what's the best move?
Col. G. L. Sicherman
Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
do you play it?
| INNER TABLE |B|
| |A|
| O |R|
| O O O O |||
+-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
-:-
POZZO: He used to dance the farandole, the fling, the brawl, the jig,
the fandango and even the hornpipe. He capered. For joy. Now
that's the best he can do. Do you know what he calls it?
ESTRAGON: The Scapegoat's Agony.
VLADIMIR: The Hard Stool.
POZZO: The Net. He thinks he's entangled in a net.
--S. Beckett, _Waiting for Godot_
--
Col. G. L. Sicherman
g...@hrmso.att.COM
samuel.saal
>Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>do you play it?
> | INNER TABLE |B|
> | |A|
> | O |R|
> | O O O O |||
> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
Seems like a trick question, but I'll bite.
When I learned to play backgammon, I learned that you had to use as
much of the role as possible. Thus, in this case, the piece on the 6
bears off and anything other than the 5 wouldn't use all of the 4 so
you must move the 5 -> 1.
--
Sam Saal ...!{att}!sodium!sms
Vayiftach HaShem et Peah Ha`Aton
Do not reply using your mailer's reply feature.
Your message will not get forwarded.
The Squire, Phish
>Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>
>Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>do you play it?
>
> | INNER TABLE |B|
> | |A|
> | O |R|
> | O O O O |||
> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
becomes...
| INNER TABLE |B|
| |A|
| O |R|
| O O O |||
+-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
By taking 6-2 and bearing off the 5. Covers more points. Right? :-)
What do I win? :-)
--
++Christopher(The Squire, Phish); (805) 542-0336/H | Home of the 21K .plan
ch...@zeus.calpoly.edu (129.65.16.21) 756-2005/W | Finger at your own risk!
-----------------------------------------------------^-------------------------
I hereby disclaim EVERYTHING. Flames to /dev/pooperscooper.
Michael J Zehr
>Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>
>Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>do you play it?
>
> | INNER TABLE |B|
> | |A|
> | O |R|
> | O O O O |||
> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>
Isn't this a pretty easy one? 6-2, 5-off. with 2 blots on the 1, and
one each on the 2 and 3 you're more likely to be able to bear off
sooner. but i'm not sure how much difference it actually makes...
um.. now i'm sure: average for leaving a blot on the 2 is 66 1/6 over 36.
average for moving 6-off, 5-1 is 67 1/3 over 36.
it only makes a difference if you leave throw a 1-2 (4/36 chance). all
other throws are played the same and give the same odds. (well, double
one leaves a blot on either the 2 or 3, but both of those are just 1
roll to bear off.)
with a blot on the 2 and a 1-2 throw, you leave a blot on the 1 and 3,
and only a second 1-2 will hurt you. with no blot on the 2 and you
throw a 1-2 you have to leave three blots on the 1 and need doubles to
bear off in one more roll.
if you dont' want to do the math all the time, the normal rule is that a
gap in your board is worse than losing a single pip. at least that's
what i've always played by -- is there a real expert out there who wants
to comment?
-michael j zehr
Frank Crary
>
>Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>do you play it?
>
> | INNER TABLE |B|
> | |A|
> | O |R|
> | O O O O |||
> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>
all rolls will remove two pieces.
Frank Crary
Holt Mebane
>In article <1991Aug9.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com> g...@hrmso.ATT.COM (Col. G. L. Sicherman) writes:
>>Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>
>>Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>>do you play it?
>
>> | INNER TABLE |B|
>> | |A|
>> | O |R|
>> | O O O O |||
>> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>
6-2, 5-0
no bad rolls on next move.
ho...@sdd.hp.com
ucsd!hp-sdd!holt
uunet!ucsd!hp-sdd!holt
Dave Jones
> When I learned to play backgammon, I learned that you had to use as
> much of the role as possible. Thus, in this case, the piece on the 6
> bears off and anything other than the 5 wouldn't use all of the 4 so
> you must move the 5 -> 1.
This is an often misunderstood rule. It states only that if there
is a way to play both dice, you can not play one die in such a way that
you could not then play the other. (Similarly in the case of doubles,
you must use as many of the four dice-values as possible.) The rule does not
mean that you must bear off from the highest possible points.
Jeff Glasson
> >Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>
> >Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
> >do you play it?
>
> > | INNER TABLE |B|
> > | |A|
> > | O |R|
> > | O O O O |||
> > +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>
> Seems like a trick question, but I'll bite.
>
> When I learned to play backgammon, I learned that you had to use as
> much of the role as possible. Thus, in this case, the piece on the 6
> bears off and anything other than the 5 wouldn't use all of the 4 so
> you must move the 5 -> 1.
The correct move is: 6-2, 5-off. As long as you can use both dice, you must.
This you can first move the 6-2, and us the 6 to bear off the 5.
Jeff
dla...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
G. L. Sicherman) writes:
> Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>
> Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
> do you play it?
>
> | INNER TABLE |B|
> | |A|
> | O |R|
> | O O O O |||
> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>
> -:-
Any of 6-0, 5-1 or 6-0, 3-0 or 6-2, 5-1; it makes no difference which you
choose !
If your next throw is 3-3 or a better double, you've finished;
otherwise it takes you exactly two more turns to finish, unless you're
unlucky enough to throw 2-1 on both.
Rob Hutchings
Frank Crary
>> Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>> do you play it?
>>
>> | INNER TABLE |B|
>> | |A|
>> | O |R|
>> | O O O O |||
>> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>>
>> -:-
>
>Any of 6-0, 5-1 or 6-0, 3-0 or 6-2, 5-1; it makes no difference which you
>choose !
>If your next throw is 3-3 or a better double, you've finished;
>otherwise it takes you exactly two more turns to finish, unless you're
>unlucky enough to throw 2-1 on both.
6-0, 3-0 is illegal: You can not use a 4 to remove a piece on the 3 point
unless you have no pieces on the 4, 5 or 6 points. There is clearly one on
the 5.
6-2, 5-1 is also illegal: This is moving two pieces each four. The roll was
a 6,4 so you must move one of them six.
I believe that the correct play is 6-2, 5 off. In this case, there are no
bad rolls.
Frank Crary
dla...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
> In article <1991Aug9.1...@cbnewsh.cb.att.com>, g...@hrmso.ATT.COM (Col.
> G. L. Sicherman) writes:
>> Here's a little exercise in bearing off:
>>
>> Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>> do you play it?
>>
>> | INNER TABLE |B|
>> | |A|
>> | O |R|
>> | O O O O |||
>> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>>
>> -:-
>
> Any of 6-0, 5-1 or 6-0, 3-0 or 6-2, 5-1; it makes no difference which you
> choose !
Sorry all, 6-2 5-1 was a typo; should have been 6-2, 5-0
o...@vax.oxford.ac.uk
dla...@vax.oxford.ac.uk writes:
>>>
>>> Both players are bearing off. With this position you throw 6-4. How
>>> do you play it?
>>>
>>> | INNER TABLE |B|
>>> | |A|
>>> | O |R|
>>> | O O O O |||
>>> +-1-2-3-4-5-6-----
>>>
>>> -:-
>>
>> Any of 6-0, 5-1 or 6-0, 3-0 or 6-2, 5-1; it makes no difference which you
>> choose !
>
> Sorry all, 6-2 5-1 was a typo; should have been 6-2, 5-0
>
>> If your next throw is 3-3 or a better double, you've finished;
>> otherwise it takes you exactly two more turns to finish, unless you're
>> unlucky enough to throw 2-1 on both.
>> Rob Hutchings
But you're still wrong, Rob. Compare the two moves:
a ) After 6-0, 5-1 b ) After 6-2, 5-0
| Inner Table |B| | Inner Table |B|
| O |A| | |A|
| O |R| | O |R|
| O O ||| | O O O |||
+-1-2-3-4-5-6-+-+ +-1-2-3-4-5-6-+-+
Then throw a 2-1. In position (a), that leaves you with three men on the one
point. You need a double to bear them all off in one go. Odds: 1/6. In
position (b), you're left with one man on one, one on three. Any throw except
another 2-1 will be ok. Odds: 17/18. I know which I prefer.
Neil Fulton
(posting from a shared account - normally at nfu...@uk.ac.ox.vax)
Shuman Lloyd Lee
Bruce Becker's B'gammon for Blood is a real howler. My favorite part of
that book is the chapter on doubling. His checker play might raise a
few eyebrows, but he's a good gambler.
As an aside to the infamous Bruce Becker. Lewis Deyong, author of _The
Playboy Book of Backgammon_, some time in or around 1980, issued a
challenge to this Bruce Becker person, whoever he was. It was something
like a challenge to a 17 point match, with Deyong willing to lay 6 to 5
(I think it was $6000 if Becker would put up $5000) provided that Becker
would use the opening moves he recommends in his book. Either Becker
never received the challenge, or he simply declined. To this day, no
one in the B'gammon community knows who this mysterious Bruce Becker
really is (last I heard, anyway).
Speaking of Lewis Deyong, his above mentioned book is highly highly
highly entertaining. The instruction is poorly organized, however.
Very difficult to read for learning. Great for just spending an hour
recounting exaggeraged backgammon (highly highly highly?) stories.
There is the one story about how Claude Beer (a tough competitor, but
not a "recognized expert") beat the late Barclay Cooke in the finals of
a tournament through sheer gutsiness, taking every opportunity he could
to make "big" plays. Deyong talks about how Beer, finding himself tied
at double match point, had to play a "gutsy" 5-2 to clear his midpoint
against Cooke holding Beer's Bar point, leaving a four to lose the
match, rather than play it safe and hope for a double on the next roll.
Cooke responded with a woeful 6-2 and thus lost to Beer. Deyong, in
praise of Beer's courage, concludes (I paraphrase), "...certainly Beer
was lucky to win the match. But how many others would have lost with
the same dice?"
Well, as it turns out, I met Barclay Cooke at the World Amateur
Championships in 1978. As he tells it, it was Barclay that rolled the
5-2 and cleared _his_ midpoint, and _Beer_ hit to win the match! But
that didn't fit in with Deyong's point about playing with courage. So
he changed the facts a little. Barclay tells the story about when he
"confronted" Deyong with this (as background, if you don't already know,
Barclay Cooke was not much of a stereo-typical self-proclaimed arrogant
genius, but, relative to the field, a mild mannered gentlemen of the
game.), and Deyong responded, "But Barclay, no one will ever know!"
Barclay, in his famous gentlemanly and good-natured but exasperated
tone, said, "But Lewis! _I_ know!"
The best thing about the teachings of Barclay Cooke (IMHO, of course
:-) is his attitude about luck. He was fond of saying, "good players
always roll well!" Or when doing the commentary on a match, and one
player produces a few good/great rolls, "ohhh! He's a great player!"
(his tone was nor malicious, just good-natured, if a little sarcastic).
Of course, his comments were tongue-in-cheek, but his attitude was
clear: Backgammon is a capricious game where the "right" play often,
give the outcome of the dice, turns out to be a loser. To be a
self-proclaimed expert and always insist on your own plays is to ignore
the nature of the game, and the fact that your play could well be the
"right" one.
Oh well , enough of Uncle Shu's Backgammon Stories. Maybe I'll tell you
more later if you finish your vegetables at dinner and don't talk back
to your mommy.
Elliott C Winslow
also first saw him at the 1978 Amateur Championships. He, with only
the slightest similarity to Backgammon For Blood, strived above all to
convey the fact of luck in the game, and the need to sway matters when
one can. He was always interested in discussing any theoretical
question, although he usually came down to which play "felt" right.
I suspect in the earlier days he got into big action, but by the time
I met him he was the classic "elder statesman" of the game, and didn't
have the gladiatorial stamina any more. He was inevitably on the
rules committee.
His book Paradoxes and Probabilities is probably the best. There are
certainly errors in it, but I can think of no better book to remind
one that courage is a big part of the game. If you start fearing
slotting key points without builders, if you find your checkers
getting stacked up frequently, then you're due for a refresher read.
[If you have the opposite problem, I suggest you read Robertie... :-)]
His earlier book, Backgammon, the Cruelest Game, is more elementary
but still definitely worth absorbing; while his Championship
Backgammon, covering a small handful of the earliest recorded games
from the USA-England match of the early 70s or so, is more an example
of how bad they played then than anything else.
If only he wasn't so adamant about the opponent's one-point!
I can't remember any particular stories, but I do still have my copy
of the above book, signed by the author with the line "Now when you
write your chess book, you have to send me a copy quick!"
Unfortunately he passed away before I could get anything into print.
---
Elliott Winslow IM {uunet,xylogic}!world.std.com!ekw
(718) 429-5793 {apple,pacbell,hplabs,ucbvax}!well!ekw