Hrqls: I believe your question was meant to be "should i hit twice in my home?". The answer to this is not so clear. Chance of being hit is about 55%, but the advantage gained if not hit can be quite large.

I'd say it depends on how well developed your opponents home is (which would increase the risk) and how many builders you have ready to take advantage next turn.

playBunny: uhm .. i guess i used the word 'home' wrong there :)

suppose your opponent has 2 singles in your home, is it wise to hit both, but leaving 2 singles of my own in your home ? (again, early in the game)

'home' is where i am bearing off from or where my pieces from the bar enter the game ? .. i now guess i bear off from my home :)

grenv: *nod* *blush* :)

suppose my opponent rolls 1+5 on the first roll and moves 13-8,24-23

i then roll 4+5, is it wise to send the pieces from 23 and 24 to the bar but leaving 2 singles in my home ?

or like in this example, where i did send both pieces to the bar (my other option was 16-19,1-3 ?)

i remember it going well for me, but also going pretty bad :)

skipinnz & playBunny: uhoh ... i guess i have to bribe the gods of dice then :)

barb .. lets do a special type of game .. lets see if you can roll more 1+2 than i can roll high doubles ;)

Hrqls: IN that example definitely not, too risky. I would play 24/20 13/8. Maybe 13/8 13/9 if you're going for a gammon. Problem is that with the split the piece on 9 is more vulnerable.

Which, by the way, is another reason splitting the back men is good, makes it easier to hit the opponent on the next turn. :)

grenv: i edited my post to add an example which just occured in which i did send both pieces to the bar :)

Hrqls: Here's and example of when you can play a double hit:

After opp rolls 4-3 and moves 24/20 24/21

Then you roll 3-2. Now you can play 8/5* 8/4*. The possibility of closing the 3 & 4 points is worth the risk. However hitting the 1 & 2 points is not helpful at all.

grenv: ah ok .. thats something to keep in mind .. i already to focus especially on the 5 point .. but 4 is important as well i guess :) .. makes sense :)

Hrqls: That's an interesting position. I'd probably make your 4 point instead, but putting both pieces on the bar with only one exposed may gain some time. I think it's probably a close call.

grenv: it seemed to work out ... i am still there :) (although a double 6 from his side would have been best for me ;))

how could i make my 4 point when rolling 2+3 ?

grenv: ok .. like in this game

Hrqls: That first example where you drop two blots onto your 2-point and ace point.. that's a big no-no. Blots in your home table should be working for a living - that means either preparing to make high points or hitting twice and going deep (eg 4-1:  6/5*/1*). There are times when you'd hit with two blots, such as your opponent opening with a (doubtful but not bad) 4-1:  24/20  24/21. If you then roll a 2-1 you'd hit them both. You gain a tempo plus the chance to make one or both of those valuable points on your next go. [LOL. You were busy posting while I was writing this. The redsales games is that exactly!] Gaining blocks on 2 and 1 is very inferior.

In your own game example I would have done that hit. I frequently do a double-tap with a single man from the 6 or 8 points when given the opportunity.

playBunny & grenv: lol! i tried it out against redsale .. i would have done 12-14,1-2 normally .. but i wanted to try it out because of this conversation and it even happened in a game at the same time :)

he sent me to the bar with 1 piece .. the other is still there .. lets see what this will bring me :)

Hrqls: oops, i misread it, i thought it was 5-2 from the 8 point. In this case your move is probably best.

grenv: even when leaving 2 singles in my home ? *shiver* :)

Hrqls: 12/14  1/2 would have been very bad because there were two men facing you: a direct 6 and the highest indirect shot, 7. Better is to fight for the 5-point with 6/5* (20/19*) and bring down the support with the 2 - 13/11 (14/12). But best there is the double-tap/double-slot that you did.

playBunny: wow i would never expected .. you are right about the vulnerable piece on 11 though :)

i am on a roll for luck in that game .. i tell myself i should play more safe now .. but i cant help it with this start :)

Hrqls: Lol. You played that one well until that last move - it was a take!

playBunny: really ????? no way!
hmm maybe i was too chicken :)

i would have continued if he had not doubled .. but i didnt dare to play it for 2 points (or gammoned 4) :)

What opening roll has the highest likelyhood for a win?

Hrqls: Definitely a take in my opinion as well. You had an inferior position, but not that inferior. Control of the cube is important.

Hrqls: You had a slightly better home, he might have danced, you had good options to continue the attack or go defensive and make the barpoint anchor. The four backrunners of yours gave redsales the advantage but it wasn't conclusive by any means. Plenty of scope for you to turn the game. I wouldn't have doubled in that position - unless I had hopes of frightening you off. ;-).

Czuch: It's time to learn how to read the numbers, Czuch. Go have a look at the opening move rollouts. ;-)

playBunny: Thats no fun!
My guess.... 6 1

Czuch: but you get to learn so much more.

Guess again..

3 1?
6 5?
4 2?

BTW... last time I looked at one of your charts it gave incorrect info.

Czuch Chuckers: Is that your top three?

3-1, 4-2, 6-1 is the order. Home point, home point, bar point. A blocked bar point is handy but it will never prevent someone coming in off the bar.

Czuch: BTW... last time I looked at one of your charts it gave incorrect info.

Yup, best not to look at any charts ever again. No data is always preferable to good data with an error or two.

playBunny: Curious.... on these roll outs, what happens at the nmid game, ie how is it determined which move is best? There is obviously no gauranteed win for every combo of rolls? Maybe what is a god play against another computer wont be a good play against an amateur? Is there really only one best play for every given situation?

Czuch Chuckers: it gave incorrect info

Interestingly Backgammon, written by Paul Magriel in the 70s, is considered to be the "Bible" of Backgammon. It's a book that many a champion has devoured and is highly recommended left, right and centre. This is despite that fact that it contains a lot of errors as proved by today's computer rollouts.

playBunny: ..is somebody grumpy today?

Czuch Chuckers: Is there really only one best play for every given situation?

Yes, but. With perfect knowledge there is almost always going to be abest play, the only exceptions being when there's a tie. But we don't have perfect knowledge and nor do the computers .. yet.

Maybe what is a good play against another computer wont be a good play against an amateur?

Let's change it round a bit .. a good play against an amateur might not be a good play against a computer

Not only against an amateur but even against the different robots (though that level of subtlety in way beyond me). The "perfect" moves as reported by any of these computers is only perfect against itself. However that doesn't mean that they are wrong, it means that in certain situations they'll be slightly less than optimal. There's a huge amount of agreement between the top robots.

Against amateurs you'll find that there are definitely situations where you can make what would be a bad play against a computer or top player. For instance I'll leave a vulnerable blot in certain situations. The computer would jump on it with glee but it's safe when played against some opponents because they are too scared to do the hit. And that blot then gives me more options to hit them, or has them making poor choices in order to avoid the danger that it poses. Generally, with a player who puts too much emphasis on safety, you can get away with, and should try, things that would get you a slap on the wrist from the computer.

Putting it the way that you did, where the good play against the computer is bad against the amateur, is less frequent, I'd say. The good moves will always be good moves, even if not the best against that particular player in that game.

Czuch: ..is somebody grumpy today?

I'm teasing but there is an edge of grumpiness. I'm really knackered and I'm probably going to get into trouble next week for something I didn't attend and I'm waiting impatiently for some important news and .. Lol. You sussed me!

Now for those roll outs... Does the equity mean that its the best play at that time compared to other possible plays, or does it show what is most likely to afford a win?

Czuch: I don't understand. What's the difference?

playBunny: I think I am confusing myself!
But, the higher the equity number, the more likely a win?

Czuch: Yep. Positive mean you'll win more than you lose, negative means your opponent will win more than they lose. Equity of 0 means the position is 50-50.

Equity

playBunny: Ah, but gammons and backgammons are counted, so you may have a 50% chance of winning but a positive equity if your chance of gammoning is better than your opponent. right?

It seems you can be in a better chance to win a gammon than your opponent, but a worse chance to win in general?

grenv: I just wanted to give a flavour. I added some stuff about gammons and then took it out again. I left all that to the experts at the other end of that link. (There are more articles about equity in the Terminology list at the foot of the article linked to.)

grenv & playBunny: hmm might be true indeed .. the game wasnt that far advanced yet .. and i played for 4 (or 2*gammon) in the other match with him as well (and got 4-0 behind ;))

i guess i was scared .. i wonder if he doubled because of that ... redsales .. did you ? ;)

http://brainking.com/cz/Profile?u=11403&eg=66&dy=2006&p=1

Pedro Martínez: Hard to say, the few games that aren't private look legitimate, the others at least took a few turns.

By the way can we please get rid of private games, they are not needed.

Pedro Martínez: I'd agree, those nic's are obvious and the play sure isn't steller,

grenv: Look at those two games with Patafix...I find it hard to believe that someone who wants to win would not hit a blot in the opponent's base - especially in hyper BG.

Pedro Martínez: Correct, on closer inspection one of the games is clearly rigged. That and the Asterix-like names I'd say the prosecution can rest.

Shall we petition for removal, and possible execution?

I have a rather amateurish question about one of the books by Bill Robertie. The book is "Backgammon For Winners". The book appears to have all the information I want to learn as a new player-BUT- what is the problem with his diagrams? What point of view are they from? Because they seem to be mirror images of the board when I play with GNU. I thought at first it was just a top to bottom thing, but when I turned the book upside down- I realized that right and left are reversed from his diagrams to the board I'm using?? "What's up with that?" I'm finding the book very hard to use now. (I also have, "Starting Out in Backgammon" by Lamford and his diagrams are just like my board.)

DragonKing: Isn't it confusing! You get the same with text printouts in certain newsgroups but worse because a text board has an added strangeness.

There's no official direction of play so when I was first taught to play on a real board we used to play as different colours and have the home tables on different sides, just to get used to playing it any which way. Since playing on the Net I've become very fond of playing it just the way it is here (and at most other sites). Anyway ..

.. there's a button on the right end of the GnuBg toolbar called Direction. Give it a poke and see if you like what it does. ;-)

playBunny: "I wouldn't have doubled in that position - unless I had hopes of frightening you off. ;-)."-Playbunny

Couldn't agree more!

Read that again for anyone who dares compare BG to chess!!