The "Weaver"
VSG
mentioned a term called a "weaver". He describes a weaver as a deliberate
misplay in the hope that an inferior opponent will take his offered cube
next turn. Interesting I thought, so I decided to do some experimenting. In
GG and against Snowie (beginner) I sought out positions where I was clear
favorite and which would normally be a quick pass if I offered the cube. One
position I deliberately left a single rear checker back when my opponent had
3 checkers behind a 5 prime (2 on the ace point 1 on the deuce). I suspected
my opponent would point on me which he duly did and I doubled from the bar
(his 5 point was open and he had buried checkers too). My opponent took. Now
if Id run that back man and wasn´t hit then I´m sure my opponent would have
dropped. anyway... it worked a dandy. I guess you would have to be very
careful using this tactic though against intermediates or above but I´m sure
there are positions where strong players who know they know the concepts
better than their opponents could use this trick (?) quite effectively.
To be used with caution me thinks :-)
regards
Alan
Webby´s Backgammon Site
www.isg-vsg.de/backgammon/BGHome.htm
Richard P. Reasin
> Paul Lamford in the glossary of his excellent handbook "Improve your Game"
> mentioned a term called a "weaver". He describes a weaver as a deliberate
> misplay in the hope that an inferior opponent will take his offered cube
> next turn.
No doubt named after one of the South's most honorable gentleman, aka "bugger",
on GamesGrid. He once took the time, and made the effort, to track me down over
the phone, just to apologize to me, in case I had mistaken his humor as an
insult.
Rich Reasin
aka DiceGod on GG
Douglas Zare
> Paul Lamford in the glossary of his excellent handbook "Improve your Game"
> mentioned a term called a "weaver". He describes a weaver as a deliberate
> misplay in the hope that an inferior opponent will take his offered cube
> next turn. Interesting I thought, so I decided to do some experimenting. In
> GG and against Snowie (beginner) I sought out positions where I was clear
> favorite and which would normally be a quick pass if I offered the cube.[...]
My version of Snowie doesn't think it makes cube blunders, so be careful. You
are only really risking something if there is a chance you will regain your
market, in which case your opponent really should take.
I was introduced to a "Weaver Coup" by an opponent on Yahoo, who was trying to
blitz me but ran out of ammo. She had used her 8 and the spares on her 6 to
make her 1, 2, and 3 points. I had made no real forward progress, and entered
one of two checkers to her 4 when she doubled, and I took. She laughingly
explained that a Weaver Coup was when one is too good to double, but has lost a
lot of equity on the last exchange; one can double and get a take. The joke was
on her, though; since I was trailing -3:-6 Snowie 3 thought my take (and later
aggressive double) was correct. Then again, so was her double.
Douglas Zare
Michael Manolios
mentioned by Danny Kleinman, in his book "Vision Laughs At Counting"
back in 1980:
In match play you are left with two checkers, one on your 3 and
one on your 2 point. Your opponent has 3 checkers, all on his acepoint.
You have to play an ace. 2/1 is the correct move with only one
exception: If you own the cube and your opponent needs more than 31% to
take your redouble at 4, due to the score (for example you trail 3-away
4-away, so he needs 40% to take it), then you must play 3/2 with your
ace. If he doesn't win with his last roll (i.e. doesn't roll doubles)
then you have a redouble and a proper pass at this score. But your
opponent may not be familiar with the significant changes of the take
points due to the score, or in some other examples due to the fact that
this is the last roll and there's no cube leverage for him. Thus, you
may get a wrong take gaining a large amount of equity.
--
Michael Manolios (mann on FIBS, Glass on GG)
We play one and only money game session through our whole life...
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
VSG
Douglas Zare <za...@math.columbia.edu> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
39368F79...@math.columbia.edu...
> VSG wrote:
>
> > Paul Lamford in the glossary of his excellent handbook "Improve your
Game"
> > mentioned a term called a "weaver". He describes a weaver as a
deliberate
> > misplay in the hope that an inferior opponent will take his offered cube
> > next turn. Interesting I thought, so I decided to do some experimenting.
In
> > GG and against Snowie (beginner) I sought out positions where I was
clear
> > favorite and which would normally be a quick pass if I offered the
cube.[...]
>
> My version of Snowie doesn't think it makes cube blunders, so be careful.
You
> are only really risking something if there is a chance you will regain
your
> market, in which case your opponent really should take.
>
Yes, I think a play that regains your market was the key here (against
Snowie anyway). I should imagine you would need to be a fairly advanced
player to recognise the intricacies of lost and regained markets. Probably
very effective against players whos cube handling is known to be suspect.
I´d never realy given much thought to it before, quite a clever concept I
think and one I´ll look out for. Assuming I know when I´ve lost my market
and the move that can regain it that is. Easier said than done me thinks
lol.
regards
Alan Webb
Douglas Zare
> She had used her 8 and the spares on her 6 to
> make her 1, 2, and 3 points. I had made no real forward progress, and entered
> one of two checkers to her 4 when she doubled, and I took. She laughingly
> explained that a Weaver Coup was when one is too good to double, but has lost a
> lot of equity on the last exchange; one can double and get a take. The joke was
> on her, though; since I was trailing -3:-6 Snowie 3 thought my take (and later
> aggressive double) was correct. Then again, so was her double.
Snowie said that it was a close take for money, and no double/take at that match
score, to my surprise. Perhaps I am misremembering the position; I thought what I
analyzed after the match was a match-score take only.
Douglas Zare
genghis
VSG wrote:
> Paul Lamford in the glossary of his excellent handbook "Improve your Game"
> mentioned a term called a "weaver". He describes a weaver as a deliberate
> misplay in the hope that an inferior opponent will take his offered cube
> next turn.
The origin of the "weaver" is as follows:
Paul Weaver was known for wanting to double opponents in therefore he sometimes
would not double in a position where his opponent had a clear pass. Instead he
would play on until the opponent had a clear take to double. The "Weaver" was a
derisive term for the games which he blew by doubling the opponent in causing
him to LOSE points rather than winning a sure point.
Genghis
VSG
genghis <geng...@earthlink.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
39543DE4...@earthlink.net...
Thanks for clearing up the origins of it Genghis :-)
I guess there is most definitely a time and a place for trying it but to be
used sparingly me thinks.
regards
alan
Charles Russell
rather to Tom Weaver. Further, the idea is not necessarily to wait for
a double-in opportunity, but to craftily anticipate a decrease in equity
such that, though still a technical pass, the opponent may be tricked
into taking (this has deep implications especially for late bearoff
positions at difficult match scores). Proper Weavering would never
involve losing a point: one must cash as soon as any market-*regaining*
sequences are threatened.
Or so I've been told.