Backgame Question

[ches...@feist.com]

In the 1974 book How Good Are You At Backgammon, the authors Nicolaos and
Vassilios Tzannes rate the backgames as follows: 1 and 3 points, 1 and 2
points, 2 and 3 points, 2 and 4 points, 3 and 4 points, 1 and 4 points, 3 and
5 points.

I was under the impression that the 1 and 2 points was not a good backgame
position. Could the experts please give their opinions on how the different
backgames rank?

Jerry Weaver

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Bob Hoey]

ches...@feist.com,Internet writes:
>In the 1974 book How Good Are You At Backgammon, the authors Nicolaos and
>Vassilios Tzannes rate the backgames as follows: 1 and 3 points, 1 and 2
>points, 2 and 3 points, 2 and 4 points, 3 and 4 points, 1 and 4 points, 3
>and
>5 points.
>
>I was under the impression that the 1 and 2 points was not a good backgame
>position. Could the experts please give their opinions on how the
>different
>backgames rank?
>
>Jerry Weaver
>

BH> I personally prefer the 2-4 backgame as my first option, followed by
1-3, 2-3 and 1-4. If the 5 pt is held, I don't even consider it a
backgame, but a "holding game". It is merely a semantic issue, however
and makes little difference what it is called.
Bob

[TC Hathaway]

ches...@feist.com wrote:
>
> In the 1974 book How Good Are You At Backgammon, the authors Nicolaos and
> Vassilios Tzannes rate the backgames as follows: 1 and 3 points, 1 and 2
> points, 2 and 3 points, 2 and 4 points, 3 and 4 points, 1 and 4 points, 3 and
> 5 points.
>
> I was under the impression that the 1 and 2 points was not a good backgame
> position. Could the experts please give their opinions on how the different
> backgames rank?
>
> Jerry Weaver
>

The problem with ace point backgames is your opponent can often leave
men on the bar point and thus be unable to play sixes, and very possibly
wreck your timing. When it is a 1,2 backgame, this applies to fives as
well. The good part is, of course, he can't play behind you.
But, generally speaking, you'll take whatever backgame you can get.
Usually by the time you're committed to it, there's not much time or
room for adjustment.
BTW one of the nice things about "one-pointers" is backgames are much
more playable: you never have to drop & you have no gammon worries.

TCH

[ches...@feist.com]

In article <fc.003e9025009ec9e23b...@mlsonline.com>,
Bob_...@mlsonline.com (Bob Hoey) wrote:

>
> ches...@feist.com,Internet writes:
> >In the 1974 book How Good Are You At Backgammon, the authors Nicolaos and
> >Vassilios Tzannes rate the backgames as follows: 1 and 3 points, 1 and 2
> >points, 2 and 3 points, 2 and 4 points, 3 and 4 points, 1 and 4 points, 3
> >and
> >5 points.
> >
> >I was under the impression that the 1 and 2 points was not a good backgame
> >position. Could the experts please give their opinions on how the
> >different
> >backgames rank?
> >
> >Jerry Weaver
> >

> BH> I personally prefer the 2-4 backgame as my first option, followed by
> 1-3, 2-3 and 1-4. If the 5 pt is held, I don't even consider it a
> backgame, but a "holding game". It is merely a semantic issue, however
> and makes little difference what it is called.
> Bob
>

Interesting. Could you elaborate on why you prefer the 2-4 backgame?

[Julian]

In article <354717...@rentec.com>, TC Hathaway <hath...@rentec.com>
writes

>ches...@feist.com wrote:
>>
>> In the 1974 book How Good Are You At Backgammon, the authors Nicolaos and
>> Vassilios Tzannes rate the backgames as follows: 1 and 3 points, 1 and 2
>> points, 2 and 3 points, 2 and 4 points, 3 and 4 points, 1 and 4 points, 3 and
>> 5 points.
>>
>> I was under the impression that the 1 and 2 points was not a good backgame
>> position. Could the experts please give their opinions on how the different
>> backgames rank?
>

>The problem with ace point backgames is your opponent can often leave
>men on the bar point and thus be unable to play sixes, and very possibly
>wreck your timing.

One feature of the 2-3 backgame which makes it relatively strong is that
if your opponent holds a prime in front of you, sixes force him to break
from the middle of the prime, which results in many more shots than
clearing points in order. 1-2 backgames are the pits - in that not only
can your opponent have no sixes, but as soon as he clears the 8 point he
has no fives to play either, which really blows your timing.

--
Julian Hayward 'Booles' on FIBS jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
+44-1344-640656 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"A monk is expected to be awarded the contract for a 12.2 mile stretch
of the M4 motorway..." - Constructor's World
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[cauce....@vo.cnchost.com]

See ye here, ches...@feist.com crafted the following words:

>In the 1974 book How Good Are You At Backgammon, the authors Nicolaos and
>Vassilios Tzannes rate the backgames as follows: 1 and 3 points, 1 and 2
>points, 2 and 3 points, 2 and 4 points, 3 and 4 points, 1 and 4 points, 3 and
>5 points.
>
>I was under the impression that the 1 and 2 points was not a good backgame
>position. Could the experts please give their opinions on how the different
>backgames rank?

I think that the 1-2 backgame is more likely to result in your being gammoned,
or even backgammoned, but also more likely to win, and (depending on your
timing) to even win a gammon if you get lucky and get a shot (or double shot)
while your opponent is trying to bear in the last few men, if your timing is
good.

So if it's the last game in a match ( a 1 point game) and gammons don't count,
you take the 1-2 if your timing can support it, as you don't care about losing a
gammon or a backgammon. Otherwise, you might prefer the 1-3 or 2-3 because you
have fewer gammon/backgammon losses. Remember "most likely to *win*" doesn't
equal "best equity".

jc

All email sent to the address used for this post is deleted unread
(although headers may be used in my spam filters). To reach my real
email box, send to personal@ at the above domain.