Unusual movement pattern in Inside BG Mag
Tom Weber
In the issues of Inside Backgammon, I have difficulty trying to follow
the moves. For example, in the Magriel vs.Abadjian match (May-June 1995)
the commentator, Bill Robertie seems to move both black and white from
position 24 towards 1. I have recently finished reading Magriel's book on
BG and he seems to trace the course of a game moving 24
towards one for white and one towards 24 for black. This is easy to
follow.
The presentation of matches in Inside Backgammon is confusing. Am I
missingsomething? Is there a simple way to understand both black and
white's moves?
Dr. Jerry Fischman
History Department
Adelphi University
Garden City, New York 11530
Internet: Fisc...@sable.adelphi.edu
Please post your responses - and it would be especially nice to cc Jerry
via e-mail since I'm not sure if he has access to this group.
Thanks
Tom
--
Tom Weber
St. Louis, MO twe...@icon-stl.net
Visit my Homepage and say Hi! http://www.icon-stl.net/~tweber
Kit Woolsey
: I am posting this for a friend and fellow FIBSter - Quoting Jerome:
: In the issues of Inside Backgammon, I have difficulty trying to follow
: the moves. For example, in the Magriel vs.Abadjian match (May-June 1995)
: the commentator, Bill Robertie seems to move both black and white from
: position 24 towards 1. I have recently finished reading Magriel's book on
: BG and he seems to trace the course of a game moving 24
: towards one for white and one towards 24 for black. This is easy to
: follow.
: The presentation of matches in Inside Backgammon is confusing. Am I
: missingsomething? Is there a simple way to understand both black and
: white's moves?
I guess it's just what you are used to. The difference is somewhat
analogous to the descriptive chess notation (where both sides play P-K4)
and the algebraic notation (where white plays e4 and black plays e5 --
full disclaimers if I have this wrong, since I am used to the descriptive
notation in chess). Neither method is easier; but we have to choose
something. The "standard" was pretty much set as the descriptive
notation (what you see in Inside Backgammon) when Kent Goulding published
the first modern collection of annotated matches several years ago in his
excellent series, Backgammon with the Champions. Today I think you will
find that almost all backgammon literature, both books and magazines,
uses the descriptive notation where each player is moving down from his
24 point -- thus both players play 8/5, 6/5 when making their five point
rather than one player playing 8/5, 6/5 and the other playing 17/20,
19/20. This is the notation that I use when annotating a match or
discussing a position. I know that Marvin chose to adopt the "algebraic"
notation of having the point numbers fixed and having one player move
"down" the board while the other player moves "up" the board. So be it,
but the norm for backgammon publications today is having both players
move down, so if you want to read these publications you'll have to get
used to this. You are correct that in his book Magriel did use the
algebraic notation, but it turned out that the descriptive notation won out.
Kit