Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Priming game question

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Philippe Michel

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
+-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: fiete - score: 3
| O X O O O | | O O |
| O O O O | | O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
| O | | |
| O | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |v 5-point match
| | | |
| | | | Your roll
| X X | | | Cube: 2
| X X X X | | X | BAR: 1 OFF: 0
| O X X X X | X | X X |
+24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: You - score: 4

You roll 3 and 6.

How should one play the 6 in this position ? And why ? The three possible
plays look so different that the right one may well stand out if one
understands what is most important (threatening ?) and what is not in this
situation, but I sure don't :-(.


Jason A. Nordwick

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
Philippe Michel wrote:
>
> +-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: fiete - score: 3
> | O X O O O | | O O |
> | O O O O | | O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
> | O | | |
> | O | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |v 5-point match
> | | | |
> | | | | Your roll
> | X X | | | Cube: 2
> | X X X X | | X | BAR: 1 OFF: 0
> | O X X X X | X | X X |
> +24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: You - score: 4
>
> You roll 3 and 6.
>
> How should one play the 6 in this position ? And why ?

I'm just learning this game, so could someone please give me some
feedback on my line of analysis? thanks... now the answer:

with board strength fairly even and having two back-men versus one,
Magriel (sp?) says play agressive. so i play bar/3,17/23*. here's why:

there are 10 rolls that put one man on the bar and 4 rolls that put two
men on the bar for a total of 14; the other 22 rolls break down as
follows:

6 rolls he gets out on the one-pt and is forced to break up his prime.
16 rolls he dances.

the only one that is really painful are the 4rolls that he puts 2 men on
the bar... all the one hit scenarios are fairly liveable: you engage in
a blot hitting contest and you either get your back men loose giving you
enough time to extricate the other(s) when the first in coming around,
especially if he gets out on the one pt and is forces to break up his
prime; or you end up in a 2-3pt backgame with maybe the timing being a
little too early, but still enough to cause plenty of troubles.

bar/2,18/24 -- too passive, if he gets out your gone. he has the one
and two pts to thrown pieces into (a 3pt backgame doesn't sound like a
winner to me... hmmm... are their books/charts out there that show the
likelyhood of hitting in a backgame situation? it seems to me that a
2-3pt backgame wouldbe just better than a 1-3pt backgame with the
further forward pieces getting the worse). you may have slightly better
timing with this move for the backgame play, but why resign yourself to
that when you have good offensive possibilities? and also, the gammon
possibilities in hitting in the first line more than make up for this.

finally bar/9 -- too passive again, you risk getting hit and dancing
with the looming threat of gammons b/c if you dance he can then break up
his prime to hit a second man onto the bar. or if he hits with a 5-2
he's out of reach from the 9pt and has a fairly time getting around, or
if he hits with a 5-6 leaving duplication on the threes... none of these
scenarios look too pretty, without a tremendous plus (almost no gammon
possibilities).

what do the more experienced players here thing? am i on the wrong track
or getting close?

endgames are exceptionally difficult to learn.

jason

William C. Bitting

unread,
Mar 18, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/18/96
to
Philippe Michel (mic...@thomson-lcr.fr) wrote:
: +-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: fiete - score: 3
: | O X O O O | | O O |
: | O O O O | | O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
: | 4 | | |
: | O | | |
: | |BAR| |v 5-point match
: | X X | | | Cube: 2

: | X X X X | | X | BAR: 1 OFF: 0
: | O X X X X | X | X X |
: +24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: You - score: 4
: You roll 3 and 6.

: How should one play the 6 in this position ? And why ? The three possible


: plays look so different that the right one may well stand out if one
: understands what is most important (threatening ?) and what is not in this
: situation, but I sure don't :-(.

I don't know either - but VERY interesting!! My initial reaction was bar-3
3-9 (what else?). However, 17-23* and 18-24 are, now that I look at it
again, very viable choices. No doubt over the board I would have made my
initial reaction move before realizing there were 2 other 6's to consider.

The big draw back to 17-23* is that it may work too well. O may dance,
you close him out, but find your board crunches because of a lack of 6's.
And O has 61, 52, 62 which would be a double hit for him. I would rank
bar-3, 3-9 ahead of this play.

18-24 now looks like my pick. If O rolls a 5 next turn, you are not any
worse off than if you had played 3-9. However, if O doesn't roll a 5 (as
is the case in 25 out of 36 rolls), his 5 prime breaks and he doesn't have
any way to attack, giving you excellent winning chances. Even if on your
next roll, the best play is to hit 0 on your 2 pt.(23pt here), you are in
better shape than doing so now. wcb on FIBS

Michael J Zehr

unread,
Mar 19, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/19/96
to
In article <314E6712...@ocf.berkeley.edu> "Jason A. Nordwick" <nord...@ocf.berkeley.edu> writes:

>Philippe Michel wrote:
>>
>> +-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: fiete - score: 3
>> | O X O O O | | O O |
>> | O O O O | | O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
>> | O | | |

>> | O | | |
>> | |BAR| |v 5-point match
>> | | | | Your roll

>> | X X | | | Cube: 2
>> | X X X X | | X | BAR: 1 OFF: 0
>> | O X X X X | X | X X |
>> +24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: You - score: 4
>>
>> You roll 3 and 6.
>> How should one play the 6 in this position ? And why ?
>
>I'm just learning this game, so could someone please give me some
>feedback on my line of analysis? thanks... now the answer:
>
>with board strength fairly even and having two back-men versus one,
>Magriel (sp?) says play agressive. so i play bar/3,17/23*. here's why:

I believe you're getting into trouble here by applying a rule intended
for early and mid game positions to a prime-vs-prime position. This
kind of position is one of the most complicated position variations.
They still aren't very well understood, though we're making progress.

In very broad general terms, timing is probably th emost important
factor in prime vs prime. (Timing meaning how long you can roll without
having to break an important point.) If you're on the bar, many of your
rolls you don't have to play, so you're improving your timing.

So hitting your opponent when you have a better board might be the wrong
idea.

(In prime vs. prime you tend to want to attack and close out your
opponent only if you're pretty sure you can escape. With two behind a
5 prime, escape isn't at all a sure thing, so you don't necessarily want
to attack.)

>all the one hit scenarios are fairly liveable: you engage in
>a blot hitting contest and you either get your back men loose giving

I disagree with this. If you played 8-2* and your opponent hits back
you have three men behind a 4 or 5 prime and he has 1 man behind a 4
prime. (If he rolled a 1-6, he's past the prime anyway.)

And what is your follow play if he *doesn't* hit. You need a 6 to cover
and a 6 to run, so how do you play a 62, for example?

>bar/2,18/24 -- too passive, if he gets out your gone. he has the one
>and two pts to thrown pieces into (a 3pt backgame doesn't sound like a
>winner to me... hmmm... are their books/charts out there that show the
>likelyhood of hitting in a backgame situation? it seems to me that a
>2-3pt backgame wouldbe just better than a 1-3pt backgame with the
>further forward pieces getting the worse).

"Backgame" refers to having more than one anchor in your opponent's
board (among other things). Your side isn't going to be playing a
backgame here -- it will be playing a 3pt anchor game, which doesn't
generate a lot of shots, but it doesn't get gammoned much either and it
still has some racing chances.

I think there are two real keys to evaluating this position: If you
don't hit and your opponent rolls a 5, you're in pretty big trouble if
you had a blot on the bar point or not. You're in worse trouble if you
were hit when he escaped than if you weren't hit.

If your opponent doesn't roll a 5, your opponent is in much worse shape
if he's on the 2pt than if he's on the bar, particularly if you hold an
anchor on the 3pt.

In short, I agree with the other poster who selected 7-1 as their choice
in moves. But... as I said before, prime vs. prime games tend to be the
least understood games, and even experts get into big disagreements over
them (leading to exciting props!).

-michael j zehr

Jason A. Nordwick

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
Michael J Zehr wrote:
>
> >> +-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: fiete - score: 3
> >> | O X O O O | | O O |
> >> | O O O O | | O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
> >> | O | | |
> >> | O | | |
> >> | |BAR| |v 5-point match
> >> | | | | Your roll
> >> | X X | | | Cube: 2
> >> | X X X X | | X | BAR: 1 OFF: 0
> >> | O X X X X | X | X X |
> >> +24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: You - score: 4
> >>
> >> You roll 3 and 6.

[useless suff cut]

> In short, I agree with the other poster who selected 7-1 as their choice
> in moves. But... as I said before, prime vs. prime games tend to be the
> least understood games, and even experts get into big disagreements over
> them (leading to exciting props!).
>
> -michael j zehr

first, let me say: thanks for the input. I wish more of the better players would stop to help out
in this group. (especially critiquing beginners posts)

after playing the position out, and looking at it a bit more, i tend to favor the 7/1 move a
little, now i see what the match score is and realize that double edged positions can not benefit
you. also if opponent happens not to roll a five, then he is forced to wreck his prime... for
trying to make his move now, his timing is a _little_ too late b/c that last back man looks to be
hacing some problems (especially if you roll a 6 next turn withouth him getting his five... you
look to be in fine shape -- now if this happens, and you roll another six, then do you hit loose?
with only one man back and plenty of extra moves for the newly escaped checker to soak up?)

jason

.
.
.

William C. Bitting

unread,
Mar 20, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/20/96
to
Looks like X has 16 men ..guess this must have been a handicap tourney!
I might even take 4 men off just to see what happened. :) wcb on FIBS

Tom Langland (tlan...@llnl.gov) wrote:

: The following position happened to me in my last game in last weekend's
: Backgammon by the Bay tournament.

: +13-14-15-16-17-18-------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: charli - score: 4
: | X | | X X X X X | Cube: 2
: | | | X X X | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
: | | | X X |
: | | | X X |
: | | | X |
: v| |BAR| |
: | | | O | 5-point match
: | | | O |
: | | | O O |
: | | | O O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 4
: | X | | O O X O O |
: +12-11-10--9--8--7--------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: tom - score: 3

: You roll 1 and 1.

: Choices:

: (a) 5-4, 1-off, 1-off, 1-off

: (b) 4-3, 5-4, 4-3, 1-off

: (c) 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 1-off


: Please post your opinions on the position and the choices and I will
: follow-up with what I actually played (and the result).

: THANKS!!!
: *tom*
: tlan...@llnl.gov

Tom Langland

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to

Kit Woolsey

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
Tom Langland (tlan...@llnl.gov) wrote:

: The following position happened to me in my last game in last weekend's

: Choices:

: THANKS!!!
: *tom*
: tlan...@llnl.gov

The weakest play appears to be 5/3*, 4/3, 1/off. This leaves six shot
numbers next turn, and not as many men off when the shot is hit as the
other plays. It has the advantage of forcing your opponent out of your
hair with all sixes except 6-4. On the other hand there is a
disadvantage of putting your opponent on the bar -- then your opponent
won't be forced to play some rolls (such as 5-5).


5/4, 1/off(3) has the advantage of scooping a bunch of checkers off.
This is important. If you are hit with your opponent's board a mess like
this having checkers off is valuable, since you will still have a very
good chance to enter and race around in time to win the race. On the
downside, you leave yourself with two points to clear. Also, there is
the freak possibility of having a second checker hit (you leave a shot,
get hit, and roll 3-1 from the bar). This isn't very likely, but if it
does happen your losing chances go up considerably. Since you are such a
huge favorite, parlays like this do matter.

I think 5/4(3), 1/off is best. This is 100% safe for next roll, and
guarantees that you will have more checkers off if you are forced to
leave a shot. Also, you don't risk having a second checker hit, and your
opponent is forced to play.

It should be noted that this analysis applies only because it is double
matchpoint. If gammons mattered, the hitting play would be clear.

It is very unlikely that you will lose this game whatever you do, so I
can't wait to hear the hard luck story which must be accompanying this
position.

Kit

Jason A. Nordwick

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
Tom Langland wrote:

> +13-14-15-16-17-18-------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: charli - score: 4
> | X | | X X X X X | Cube: 2
> | | | X X X | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
> | | | X X |
> | | | X X |
> | | | X |
> v| |BAR| |
> | | | O | 5-point match
> | | | O |
> | | | O O |
> | | | O O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 4
> | X | | O O X O O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7--------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: tom - score: 3
>
> You roll 1 and 1.

i play 5/4(3), 1/0 :

it doesn't leave any bad rolls.
you can handle a high roll and a one easily, by playing 4/0, 1/0 or
whatever is needed, any of the other ways to play this have the
possiblity of making you leave a direct shot next roll.

and a high, low roll you can play 4/0 and then use the low die to even
up the 4pt so as not to leave another whot posibility (except for the
uneventful 41 next time).

this makes it a 1/6 chance of forcing you to leave 3 men on the 4 pt,
and another 1/6 chance of having to leave a blot on the 4pt = 1/36
chance for this scenario.

or the other bad scenario is that you clear the 4pt down to 2 checkers
and roll an ace along with a 4,5, or 6 which is also a 1/6 chance, with
many restrictions that go along with the first roll.

just a guess.

jason

Michael J Zehr

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
In article <tlangland-200...@hsis.llnl.gov> tlan...@llnl.gov (Tom Langland) writes:
> +13-14-15-16-17-18-------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: charli - score: 4
> | X | | X X X X X | Cube: 2
> | | | X X X | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
> | | | X X |
> | | | X X |
> | | | X |
> v| |BAR| |
> | | | O | 5-point match
> | | | O |
> | | | O O |
> | | | O O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 4
> | X | | O O X O O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7--------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: tom - score: 3
>
> You roll 1 and 1.

I make the three point and take one off. Here's my quick reasoning:

You win immediately on the 9 numbers that force X in on the 6pt. So any
future shot potential is reduced by 3/4.

You're permanently[*] safe with 21 numbers on your next roll (non-1's
plus 11).

Only 6 numbers leave a blot: 41, 51, 61. Combined with X's chances of
coming in on the 6pt, this means only 4.5 games in which you leave a
shot next turn. (Very few sequences lead to repeaters: You could roll
21 or 31, and then have a few more chances to leave a shot, but this
adds less than 1 game out fo 36.)

Any risk you're taking is immediate, so X has less time to make the 5pt.
Without the 5pt made, even if you're hit X has very little chance to
contain you.


If there were a lot of money riding on this, I'd take the time to
carefully compare it against 5-4 1-off(3). (I wouldn't bother with
4-3*-2, 1-off(2) because it has similar features to the first play but
seems worse technically: fewer rolls force X in on the 6, more rolls
blot immediately, only one additional checker off to compensate.)

O rips 3 off immediately, X never has to run right away, and O leaves an
immediate blot on 52, 62, or 4 games. So we're comparing 4 games with 8
off vs. 4.5 games with 6 off. So far this move is better.

But there's the sequence 31, 41, 51, 61 followed by 12 blotting numbers.
That adds two more games to our count, but admittedly with more checkers
off. There's also the sequence 42 or 32 followed by 16 blotting
numbers. This adds about 2 more games to the count, again with more
checkers off though.

So it does look like the first play is the safest overall so far.


Finally we have 5-4(3) 1-off:

It's immediately safe, but blots on sequences like 31, 41, 51, 61 followed
by 12 blotting numbers (2-3 games); non-doubles (20 rolls) followed by
31, 41, 51, 61 (4-5 games).

We have to factor in a little bit the fact that the later hits are not
helped by more checkers off as much as usual, because X's board is going
to be improving for several rolls. This favors the first play where
essentially all the risk is immediate.


So it looks like the first choice was right. The principle of hitting
your opponent and forcing them higher in the board is the one that wins
here (as opposed to clear from the rear and don't ask questions). (If
you think about it correctly, the second principle applies too: you have
the choice between 2 checkers behind a 1 point gap, 4 checkers on two
points behind a 1 point gap, or 4 checkers on 1 point behind a 1 point
gap. From this point of view, the first play is also clearing the most
checkers.)

It's important to understand these principles because if a position like
this occurs early in a match or early in a tournament, you don't
necessarily want to tire your brain by going through all the counting I
demonstrated above. Conserving your energy is an important part of
doing well in a tournament. If you can be right 90% of the time with 2%
of the effort it would take to be right 100% of the time, you're better
off overall.

-michael j zehr

[*] All the possible plays can lead to a long series of non-clearing,
non-blotting numbers (or fans by X) and an eventual blot in three or
four turns. But this risk is probably close to the same for all the
positions, and O will have enough checkers off by then that O probably
wins anyway. So I'm not including these variations in my numbers.

Tom Langland

unread,
Mar 21, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/21/96
to
In article <kwoolseyD...@netcom.com>, kwoo...@netcom.com (Kit
Woolsey) wrote:

>Tom Langland (tlan...@llnl.gov) wrote:
>
>: The following position happened to me in my last game in last weekend's
>: Backgammon by the Bay tournament.
>
>

>: +13-14-15-16-17-18-------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: charli - score: 4


>: | X | | X X X X X | Cube: 2
>: | | | X X X | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
>: | | | X X |
>: | | | X X |
>: | | | X |
>: v| |BAR| |
>: | | | O | 5-point match
>: | | | O |
>: | | | O O |
>: | | | O O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 4
>: | X | | O O X O O |
>: +12-11-10--9--8--7--------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: tom - score: 3
>
>: You roll 1 and 1.
>

>: Choices:
>
>: (a) 5-4, 1-off, 1-off, 1-off
>
>: (b) 4-3, 5-4, 4-3, 1-off
>
>: (c) 5-4, 5-4, 5-4, 1-off

[snip]


!The weakest play appears to be 5/3*, 4/3, 1/off. This leaves six shot
!numbers next turn, and not as many men off when the shot is hit as the
!other plays. It has the advantage of forcing your opponent out of your
!hair with all sixes except 6-4. On the other hand there is a
!disadvantage of putting your opponent on the bar -- then your opponent
!won't be forced to play some rolls (such as 5-5).
!
!
!5/4, 1/off(3) has the advantage of scooping a bunch of checkers off.
!This is important. If you are hit with your opponent's board a mess like
!this having checkers off is valuable, since you will still have a very
!good chance to enter and race around in time to win the race. On the
!downside, you leave yourself with two points to clear. Also, there is
!the freak possibility of having a second checker hit (you leave a shot,
!get hit, and roll 3-1 from the bar). This isn't very likely, but if it
!does happen your losing chances go up considerably. Since you are such a
!huge favorite, parlays like this do matter.
!
!I think 5/4(3), 1/off is best. This is 100% safe for next roll, and
!guarantees that you will have more checkers off if you are forced to
!leave a shot. Also, you don't risk having a second checker hit, and your
!opponent is forced to play.
!
!It should be noted that this analysis applies only because it is double
!matchpoint. If gammons mattered, the hitting play would be clear.
!
!It is very unlikely that you will lose this game whatever you do, so I
!can't wait to hear the hard luck story which must be accompanying this
!position.
!
!Kit

Well before I tell you what actually happened, here is some background. I
had watched her play a couple of matches earlier in the day, and actually
witnessed her roll a 6-6 to save a gammon. Her opponent had one checker
left to bear off.

Then in our match I was up 2-0 (to 5), cubed the second game converted to
an easy winning race when she proceeded to roll three 5-5s in a row to
win. Next game I was leaded cubed when I had a double shot to hit.
Missed both. Race was even until a timely 4-4 on her part. Now at
Crawford, simply played an easy hold/race game and won. Next I arrive at
the above position (double match point).

Actually put the X on the 8 back on the 3, and the O on the 4 back on the
6 and one of O's "off" checkers back on the 6 as well. At that point I
roll the 6-2, to leave the affomentioned blot in the position above.

My play was (b) 5/3*, 4/3, 1/off, primarily to get her out of my board.
Though I think I still had a litttle "instinct" to play it because as Kit
says "If gammons mattered, the hitting play would be clear.", not allowing
for the fact that is WAS double-match point to override this. Duh. Later
an observer to the match said he felt (a) 5/4, 1/off(3) was clearly best.
So I set it up again, and thought about it some more. Then choice (c)
5/4(3), 1/off came to mind. If I were in the same position again I would
have played this.

Anyway to wrap this up, I play the hit, she came back in on the 4. I (of
course) rolled a 5-1. Ack, again!!! Played 5/off, 5/4 and waited for her
to roll a 1. She missed, and I won tying for 1st/2nd in the consolation.
So a happy ending after all.

*tom*

BTW, Kit do you think you might post that position you were analyzing with
Elliot Winslow with the 2 to play and either cover or move up to the 5
prime. I know Elliot was gonna roll that out with Jellyfish. What was
the result?

Stephen Turner

unread,
Mar 22, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/22/96
to Jason A. Nordwick
Jason A. Nordwick wrote:

>
> Philippe Michel wrote:
> >
> > +-1--2--3--4--5--6--------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ O: fiete - score: 3
> > | O X O O O | | O O |
> > | O O O O | | O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 0
> > | O | | |
> > | O | | |
> > | | | |
> > | |BAR| |v 5-point match
> > | | | |
> > | | | | Your roll
> > | X X | | | Cube: 2

> > | X X X X | | X | BAR: 1 OFF: 0
> > | O X X X X | X | X X |
> > +24-23-22-21-20-19-------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ X: You - score: 4
> >
> > You roll 3 and 6.
> >
> > How should one play the 6 in this position ? And why ?
>
> I'm just learning this game, so could someone please give me some
> feedback on my line of analysis? thanks... now the answer:
>
> with board strength fairly even and having two back-men versus one,
> Magriel (sp?) says play agressive. so i play bar/3,17/23*. here's why:
>
> [deleted]

>
> what do the more experienced players here thing? am i on the wrong track
> or getting close?
>

I'm afraid you are on the wrong track, and here's why. Priming games (and back
games) are rather different from most. The key concept is timing, which is
definitely an advanced concept (Magriel only just touches on it in the last
section of his tome).

Normally, the rule you give is right; hitting deprives your opponent of half
a roll, or even a whole roll, so it stops him attacking you. When you've got
more men back you especially want to play aggressively to try and stop your
opponent escaping, and also because you've got little to lose and a lot to
gain.

However, in this situation you don't want to stop your opponent moving -- you
want him to move! In a priming game, the person who is behind in the race has
the advantage! OK, if he throws a 5 you will probably lose, but 2/3 of his
rolls don't have a 5, and then he has to break up his prime.

BONUS QUESTION: Suppose it's a money game. After 36: b/3 18/24 64: 8/2 8/4
can X double? redouble? [I suspect not because of the blot on 24, but I don't
know].

--
Stephen R. E. Turner
Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge
e-mail: sr...@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html

James Eibisch

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
"Jason A. Nordwick" <nord...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:

>Michael J Zehr wrote:
>
>[useless stuff cut]

I found Michael's "useless stuff" very useful. Keep the Internet
alive--cut crap, not gems.

Btw, I favour 1-7 as well.

--
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://www.i-way.co.uk/~jeibisch/
=======

Jason A. Nordwick

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
James Eibisch wrote:

> "Jason A. Nordwick" <nord...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> >Michael J Zehr wrote:
> >
> >[useless stuff cut]
>
> I found Michael's "useless stuff" very useful. Keep the Internet
> alive--cut crap, not gems.


ummm.... why should i
quote a message that is already on your sever?

it is not needed... you should already
read the message before shastizing me

get it straight next time

Jason A. Nordwick

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
Tom Langland wrote:

> I had watched her play a couple of matches earlier in the day, and

> sctually witnessed her roll a 6-6 to save a gammon. Her opponent had


> one checker left to bear off.

ack...


that was me!

(still won, though)

good to see other from Backgammon by the Bay here, too.

jason

Julian

unread,
Mar 23, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/23/96
to
In article <tlangland-200...@hsis.llnl.gov>
tlan...@llnl.gov "Tom Langland" writes:

> +13-14-15-16-17-18-------19-20-21-22-23-24-+ O: charli - score: 4

> | X | | X X X X X | Cube: 2
> | | | X X X | BAR: 0 OFF: 0


> | | | X X |
> | | | X X |
> | | | X |

> v| |BAR| |
> | | | O | 5-point match

> | | | O |
> | | | O O |

> | | | O O O | BAR: 0 OFF: 4
> | X | | O O X O O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7--------6--5--4--3--2--1-+ X: tom - score: 3
>

The gammon doesn't help you, and being 10 crossovers ahead means you
can only lose if you get hit. So the task is to pick the safest move.

I think you can discard 5/4 1/off(3) - each point in front of X means
a potential shot, so you want to get down to 1 point to clear. Without
doing the maths (it's late!) I think it's close between 4/3*/2 1/off (2)
and 5/4 (3) 1/off. The former punts X out altogether in 7/36 games,
but leaves more danger if X dances or comes on to 3 or 4. 12 numbers
force a shot from you. After the latter you have doubles (gin),
31 41 51 61 to leave you odd at the back (12 subsequent numbers
for a single shot), and the rest leave you even at the back (31, 41, 51,
61 next time for a shot).

Someone else can do the maths. I've just seen the alternative 5/3* 4/3 1/off
which looks even nicer - punt X out with 9 rolls, then only 61 51 41 blow
it for you if X dances.

--------------------------------------------------------
Julian Hayward jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
'Booles' on FIBS +44-1344-640656
--------------------------------------------------------
There are two simple rules for success in life:
1) Don't tell people everything you know.
--------------------------------------------------------

James Eibisch

unread,
Mar 24, 1996, 3:00:00 AM3/24/96
to

It was the description of Michael's post as "useless" I was getting at.
Maybe it was a literal but uncommon usage of the word.

0 new messages