The Cruelest Book Question
Janus
speak.
Briefly, I played my first game of Backgammon about a week ago and I am now
obsessed.
Question: I have read many slams of Cooke and Bradshaw's Cruelest Game book.
I checked it out from the library today because 1) Magriel is nowhere in my
immediate area (I searched libraries, bookstores new/used, empty car lots,
etc.) and 2) other than an advanced Robertie book, this was the only
backgammon book published after the '60's.
Is it a bad book because it is bad for beginners or because it is bad for
experts? Am I better off not reading anything at all or reading this book
(it's better than nothing)?
I also checked out Ambrose's Nixon, but his comments on backgammon are
limited.
Thanks for listening.
J
--
"They finally did it. They killed my ... car.." - the Dude (from The Big
Lebowski)
Walter Trice
Janus wrote in message <35d8d...@news.rlc.net>...
>I have been lurking for a little while, so I hope I have earned the right
to
>speak.
>
>Briefly, I played my first game of Backgammon about a week ago and I am now
>obsessed.
>
>Question: I have read many slams of Cooke and Bradshaw's Cruelest Game
book.
>I checked it out from the library today because 1) Magriel is nowhere in my
>immediate area (I searched libraries, bookstores new/used, empty car lots,
>etc.) and 2) other than an advanced Robertie book, this was the only
>backgammon book published after the '60's.
>
>Is it a bad book because it is bad for beginners or because it is bad for
>experts? Am I better off not reading anything at all or reading this book
>(it's better than nothing)?
It's bad in the sense that if you took a course in biology that used a
textbook published in 1832 you might have to unlearn a few things later. For
1974 The Cruelest Game was outstanding, but in terms of BG history 1974 was
pre-scientific. If you're new and obsessed, read the book. It's a lot of fun
and it's better than trying to figure the game out on your own.
The best beginners' book in print (short of Magriel, which is actually a bit
more) that I know of is Robertie's 'Backgammon for Winners.'
-- Walter Trice
Jim Cochrane
benefit. Get the Roberite book too though.
On Mon, 17 Aug 1998 21:45:38 -0300, "Janus" <Janus@rlPotted_Meatc.net>
wrote:
>I have been lurking for a little while, so I hope I have earned the right to
>speak.
>
>Briefly, I played my first game of Backgammon about a week ago and I am now
>obsessed.
>
>Question: I have read many slams of Cooke and Bradshaw's Cruelest Game book.
>I checked it out from the library today because 1) Magriel is nowhere in my
>immediate area (I searched libraries, bookstores new/used, empty car lots,
>etc.) and 2) other than an advanced Robertie book, this was the only
>backgammon book published after the '60's.
>
>Is it a bad book because it is bad for beginners or because it is bad for
>experts? Am I better off not reading anything at all or reading this book
>(it's better than nothing)?
>
Carl Tait
>
>The best beginners' book in print (short of Magriel, which is actually a bit
>more) that I know of is Robertie's 'Backgammon for Winners.'
... but be sure to get the second edition (blue cover), which adds a
lengthy backgame chapter. I gave this to my sister in the hope that
she could be wheedled away from her love of candlestick plays; alas,
she still loves 13/6 for an opening 52.
Robertie's other mass-market book -- "Backgammon for Serious Players" --
is also well worth reading, even (perhaps especially) after Magriel.
The annotated discussion of five games covers many key concepts for
intermediate players.
The original poster has probably heard the litany of standard
recommendations beyond this point, but to summarize:
* The three volumes of Kit Woolsey's MatchQiz series of annotated matches,
especially the interesting games in Lidov vs. Heinrich
(Kit: Are there any plans to issue more of MatchQiz in book form?)
* The two volumes of Robertie's "Advanced Backgammon"
* Peter Bell's "Backgammon: Winning with the Doubling Cube"
* For match players, Woolsey's "How to Play Tournament Backgammon"
* Woolsey/Heinrich: "New Ideas in Backgammon"
(Has anyone done rollouts for this book with JF 3.0 or Snowie?)
* Bruce Becker's "Backgammon for Blood"
(No, not really; just checking to see if anyone read this far)
A related issue: I've been putting together a backgammon bibliography
for my own use. It attempts to include every English-language book
ever written on the game. If such a resource already exists, please
point me to it; otherwise, I'd be glad to post what I have so far.
There are close to 100 books in the list, surprisingly.
--
Carl Tait IBM T. J. Watson Research Center
cdt...@us.ibm.com Yorktown Heights, NY 10598
Chuck Bower
>I have been lurking for a little while, so I hope I have earned the right to
>speak.
You earn the right to speak by being an open-minded, polite human being.
There are some who have been "lurking" about for what seems like forever
whose manners/attitudes never advanced past 2nd grade.
>Briefly, I played my first game of Backgammon about a week ago and I am now
>obsessed.
>
>Question: I have read many slams of Cooke and Bradshaw's Cruelest Game book.
>I checked it out from the library today because 1) Magriel is nowhere in my
>immediate area (I searched libraries, bookstores new/used, empty car lots,
>etc.) and 2) other than an advanced Robertie book, this was the only
>backgammon book published after the '60's.
>
>Is it a bad book because it is bad for beginners or because it is bad for
>experts? Am I better off not reading anything at all or reading this book
>(it's better than nothing)?
Neither. It's not a bad book at all.
When I learned BG in 1975, Cooke/Bradshaw was not only considered the
best beginning book, but simply the BEST BOOK on the game. (Of course there
weren't any advanced books back then...). About a year or two later Magriel
came out. Then in the early 80's Kleinman and Robertie started to make a
college course out of the game.
Cooke played a style of BG which worked for him (and a lot of others)
in the 70's, when many of his opponents hadn't a clue about concepts we now
consider fundamental. (Here I also refer to his other two books--
"Paradoxes and Probabilities" and "Championship BG", the latter co-authored
by Rene Orlean.) He was very heavy on defensive tactics, was almost
obcessed with building the 20-point, but had a serious distaste for splitting
the back checkers (on the 24-point). His cube recommendations ("when in
doubt, don't double; when in doubt, take") also tended to be on the
conservative side by today's standards. He much preferred to double his
opponent out rather than to see a take (and risk the potential frustration
if the game turned around).
Having said all that, Cooke was definitely (IMO) a proponent of using
one's head while playing backgammon. That advice will never go out of style!
Every backgammon book should be read with a skeptical eye. Listen to what
the author says, but don't take it as gospel. Try to understand the "why"
of his/her thinking rather than memorizing plays or "rules". Every BG book
I've read (except maybe "Underhanded BG"!) has some sound advice. You could
do a lot worse than reading Barclay Cooke.
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Dan Frank
Subject: The Cruelest Book Question
..
>Is it a bad book because it is bad for beginners or because it is bad for
>experts? Am I better off not reading anything at all or reading this book
>(it's better than nothing)?
It is an outstanding book, since it gives you a grasp of strategical
understanding of the game. (Quotations from Clausewitz, a military
strategy writer, underly this).
For experts something like that can't be bad, only for figures-experts ...
Beware of following:
"Walter Trice" <w...@world.std.com> wrote:
>It's bad in the sense that if you took a course in biology that used a
>textbook published in 1832 you might have to unlearn a few things later. For
>1974 The Cruelest Game was outstanding, but in terms of BG history 1974 was
>pre-scientific.
This is at least malevolent.
1. The study of the game has got strong impulses in the seventies and eighties,
through books like Cooke's, and in the ninties, through computer use. The
"scientific" relates mainly to computer-rollouts, there is no well defined basis,
not even in matter of terminology.
To compare biology status 1998/1832 with backgammon 1998/1974 is, to put
it euphemistically, senseless (and lightyears away from scientific).
2. If you don't have a grasp of the strategies, you can't even recognize the
problems; whithout real, articulable problems rollouts are in fact meaningless
(O.K., some of those who have the programs, have to use that toy ...)
--
Dan Frank
editor & publisher of ESSENTIAL BACKGAMMON
Albert Steg
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu (Chuck Bower) wrote:
> Cooke played a style of BG which worked for him (and a lot of others)
> in the 70's, when many of his opponents hadn't a clue about concepts we now
> consider fundamental. (Here I also refer to his other two books--
> "Paradoxes and Probabilities" and "Championship BG", the latter co-authored
> by Rene Orlean.) He was very heavy on defensive tactics.....
Yes -- good overview of some of Cooke's tendencies that we find outdated
now. It's worth noting, for the interest of the original poster, that
probably 90% of the material in Cooke's first & most widely read book
(_Cruelest Game_) still hold just fine. Okay, he brings down to checkers
on an opening 5-3 (doesn't he?), big deal. It's in the latter 2 titles
that Chuck mentions that he really goes out onto a more dangerous limb
with his analysis. _Cruelest Game_ remains an excellent introduction to
thinking seriously about bg. I wouldn't slam a copy of Magriel on a
newcomer until he or she was already devoted to the game.
Also -- the book is a pleasure to read. It looks good, is written with
style and real personality -something I find lacking in post-70's bg
books, especially introductory ones. The classic books of the 70's really
help a newcomer to recognize and enjoy the drama and beauty of the game,
rather than treating bg as some sort of math problem. _Cruelest Game_ ,
Deyong's _Playboy_ book, Jacoby/Crawford, -- I don't think they have
modern equivalents in print.
Albert
Janus
I have read the Cruelest Game a couple times and now feel I have a better
understanding of the game. I mean, I learned how to play a couple weeks ago
by reading a two page blurb on it in Hoyle. Talking about not helpful...
While players and experts may disagree on the answers to questions, you have
to understand the questions to begin with. I think Cruelest Game has helped
with that, though I could have done without the embellished fluff.
I also picked up Roberties Backgammon for Winners.
Hope to see you on FIBS if I ever have the time.
J (Western Omelette on FIBS)
--
"They finally did it. They killed my fucking car.." - the Dude (from The
Big Lebowski)
Dan Frank <10001...@CompuServe.COM> wrote in message
<#ePRGH8y...@nih2naab.prod2.compuserve.com>...