Top three

[PersianLord]

I must have missed the part written in invisible ink  ... Sorry if I appeared intrusive, but I just bit on one random position and wasn't aware this is sort of a long running club with silently agreed upon rules. To prevent others from falling the same trap, a more explicit disclaimer in each posting along the lines above would be easy to do and nice to have.

I'd ask 60+, who seems to moderate this forum, to add the same text to the sticky note on top of this sub-board.

See inim, there has been NO protest to the way people have been posting positions up until you appeared. Take it or leave it.

Regards

[inim]

See inim, there has been NO protest to the way people have been posting positions up until you appeared. Take it or leave it.

I have no problem with respecting rules, we could have saved the whole debate it somebody pointed out early there are some. Thus please add a clearer disclaimer and mode to each position. Neither is everybody aware of the silently agreed upon rules, not does everybody enter this thread through the board so he can see the sticky note. I landed here via a "recent postings" link out of context, and so wasn't informed about any rules.

Now that I get the full picture, things are way more easy and I actually can understand the outrage. Sorry from my side, but how could I have known? Nobody told me about any rules.

[PersianLord]

I have no problem with respecting rules, we could have saved the whole debate it somebody pointed out early there are some.

Exactly, and that was the reason behind my suggestion of reviewing previously posted positions.

Regards

[inim]

Exactly, and that was the reason behind my suggestion of reviewing previously posted positions.

Given your signal to noise ratio that is not exactly a clear hint, nor is the wording. A simple "this is a club-like group and we have established rules for the position discussion, please see (URL)" would have done it. Well, as said: 60+ should put clear rules in the sticky note, and every position posting should link to it. Problem solved.

[socksey]

Enough!     Back to the subject, please.     The rules of fibsboard are, be courteous and patient.  We are here to have fun and hopefully learn something.   

socksey



"There is no distinctly Native American criminal class... save Congress." - Mark Twain

[Mookie]

Excuse me.  Is this where one comes if they want to Vouch Mookie?

moooooookie

[playBunny]

I must have missed the part written in invisible ink  ... Sorry if I appeared intrusive, but I just bit on one random position and wasn't aware this is sort of a long running club with silently agreed upon rules. To prevent others from falling the same trap, a more explicit disclaimer in each posting along the lines above would be easy to do and nice to have.

I'd ask 60+, who seems to moderate this forum, to add the same text to the sticky note on top of this sub-board.

You missed the part in black ink on a green background. There's a sticky note to that effect at the top of this board (FIBS Board > Forum > Backgammon > Backgammon problems). You want it reproduced in every thread?

http://www.fibsboard.com/backgammon-problems/problem-spoilers-t1782.0.html

I just bit on one random position and wasn't aware this is sort of a long running club with silently agreed upon rules.

I presume that you must be new to the Internet then and haven't yet twigged that there are things such as social customs. This is corroborated by the length of time it's taken you to understand the concept of "spoiler". It also seems that you have little curiosity, if this is the first problem that you've visited and you didn't find your self drawn up a level to the wonders of the other umpteen problems on this board. There you'd have seen the sticky note and been able to see the spoiler-hiding facility in use in many of PersianLord's threads. You'd have reached an understanding in much less time than this conversation has taken.

It would also have prevented this thread and problem being trampled on, though it is a pleasure, as always, to read the clarity and humanity of PersianLord's thoughts. I was going to copy and paste here the equivalent thread at DailyGammon, it has had many contributions, including - at the end of discussion - my own rollout and one from Snowie. Instead, I invite people interested in this position to visit that forum (you'll need to have joined the site). http://www.dailygammon.com/bg/forum2/main/read/25373

Still, there's one good thing about this thread since the topic turned to the education of a forum newbie who doesn't know the "silent rules", and that is that I got my weekly Mookie reminder. One of these days I'll play him and get to make that vouch! 

[inim]

FIBS Board > Forum > Backgammon > Backgammon problems). You want it reproduced in every thread?
http://www.fibsboard.com/backgammon-problems/problem-spoilers-t1782.0.html

Yes.

I presume that you must be new to the Internet then and haven't yet twigged that there are things such as social customs.

Please just add the link to each posting because if you enter via a hotlink etc. you have no context for a thread. I'm using the internet sicne 1991 and are well aware of the netiquette otherwise.

[dorbel]

So, restored to my bots, yes 13/7, 6/5 is indeed the best play with 13/7, 9/8 a close alternative. 24/18 9/8 is the best split play but a clear error. As this appears to be only the fifth play of the game, how is it that the best play is such a surprise, to me at any rate? I think it may be that both sides have already a fairly large error and thus led us off on a strange path some distance from the mainline. It looks as if the play has gone like this; 6-1, 13/7, 8/7; 5-5, 13-3(2); 5-4, 13/8, 13/9; 5-2 (or 4-3), 13/6; then the present 6-1 roll. Both sides made a sizeable error in failing to split. 24/20, 13/8 has to be better than bringing two men down from the midpoint and 13/6 is a sad play compared to a split. Having got here, can we say what prompts such an unusual play for the current 6-1? It looks like a matter of priorities. White’s structure is very brittle, making it unlikely that he can build a containing prime. Black on the other hand can build a prime and that is what he needs to concentrate on, putting his checkers where they will do the most good if not hit. I can’t say that this is obvious over the board even with hindsight. There is clearly more risk involved than moving to the 18pt, with more hitting numbers for White and more pips lost by being hit, but the gains must be greater when it works. Interesting position, thanks Bunny!
This sort of position shows why it can sometimes be very difficult to play well against a novice who makes highly unusual moves. The ability to think on your feet in odd situations is rare in all but the greatest players. Anybody here would have played 13/7, 6/5 in real life? I salute you.

[blitzxz]

24/20, 13/8 has to be better than bringing two men down from the midpoint

This is intresting. If I would have personally brought two men down move before then this would have not been so unsual right answer as it also seems to me now. The history (and commitment) with bringing two builders down chances my perspective complitely (but it shouldn't of course). And it also looks like that bringing two men down (with speculative 5-4) is correct as player should just wait opponent's bad distribution position to crash and not to give tempo shots.

[playBunny]

It actually started as a bog standard game with perfect moves, the only departure from GnuBg 3-ply play was my choice of opening with the smell of gammon in my nostrils:

Code Select Expand

       playBunny                       Eduard2
1     54:  13/9 13/8                  52:  13/11 13/8
2     61:  13/7 8/7                   55:  13/3 11/6 8/3
3     61:  24/18 8/7 ??

It's an interesting position indeed. I was totally surprised to see GnuBg's evaluation and subsequent further downgrading from the rollout. By far the most popular move at DailyGammon was the obvious - the major blunder that I made!

ps. I should point out that using colours to denote the players isn't a good idea. That web page allows people to choose their own board size and colour scheme (using the grey buttons on the right side of the board). PersianLord mentioned "orange", you say "white" and "black" and I see the pieces in yellow and blue! 

[PersianLord]

Firstly, I should thank you, dear bunny and also dorbel for providing this great educational opportunity for us 

Secondly, I still would disagree with 13/7-6/5. The most important reason is that it's early in the game and missing the mid-pt would prove costly later on.

Thanks for the analysis and rollout BTW. We need more of these positions and discussions.

Regards