Tactics

[gogul]

Hello,
how can i represent a specific position, I have a question about one. I shoud do with XO ect but its not showing the same finaly posted.
Thank you  

[Hardy_whv]

Hi,

you need backgammon software to edit positions. GNUBG is the first choice, as it it very (!) strong and freeware as well. This software normally comes with some export functions.

With GNUBG you can export a position to a png-file. I am experiencing problems with png here, so I think, you have to convert it to jpg. This jpg-file has to be placed somewhere in the internet (you need some webspace for it), so you can link to it with the "IMG" funtion above. You could also export the position to txt-format. You can then just copy and paste it into your posting. For the pasted text you have to choose a fixed font by using the CODE function from above.

Here an example for a jpg-file:




And the same position as txt-file:

Code Select Expand



Move number 5: X on roll, cube decision?

Ã,  GNU Backgammon Ã, Position ID: sFvwBSCw5+AAWA
Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, Match ID Ã,  : cAmgAAAAAAAA
Ã,  Ã, +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ Ã, O: WEISS
Ã,  Ã, | X Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  O Ã, O | Ã,  | O Ã, O Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  X | Ã, 0 points
Ã,  Ã, | X Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  O Ã, O | Ã,  | O Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, X | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, O | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, X | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, |BAR| Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, |v 5 point match (Cube: 1)
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, O | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, X | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, O | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, X | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã, X Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  O | Ã, 
Ã,  Ã, | Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  X Ã, X | Ã,  | Ã,  Ã, X Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  O | Ã, On roll
Ã,  Ã, | O Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  X Ã, X | X | Ã,  Ã, X Ã,  Ã,  Ã,  Ã, O Ã, O | Ã, 0 points
Ã,  Ã, +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ Ã, X: SCHWARZ
Pip counts: O 153, X 170



Hope that helped?!

Hardy  

[gogul]

Code Select Expand

Der Spielstand (nach 0 Partien) ist: gnubg 0, gogul 0
Match-Information:

Datum: Mai 13, 2006
Zug Nr. 4: X muss 11 ziehen

GNU Backgammon  Position ID: jJ/BQSDgc3DABg
                Match ID   : cIkEAAAAAAAA
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+     O: gnubg
| X           O    |   | O  X  X  O       |     0 Punkte
| X           O    |   | O  X  X  O       |    
| X                |   | O                |    
|                  |   | O                |    
|                  |   | 6                |    
v|                  |BAR|                  |     (Doppler: 1)
|                  |   | X                |    
|                  |   | X                |    
| O           X    |   | X                |    
| O           X    |   | X                |     Wurf 11
| O           X  O |   | X              O |     0 Punkte
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+     X: gogul
Pip counts: O 139, X 175

Ausgabe generiert Sat May 13 01:42:10 2006
durch  GNU Backgammon 0.14.3-devel (Textexport Version 1.69)



[Hardy_whv]

Well, thats an easy one:

1st: With one of the 1s you have to hit the blot on the 7-point: 8/7*. (Woolsey-Rule: In doubt: HIT!)   [Actually here is no doubt at all.]

2nd: The next two moves are clear as well: Make the GOLDEN POINT (the 5-point): 6/5(2)

3rd. Now lets look for the last one to play: You have 2 nice anchors on your 20 and 21 points. It makes no sense to move 21/20. You could move 7/6, but that does not do anything good and gives an ugly, unflexible stack on the 6-point. No! So make your 7-point: 8/7. That saves you from direct shots with 6s from the 1-point. With a 5 next roll (or a combination with the sum of 5) you can re-build your 8-point. No doubt: 8/7.

The complete roll: 8/7* 8/7 6/5(2)

There is no serious contender! Anything else is a blunder.

Hardy      

[gogul]

Thank you Hardy  

I did not analize the position, and maybe its not spectacular being X. Its my turn and I rolled a double one, no cube.

What I look for is how this position is called. I saw it once as a subvariant of a backgame, having my checkers on 20 and 21, and if someone knows if this tipe of game is described somewhere.

Thank you very much Hardy. I vouched for you because I know your website  

gogul

[gogul]

And I have an other little question. How where tournaments played, before the cube has been introduced. Does anybody know that? I am curious about that.

[Hardy_whv]

Hi gogul,


thanks for your compliments. My website is still tiny and under construction (continuously). But I appreciate a vouch of yourse

I can't provide you with a name for such a position. I think it is still in the very beginning of a match. So its still the start phase of a game.

In the later phase I would call it a (2-anchor)backgame, with both anchors quite advanced. Backgames require a lot of timing (this means, having much more pips than the opponent), i.o.t. prevent your homeboard from crunching. But this position is still far away from a typical late-phase backgame.


Yours,

Hardy    

[Hardy_whv]

The first tournaments of modern backgammon were organized by Prince Alexis Obolensky, author of "Backgammon, the action game".



That was in the late 60s and early 70s. That was the begin of tournaments of modern backgammon. As far as I know, there were no backgammon tournaments before the doubling cube was invented.

The first World Championship was held 1967 (Winner: Tim Holland). That was long before the doubling cube was introduced.

For a great history of backgammon have a look at Crawford and Jacoby's "The Backgammon Book" (also available in a german translation):




Yours,

Hardy      

[gogul]

Yes, without doubt, I moved like you described.

IÃ,´ll go to the library where I found this subversion. It was a book for beginners and it was mentioned only in a subordinate clause (is that the right word?).

In the game above we are in the 7th move and its not representative for such a game, but it remainded me to this, backgame, but advanced checkers.

IÃ,´ll post this here then soon as I went to the library

Thank you

[gogul]

oooh, thanks for your hints.

I´ll buy "The Backgammon Book" tomorrow! 

[NIHILIST]

It's not a backgame. If anything, it's a holding game, As was pointed out, your anchors are too far forward; backgames are a combination of the 1,2,3 and 4 points.

The key thing you should understand, is your 1-1 enables you to go forward.You hold 3 of the best points on the board and you shouldn't be thinking of playing this other than a forward game.

One element of your strategy should be to break off one of the anchors you hold, there's no need to hold two. Ideally you'd hold his 5 point, but the dice rolls might have something to say about that.


NIHI

[gogul]

Thank you NIHI, that was what I was looking for. I went to the library and found this book: H.D. Anderheiden (p.142) "If you hold points 5 and 4 in the opponents homeboard, itÃ,´s not a backgame. This is a subordinated variant, called Holding-Game."

The same game:

Code Select Expand

Zug Nr. 21: X muss 26 ziehen

GNU Backgammon  Position ID: u8c2AAC2jSjABg
                Match ID   : cAn5AAAAAAAA
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+     O: gnubg
|             O  O |   | O  X  X  O  O  O |     0 Punkte
|             O  O |   | O  X  X  O  O  O |    
|                  |   |          O  O    |    
|                  |   |          O       |    
|                  |   |                  |    
v|                  |BAR|                  |    
|                  |   |                  |    
|                  |   |                  |    
|                  |   |                  |    
|                  |   |    X  X  X  X    |     Wurf 26
| X  X        X    |   |    X  X  X  X    |     0 Punkte
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+     X: gogul
Pip counts: O 62, X 141



Wurf 26:     1. Mit Doppler 0-Ply   12/6 8/6                     MWC:  47.32%
      0.403 0.068 0.000 - 0.597 0.204 0.000
    2. Mit Doppler 0-Ply   12/6 11/9                    MWC:  44.98% ( -2.34%)
      0.336 0.049 0.000 - 0.664 0.245 0.001
    3. Mit Doppler 0-Ply   11/5 8/6                     MWC:  44.77% ( -2.55%)
      0.329 0.048 0.000 - 0.671 0.246 0.001
    4. Mit Doppler 0-Ply   12/10 11/5                   MWC:  44.20% ( -3.12%)
      0.307 0.043 0.000 - 0.693 0.247 0.001
    5. Mit Doppler 0-Ply   12/4                         MWC:  44.20% ( -3.12%)
      0.306 0.043 0.000 - 0.694 0.248 0.001


Three moves later my opponent made the huge mistake not moving a blot left on 6, which I could hit with a two, and this was decisive. I would have lost badly. Understanding considering the Holding-Game as a forward game closes a gab,

Thank you

gogul

[dorbel]

I think that Hardy meant to say that 1967 was long after the douber was introduced. As far as anybody can tell, it dates from around 1930. Before that, the 3 point match was commonplace and a cubeless 3 pointer has a lot of skill to it, arguably more than the cubeful variant. Interestingly however, I think I am right in saying that when Tim Holland won his world championship, there was no Crawford rule, so some cube decisions near the end of the match were quite meaningless.