Pythagoras: No, I didn't correct my "mistake", lolol.

I anticipated (nay, hoped for, lol) a wee bit of discussion so I plugged in a qualifier.

I wouldn't say that playing for gammon means a significant difference strategy (though, of course it depends on what makes for significance).

I guess we differ if what we see as significantly different. I picked the game up again a couple of years ago at VogClub. I must admit that gammons were part of the game right from the start - whether played without the cube (first 12 months or so) or with (thereafter) - so my play is more gammon-centred than it would be if I'd been playing here. I do often play for gammons even when not necessary because that win is a thrill and so worth the risk of losing the point. (That's obviously not a good tactic for serious tournament play, so it's a good job that I don't play serious tournaments!)

But when I do play without needing a gammon then it's not a significant difference in game play. There are some differences in the opening moves (though 6-4: I'd make the point in both gammon-go and gammon-save) but the majority of the game is the same for gammon-go and gammon-save. You might have "Gammon..Gammon..Gammon" running in your mind the whole time but it may not be obvious on the board. Closing the home board is always a priority and needs those builders, double-taps are a joy in many occasions (though sometimes a foolhardy one, lol). To me it's more a toning down of aggressiveness and less risk taking. A shift in emphasis towards the race and away from the battle. But, like I said, my base level is perhaps already more gammonish than others.

We're talking about the same things here yet while Alan says "significant difference" and you say "very different", I say "tone down" and "shift in emphasis".