Cube ownership
Dave McNair 4122
does anyone have any general rules about chequer play when owning/not owning
the cube? I meant to put forward my own ideas as a starting point, but I seem to get a headache everytime I start thinking about it.
Should you be aggressive/conservative?
Should you go for big decisive plays, or dull snivelly plays?
Beats me...
\Dave Mc
Lasse H. Madsen
In a recent post Dave McNair raises an important problem, which I
thought I would give a try.
The easy answer is that you should make the play that gets you to use
the cube most efficently, when you have acces to the cube.
Now, this play may be either aggressive or conservative depending on
the dynamics of the position.
Suppose, for instance, that you can offer a double which is a marginal
take/drop when you reach 78% cpw (cubeless winning chances). Then you
might make a big play if it hits 78% cpw when it works out, or you
might proceed more gradually if that is the strategy that makes it most
likely to hit 78% excactly.
On the other hand, when the opponent owns the cube, you should avoid
reaching exactly 22% when things goes wrong.
Any other thoughts ?
Thanks,
Lasse
Kit Woolsey
: Hi folks,
: does anyone have any general rules about chequer play when owning/not owning
: the cube? I meant to put forward my own ideas as a starting point, but I seem to get a headache everytime I start thinking about it.
: Should you be aggressive/conservative?
: Should you go for big decisive plays, or dull snivelly plays?
: Beats me...
: \Dave Mc
Good question, but no easy answers. It isn't just a question of being
aggressive or conservative -- it depends on the type of the position.
And, most of the time you just make the best play regardless of where the
cube is. Here are a couple of concepts to ponder:
When you have access to the cube and roll a joker, don't overplay the
position. You don't need to get to a 90% position -- all you need going
into the next roll is 75% chances and you opponent will have to drop the
double. Thus, you might play safer than normal to make sure he doesn't
get any immediate counterplay. The only reason to take any immediate
risks is if you are planning to play on for the gammon if you get away
with it. Of course if you had previously doubled you would just make the
strongest play.
All other things being equal, when you own the cube you should tend to
aim for racing but when your opponent owns the cube you should tend to
aim for contact. The reason is that in a race the advantage tends to
change fairly slowly, so the person owning the cube will have a good
chance to put it to use effectively. When there is contact, on the other
hand, it is often a question of one key shot -- if you hit it you are
winning by a mile, while if you miss it you are dead. If this is the
case, possession of the cube isn't too important -- you just get to lock
up what was an almost certain win anyway if things go well. For example,
consider the very common sort of situation where you are a little ahead
in the race and are considering hitting a blot loose in your home board
when you have a 5-point board but your opponent also has a very strong
board. If you are missed you will have an almost certain victory, but if
you are hit it is an almost certain loss. If you own the cube it is
probably better to play safe and count on the race, but if your opponent
owns the cube it is probably better to put it all on the line now.
When your opponent is playing on for a gammon (meaning he has access to
the cube but rather than doubling when you will pass he refuses to double
hoping to score a gammon), it is generally not worth taking chances to
win the game if these chances involve greater gammon risk. The problem
is that even if it works your opponent will be able to double and you
probably won't be able to take anyway, so you have nothing to gain and
everything to lose. Only if your gain will be so sudden and so great
that you will be able to take the double if things go will is it worth
taking the risk. Conversely, if you are the one playing for the gammon
you do not want to take risks which will allow your opponent to have a
take after the next exchange. Other than that you can take all the risks
you want, since if things go badly you can still double and he will have
to pass.
If you have access to the cube you want to look for plays which will give
you an optimal double (one where your opponent has a borderline decision
whether to take or pass). For example you might consider a risky slot of
a key point if you know that if you get away with it you will have a strong
double which your opponent might have to pass. If that is the case it
won't be necessary to cover the slotted blot -- merely threatening to
cover it will be sufficient. If your opponent owns the cube, you will
still have to cover the slotted blot in order to make it pay off, so the
risk might not be worth it. Conversely if your opponent has the cube you
want to avoid positions which will give him an optimal double.
Kit
Philippe Michel
Dave McNair 4122 <etl...@etlxdmx.ericsson.se> wrote:
>Hi folks,
> does anyone have any general rules about chequer play when owning/not
> owning the cube?
> Should you be aggressive/conservative?
> Should you go for big decisive plays, or dull snivelly plays?
In a similar vein, how does the Jacoby rule influence checker and cube
play (besides not playing for the gammon with the cube at 1) ?