
> board, or don't get hit and try to minimize contact and carry the
> fight over to your own.
Another point of 24/14 as the OPENING move is that if the blot IS hit (30%
AND wasting the GOOD 4-2 roll) then you have merely lost the opening roll in
the race, although your 6s are a little challenging now!
> The main strengths of 8/2 6/2 are that it makes a blocking home board
> point, makes it more dangerous for opponent to leave blots, and leaves
> nothing to shoot at. It limits opponent's options in interesting ways.
> It is not a good play for a running or holding game, but it may be the
> start of prime or a blitz and may be advantageous in a subsequent blot
> hitting contest.
One of the other considerations of making the 2 point is that your opponent
now has difficult playing his opening 1s, except for the obvious
combinations.
> The main strengths of 24/18 13/9 are that it starts an advanced
> anchor, covers the entire board, and brings a point-making builder
> down to the 9 point. Of the three plays it is the least committal to a
> particular strategy and places the fewest limits on opponent's
> responses. It aggressively stakes out territory, exposes your forces
> and invites opponent to attack, relying on excellent chances for good
> returns of your own to prevail in whatever kind of fight you've turned
> out to have started.
This play is the play for those that MUST take the risk with gammons being
more advantageous to the trailer! It becomes very strong if the opponent
misses! (approx 56%, also using the strong 6s as less strong!)
Thanks Dan for that analysis of one of the more challenging openers.
And I tend to agree with Chase considering the 65 and the attitude to the
tyro!
--
spurs
Roy Passfield @ Oxnard, California
http://www.dock.net/spurs
"Making a living is NOT the same as making a life"
(Roy Passfield, 1999)