| [Previous] | [Next] |
 is Neil Kazarossscore: 7 pip: 164 | ||||||||||||||||
  |  | 11 point match | ||||||||||||||
| pip: 167 score: 9  is USBGF Members | ||||||||||||||||
| XGID=-b----E-C---dEa--c-da---B-:0:0:1:62:9:7:0:11:10 | ||||||||||||||||
| to play 62 | ||||||||||||||||
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
USBGF Members vote:
[13] 24/22 13/7
[11] 24/18 13/11
[ 5] 13/5
[ 2] 13/11 13/7
[ 2] 24/16
Mary Hickey recommends: 24/22 13/7
Wow, we’re still here? The best way to start thinking about this move is to get into the 2A4A mindset of what I guess Neil would be consistent and call “Cubeful Gammon Save” before we consider our options.
Just running 24/16 looks lame–too early to think only about racing when the running number is this bad. It doesn’t even duplicate anything, and gives him way too many hit and cover rolls, which could be Very Bad. Let’s see if we can do better.
13/7 6/4 is an all-out building play that duplicates both his 6s and his 3s, and has the added advantage that it Looks Really Cool! But sometimes that isn’t enough to beat out disadvantageous counterfactors, which in this case include leaving two blots on our own side of the board with our back men still immobile on the ace point. Hmmm, that gives it kind of a cold, clammy gammonish feel, not the right concept at this score despite its excellent building potential.
What about options that split the back checkers to a point we’d want if we could win the fight for it? Those would include 24/18 13/11 and 24/22 13/7.
24/18 13/11 starts a fight for the bar anchor while leaving a triple shot outside and a lot of hit and cover rolls despite the duplication of 6s and 1s, making it quite dangerous, but the other half of the roll, 13/11, puts a checker in a great spot for when the dust settles. 24/22 13/7 starts a less desirable anchor (who really likes playing from the 22 point?) but it’s a much less gammonish place to sit than on the 24 point, and our chance of actually making that anchor (or a better one) is pretty good because the forward split checker we put there now is less likely to be attacked. But the cost of trying for that anchor is a blot on our bar point which if hit will give us a third man back, possibly with his having made his 5 point.
Plays like this are hard calls at special scores if you haven’t memorized them, as some players do. I haven’t memorized this one, and over the board, I know I’d play 24/22 13/7 the same as I would for money, for the same reason: it has to be a close call, but my opponent is less likely to be familiar with where it goes from here because it’s a play made less often than others. Suppose it is a third-decimal-place ding, but leads to more errors by the opponent? Well worth a small PR hit.
PR jocks don’t always lose sight of the goal of winning, but they do run that risk. The goal is first, to win the match, and toward that end, to maximize the absolute difference in PR between you and your opponent, not the ratio. For example, if you play a 6 and they play a 10, you are better off than if you play a 1 and they play a 3. Not that you’d intentionally risk playing a 6 in the Open at an ABT tournament, where chances are your opponent is pretty good, but you certainly might when playing someone 400 or 500 elo below your rating on Gridgammon, FIBS, Safe Harbor or any other online site with a robust elo rating system.
But we digress. I’m voting for 24/22 13/7 not because I think Neil isn’t familiar with it (or just about anything else we can throw at him) but because I like the chance of getting that 22 anchor and being in far less gammon danger than if we have either both back men on the ace point, or a man or men bouncing in the air with no anchor at all. We can figure out what to do with it once we have it.
| is Neil Kazaross score: 7 pip: 164 | ||||||||||||||||
| | 11 point match | |||||||||||||||
| pip: 159 score: 9 is USBGF Members | ||||||||||||||||
| XGID=-b----EAC---dDa--c-da-A-A-:0:0:-1:00:9:7:0:11:10 | ||||||||||||||||
| on roll, cube action? | ||||||||||||||||
eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.10
Neil Kazaross doubles to 2.
