HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: jab+@cs.cmu.edu (Justin Boyan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: When is 8/5,6/5 wrong?
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:04:45 GMT
 <1992Apr14.185635.1759@nic.csu.net> <MARTYS.92Apr15092420@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

If your opponent opens the game with any of the following plays, and
then you roll a 3-1, for which of them (if any) would you pass up the
chance to make your 5-point in order to hit?

Opponent's roll & play

6-3 :  1-10
6-3 :  1-7, 12-15
6-2 :  12-20
6-2 :  1-7, 12-14
5-1 :  1-7
5-1 :  12-17, 19-20
2-1 :  12-14, 19-20

I'm inclined to hit when the opponent slots on 20, but I'm unsure when
she runs one of her back checkers ...

Thanks
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Re: Cube action problem
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:06:33 GMT

In article <MARTYS.92Apr15152909@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:


>	       O inner board
>
>	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>	| X           O   O   O  |   | O   O   O   X          |
>	|                     O  |   |         O   X          |
>	|                     O  |   |                        |
>	|                        |   |                        |
>	|                        |   |                        |
>	|                        |   |                        |  +---+
>	|                        | X |                        |  | $ |
>	|                        | X |                        |  +---+
>	|                        |   |                        |
>	|                        |   |                        |
>	|                        |   |                        |
>	| O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
>	| O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
>	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>			 X on roll:  cube action?

I would *if* the checker (note newly used terminology *proud grin*) on
the 24 point werent there.  Although this gives more possiblilities to
hit the blots left in white's inner and outer boards, I would be wary
of painting myself into a corner, where I would have a hard time
escaping white's board (obviously later in the game), especially with
heavy sums of money involved...
	Neat Backwoods terminology: Skunked = Gammoned


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Chauncey			|		Vote Perot.
rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu	|	
rchaunce@ultrix.ramapo.edu	|	Finally, a viable candidate.
SDC4632@OBERLIN.BITNET		|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: johnsson@kontu.cc.utu.fi (MIKA JOHNSSON)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Date: 10 Apr 92 09:40:53 GMT
Organization: University of Turku, Finland

In article <HUNTER.92Apr9093040@work.nlm.nih.gov>, hunter@work.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Hunter) writes:
> 
> Marty asks:
> 
> 
>      + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>      |                 X   O  |   |     O               X  |
>      |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
>      |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
>      |                     O  |   |                        |
>      |                     O  |   |                        |
>      |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>      |                        |   |                        |  | 1 |
>      |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>      |                     X  |   |                     O  |
>      |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>      |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>      |                     X  |   |     X       X       O  |
>      | O                   X  |   | O   X       X       O  |
>      + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
> 
>                            X to play 42
> 
> 
> I'd play 13/4/2*.  22/36 not to be rehit;
I think O will hit with many other numbers also, he will hit the man on 20
point (I would do so) with 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-4, 1-5, 2-3, 3-3, 3-5, 4-4(?)
with 15/36, so in fact O has only 7 non hitting rolls, of which 4-5 is good, and
6-6 very bad. If O is rehit it doesn't harm so much he was already behind and X
has 1-point board, so it was time to take risk.


> if X is not rehit, every

as I said only 7/36 chance

> next roll makes either his 5 or bar (double 5s leave a blot on the
> bar, but is OK anyway; if O gets the 4 point, 34 is mildly
> problematic).  If X is rehit, then there is a good chance of making
> O's 5 point, and X is not terribly behind.


> 
> The alternatives I see:
> 
> 8/4 6/2 is acceptable, too, but puts relatively little pressure on O.
> It is less risky, but has lower potential payoff.

True, but it leaves the blot on 20 in danger, ofcource if you can rehit you
have a 2-point board.

> 
> 20/4/2 has a (slightly) greater chance of getting hit than 13/4/2
> does, 
I think it has less chances to be hit only 13/36 (all 2's and 3-4, 1-6 does not
hit)
>and the follow on rolls are not nearly as good.  Definitely not. 

I think I would move 20/14, if X is not hit, he will be ahead in race and if he
gets now a good roll, he may double next turn.


One more alternative: 20/16 13/11, this leaves two shots, but they are
duplicated (ofcource it is bigger risk than just leaving one shot), but this
move leaves you with good distribution if not hit, comments !!

-mika Johnsson

> Larry
> --
> Lawrence Hunter, PhD.
> National Library of Medicine
> Bldg. 38A, MS-54
> Bethesda. MD 20894
> (301) 496-9300
> (301) 496-0673 (fax)
> hunter@nlm.nih.gov (internet)
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Date: 4 Apr 92 12:39:42 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <MARTYS.92Apr3171911@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
>
>                                       X inner board
>
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>     |  X   X       X   X   X |   |  X   X   X   O   O     |
>     |              X   X   X |   |  X   X   X   O   O     |
>     |                        |   |              O         |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |  | 1 |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                  O   O |   |                        |
>     |                  O   O |   |  O   O                 |
>     |                  O   O |   |  O   O   X             |
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>                           O to play 43
>
Obviously 8/4*, 7/4 is wrong.

I see 2 reasonable plays : 7/4*, 7/3    or  8/4*, 6/3.  Both plays
are made in the  hope that  X will have  to hit 2 men and that O will
stay on the  bar for a few rolls and not have to destroy his board.
O's position is pretty precarious since X has lots of ground to cover before
he has  to break his board but with a little luck O will keep  most of his
board intact until he can escape a checker.

jk
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Subject: 5-1 and 5-3 problems
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 21:17:09 GMT

When I was  up in DC last weekend I saw Kent Goulding.  Before he could
escape I cornered him and showed him two of the problems we've been
discussing  on the Net:



        |24 23 22 21 20 19| |18 17 16 15 14 13|
        | O  X  X  O  O  O| | O              X|
        | O  X  X  O  O  O| | O              X|
        | O  X           O| |                 |
	|                 | |                 |
        |                 | |                 |
        |                 | |                 |
        |         X       | |                 |
        |   O     X  X  X | |                 |
        |O  O     X  X  X | |   X             |
        |1  2  3  4  5  6 | |7  8  9  10 11 12|

         X  to  play a 5-3

KG  likes  making  the 3  point as do Marty, Elliott and  David.
And  probably others I've left out.
Maybe it does have  some merit  :).


        |24 23 22 21 20 19| |18 17 16 15 14 13|
        |O  O  O  X  O  O | |   O             |
        |O  O  O  X  O  O | |                 |
        |O  O             | |                 |
	|                 | |                 |
        |                 | |                 |
        |                 | |                 |
        |            X    | |                 |
        |X     X  O  X  X | |X  X             |
        |X     X  O  X  X | |X  X             | 
        |1  2  3  4  5  6 | |7  8  9  10 11 12|

         X to play 5-3   -  I'm not sure  wher O's extra men were.
                            I put them on the 24 and 23 points.


Here KG  likes  clearing the 8 point.

He thought it likely that X would  be able  to run off the 21 with
less risk later - 

His second choice was 21/18,  21/16.  He  thought making the  2 point
risked  too  much from the immediate hit.


jk
From: jab+@cs.cmu.edu (Justin Boyan)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Date: 10 Apr 92 21:59:37 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <MARTYS.92Apr8204343@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
>
>
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>     |                 X   O  |   |     O               X  |
>     |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
>     |                     O  |   |     O               X  |
>     |                     O  |   |                        |
>     |                     O  |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |  | 1 |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                     X  |   |                     O  |
>     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>     |                     X  |   |     X       X       O  |
>     | O                   X  |   | O   X       X       O  |
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>                           X to play 42
>
>
>     Search your books, everyone!  This is in one of them.


I'm afraid I haven't got my books handy at the moment, but this is not
a close call as far as I'm concerned:  I'd make the 4-point.

Advantages for 8/4, 6/4:
  - makes my inner board twice as strong as my opponent's;
	gives me the edge on any hitting battle which starts next roll.
  - unstacks my 6 and 8 points in an aesthetically pleasing way.
	I maintain free builders on 6,8,13, and 10, so I'm well-prepared
	to continue building my board quickly.
  - leaves only one blot on the 20.

The alternative play, hitting, has a lot of problems.
Disadvantages of 13/7*:
  - risks being hit back on 17 numbers.  So, half the time we've
	stripped our midpoint for no good reason, and lost ground in
	the race to boot.
  - 13 additional numbers let opponent attack our blot on the 20.
	This prevents us from making any inner-board points on the
	return (save lucky doubles), and may leave our blot on 7
	exposed again.
  - 2 more numbers, namely the roll 5-4, let opponent grab our 5 point.
	Unless I've forgotten something, that means that only opponent's
	4-2, 5-5 and 6-6 work to our advantage on the return roll!


In conclusion, the 4-point is a long-term asset which we have been
blssed with the perfect opportunity to make.  Even if opponent makes
our bar point,  we've still got 3 points in our outer board to make it
difficult for him to leave that point safely.  Plus, we're at least
even in the race.

Okay Marty, now please tell me why my analysis is dead wrong and you
or any other decent player would immediately double me for having made
such a foolish mistake!

-justin
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<MARTYS.92Apr13152206@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
	<1992Apr13.191332.1@indyvax.iupui.edu>
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 02:48:26 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.191332.1@indyvax.iupui.edu> stowe@indyvax.iupui.edu (Hol3ly) writes:


>   So much for genderless backgammon... *grin*
>
>   Funny... but most of the men I know consider "man" and "piece" to be
>   opposites.  ;-)

Wow.  That is *really* bad in more than one way...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Chauncey			|		Vote Perot.
rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu	|	
rchaunce@ultrix.ramapo.edu	|	Finally, a viable candidate.
SDC4632@OBERLIN.BITNET		|
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:47:18 GMT

In article <MARTYS.92Apr8204343@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
>	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>	|                 X   O  |   |     O               X  |
>	|                     O  |   |     O               X  |
>	|                     O  |   |     O               X  |
>	|                     O  |   |                        |
>	|                     O  |   |                        |
>	|                        |   |                        |  +---+
>	|                        |   |                        |  | 1 |
>	|                        |   |                        |  +---+
>	|                     X  |   |                     O  |
>	|                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>	|                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>	|                     X  |   |     X       X       O  |
>	| O                   X  |   | O   X       X       O  |
>	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>			      X to play 42
>
	I would have to say my first inclination would be 8-4 6-4, but
I might cajole myself into going for the 13-4-2.  The latter, though,
is hit by any six, short of double sixes, and all sevens, giving a
7/18 chance...so you might as well go for it.

	Rob Chauncey
	rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Re: Cube action problem
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Date: 17 Apr 92 10:01:48

In article <1992Apr17.041451.126752@cs.cmu.edu> mnr+@cs.cmu.edu (Marc Ringuette) writes:

:   >            O inner board
:   >     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
:   >     | X           O   O   O  |   | O   O   O   X          |
:   >     |                     O  |   |         O   X          |
:   >     |                     O  |   |                        |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
:   >     |                        | X |                        |  | $ |
:   >     |                        | X |                        |  +---+
:   >     |                        |   |                        |
:   >     |                        |   |                        |
:   >     | O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
:   >     | O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
:   >     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
:   >
:   >                      X on roll:  cube action?
:
:   I would double as X and pass as O.  There are any number of ways O's game can
:   turn sour.  X's 5 prime makes it very hard to keep checkers circulating
:   around.  Doubles for O could force her to crash at any time.  As X, I'll go
:   ahead and pick up all of O's checkers:  her board will be gone, possibly
:   forever.  My 5 prime makes O's timing precarious even with 10 checkers back.
:
:   I admit, I maybe don't give backgames the respect they deserve.  But this one
:   looks particularly droppable.


  Droppable indeed.  O will have a very hard time keeping a board until shot
  time, and will be lucky to remain with only 6 checkers back.  X has very
  good chances to make his 9 point (isn't scared to slot unless he has blots
  under attack elsewhere) and doesn't mind hitting a checker or two to gain
  time to do so.

  I don't give backgames the respect they deserve, either, but this backgame
  is in a sorry state.

  So what do we have so far, two "no double--take's" and three "double--drop's"?

  I vote for "no double--drop"!  (i.e. it's TOO GOOD!)

  Maybe it's not too good by much, but since there are so few ways O can
  reach a takeable position any time soon and since even when she does the
  position is unlikely to be a screaming take, X can afford to play for
  gammon until it looks like O has some tangible winning chances.


			Play well,

			Marty

Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Subject: Re: 42 problem
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 16:35:26 GMT

In article <HUNTER.92Apr2185041@work.nlm.nih.gov> hunter@work.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Hunter) writes:
>
>       24  23  22  21  20 19        18  17  16  15  14  13  
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>     |             O   X   O  |   |     O           O   X  |
>     |             O   X   O  |   |     O               X  |
>     |             O       O  |   |                     X  |
>     |                     O  |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |  | $ |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                     X  |   |     X                  |
>     |                     X  |   |     X               O  |
>     |             X   O   X  |   |     X               O  |
>     |             X   O   X  |   |     X               O  |
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>        1   2   3   4   5   6        7   8   9  10  11  12
>
>                          X to play 42
>
I don't feel too strongly about thhis play but I probably wouldn't hit.
If X hits s/he'll be scrambling the rest of the game -- but that
may not be  so bad.  However I'd probably keep the 20 point even though
nothing else looks so good either.  The non-hit choices are:  13/11, 6/2
13/11, 8/4; 13/9, 8/6; 13/9, 6/4;  13/7; and  8/2.  I'd probably play
13/11, 8/4 trying to make the 11 point or "trick" O off my 5  point.
13/7 would be my 2nd  choice but here I'd prefer to have the 11 to the bar
-- more   holding action against O's checkers.
 8/2 isn't bad ither, starting  to build  up  the board for a later shot
and  not stripping the mid point.   No clear  choice stands out to me.

jk.



Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Re: O to play 4-2
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Date: 7 Apr 92 20:52:25

In article <BKGAMMON%92040520334543@INDYCMS.BITNET> HSTOWE@INDYCMS.IUPUI.EDU (Holly Lee Stowe) writes:

>   13 14 15 16 17 18 | | 19 20 21 22 23 24
>		   X | |  X  X        X  O
>		   X | |  X  X        X
>		   X | |  X  X
>		     |X|  X
>		     | |  X
>		     |X|
>		     | |                 O
>		     | |        O  O     O
>		     | |     O  O  O  O  O  +-+
>		     | |     O  O  O  O  O  |2|
>  12 11 10  9  8  7 | |  6  5  4  3  2  1  +-+
>
>   7 point match
>   Score O:5 X:1
>   O to play 4-2  (John... notice... there are *two* on the bar.  :-)
>
>   I played 24/22, 5/1.  My opponent (approximately the same skill
>   level as myself) rather scoffed.  My reaction was that it was an
>   attempt to psych me out.  I still think my play was right, but
>   I'm not beyond doing a reality check.  :-)  (Yes, I won the game/match.)


  Scoff equity:  threat or menace?

  I'd be a chicken.  I'd very much hate to get a second checker sent
  back.  Escaping chances are good even if you stay back.

  The worst possible thing would be to get hit and fluke-gammoned,
  while X scoffs!  Actually, getting gammoned after a hit isn't
  *that* fluky, because X has a good builder position and will take
  many risks to get a gammon.  It's a long-shot, but still...


			Play well,

			Marty

Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Subject: Re: Cube action problem
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 21:42:47 GMT

In article <MARTYS.92Apr15152909@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:
>
>            O inner board
>
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>     | X           O   O   O  |   | O   O   O   X          |
>     |                     O  |   |         O   X          |
>     |                     O  |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |  +---+
>     |                        | X |                        |  | $ |
>     |                        | X |                        |  +---+
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     |                        |   |                        |
>     | O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
>     | O   O   O   X   X   X  |   | X   X                  |
>     + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>                      X on roll:  cube action?
>
Another tough one (aren't they all). 

I would double as  X.   O is hoping for a well timed  1-2 or 2-3
or 1-2-3 backgame but she doesn't have one yet.  X has almost as many
men back as O does so has lots of time to get O to crash.  If thing go
well for O she could get a great, well-timed backgame but its at least as
likely that O will get a split backgame with 5 to 10 checkers trapped and the
rest on the 1 and 2 points.

Its probably not a take for O.  Too much chance for gammon or backgammon
but depending on the circumstances I might take.  These games usually are lots 
of fun to play out.  These games require lots of skill on both sides.
O may get several chances to hit and will have to be careful to not hit too 
early.  X may get a chance to make a prime which often will be correct -- but
if O gets too many men back X may have to slot the end of his prime rather 
than make it, forcing O to hit when she gets out.  But this could force X to
hit other checkers as he comes around the board.

I enjoy backgames, probably because I remember the ones I win and forget the
ones where I get gammoned.  About ten years ago I played a 2-3-4 backgame
against  Billy Eisenberg in the finals of a tournamnet in Florida  at 13-13 
to 15.  At one 
point I left blots on my 1 thru 6 points while he had 2 checkers on the bar.
My timing was pretty good for a while but I hit a checker (maybe too early)
and eventually lost the game and the match.  One of Kent Gouldings people
recorded the match so he might still have it stashed away somewhere.

jk