[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Four problems related to Opening 42

Posted By: David Presser
Date: Friday, 20 June 2014, at 8:07 p.m.

In Response To: Four problems related to Opening 42 (Nack Ballard)

Problem 1 - I think 61 is better because the blocking pt is significantly more valuable than in the normal backgammon opening position.

Problem 2 - I think 61 is better. I remember that for the regular backgammon opening position the difference in equity after an opening 42P and an opening 61P isn't too big - within 0.02 (it is based on a table that ranked the opening rolls and their equity, possibly from an appendix in your book). Therefore, when adding a spare on the 8 such that 61P unstacks both stacked pts (8+13) and makes a good pt it leads me to believe that the equity after the 61P is higher than after 42P for the modified opening position.

Problem 3 - Tricky one. With 6 checkers only in the zone, the value of making the 4 pt decreases. On the other side, the 3 checkers on the ace-pt must be split and same for the 6 checkers in the mid-pt that must be unstacked. I see 5 candidate plays: 1. 24/20, 24/22; 2. 24/20, 13/11; 3. 24/22, 13/9; 4. 13/11, 13/9; 5. 8/4, 6/4 I don't know how to rank the plays but will eliminate the plays that unstack only the ace-pt or only the mid-pt. So I will guess that 24/20, 13/11 is best, 8/4 6/4 is second, and 24/22, 13/9 is third.

Problem 4 - The easier problem to answer. I want the spares in front of the pts I want to make next. Therefore, I want to stay with the position after the opening 42P.

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.