HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: hunter@work.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Hunter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: BKGAMMON archive (was Backgame problem)
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:12:18 GMT
	<RCHAUNCE.92Apr13133211@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>
	<1992Apr13.191008.1@indyvax.iupui.edu>
Organization: National Library of Medicine


Holly Stowe writes:

  I can put it in the BKGAMMON archives on indycms.iupui.edu where
  people can request to have it sent to them...

That sounds interesting -- I'd never seen mention of the BKGAMMON
archives before.  What's in it, and how does one use it?

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)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Fun Story
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
Distribution: rec.games.backgammon
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 03:17:37 GMT

	The man (aside from my father, who taught me the basics) who
gave me the (sparse, I admit) knowledge of backgammon I have today is
named Sid.  He's pretty old now, but still kicks my ass at every
available opportunity.  I play him (I am 20, now) and he scolds me as
he used to when I was learning at 5 - "Look at that, Robbie, I have 19
chances to hit you there.  Are you trying to lose money?"
	One of his better backgammon stories was from his old radio
days.  He wrote the storylines to the old-time radio show "The
Shadow", as in "What evil lurks in the hearts of men...The Shadow
knooows."  He was at a party, I believe, with a rather rich friend,
and Sid and the richer man were speaking about backgammon to another,
who was progressively getting more and more drunk.
	Later that night, the man approached Sid and his friend, and
challenged the richer man to a game, for $500 A POINT!  (1940s, I
believe.)  The man replied:
	"Sure, but can Sid here play for me?"
	The agressor replied to the affirmative, and Sid began to
interject.  "I can't play for $500 a point!  What if I lose?  I can't
pay that kind of money..."
	The wealthier man replied that he would not be responsible for
1/5 of all proceeds, win or lose.  Sid decided to play, and they
began.

	Nineteen minutes later, the challenger pushed back his chair
and said that he had had enough.  Sid had won $6,000, of which he kept
$1,200.  For them both, this is a rough salary of $108,000 per hour.
Not bad, huh?

Post stories of good games.  It would be interesting and
educational...

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: the world
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:04:26 GMT

Oops, sorry for not reading the last post in the thread before opening
my keyboard...
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Re: 42 problem
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<0dr_RQy00WB310oXoa@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:21:09 GMT

In article <0dr_RQy00WB310oXoa@andrew.cmu.edu> sl22+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Shuman Lloyd Lee) writes:


>	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>	|             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  |
>	+ --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>			     X to play 42
>
>   Ah this is a nice problem, because it's the soft of position that comes
>   up a lot, and a lot of people misplay them.  Probably even more than the
>   number who misplay backgames.
>
>   My play would be 13/11 and 8/4.  The position is roughly even (race-wise
>   or positionally), but the critical factor is that both sides hold strong
>   defensive anchors, and don't have much offensively (only two point
>   boards, and no outside primes, nor possibilities of outside primes). 
>   There are probably two likely ways to win this position:  (i)  Force the
>   opponent off the 5 point and attack him there, keeping the 20 point as
>   defense, and (ii)  Roll lots of doubles and clear the 20 and 13 points. 
>   Obviously the second is not viable as a game-plan (which doesn't mean it
>   isn't viable at all!).

I would have to agree on that being my play, too (13-11, 8-4), due to
my tendency to blow backgames.  I think that, also, I might try 13-11,
6-2, which gives me a builder (the terminology I learned from my
teacher, whom I consider a master, himself) in my home board.
Although X leads in pips, there is too much to lose in a 20-14 shot,
for my taste...

Rob Chauncey
rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
From: hunter@work.nlm.nih.gov (Larry Hunter)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Date: 9 Apr 92 13:30:40 GMT
Organization: National Library of Medicine


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; if X is not rehit, every
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.

20/4/2 has a (slightly) greater chance of getting hit than 13/4/2
does, and the follow on rolls are not nearly as good.  Definitely not. 

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)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
From: monty@futon.SFSU.EDU (David Montgomery)
Date: 14 Apr 92 18:56:34 PDT
Organization: San Francisco State University

In article <MARTYS.92Apr13102735@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
>
>  X is ahead in the race 26 pips after playing 42  [ 8/4 6/4 ]...
>  X's strongest game plan is to race.  If O makes X's bar and X clears his
>  back man while maintaining his racing advantage, he'll double O out.

So, after the sequence: 
	X 4-2          8/4  6/4
	O 4-2 or 5-1  24/18*
	X 6-1         20/13
	O 2-1         13/11 6/5

you feel that X can double O out?  X leads 128:152, 24 pips.  You're
probably right, but I would be inclined to take this.

David

*There'll probably be some dissension on these plays - I'm not sure
they're right but they're what I would play over the board.
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: mnr+@cs.cmu.edu (Marc Ringuette)
Subject: Re: Cube action problem
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 92 04:14:51 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

>            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.
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: When is 8/5,6/5 wrong?
From: monty@futon.SFSU.EDU (David Montgomery)
Date: 16 Apr 92 15:26:22 PDT
Organization: San Francisco State University

In article <1992Apr15.150445.217331@cs.cmu.edu> jab+@cs.cmu.edu (Justin Boyan) writes:
>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?

				my play
				-------
>6-3 :  24/15			13/10* 24/23	
>6-3 :  24/18 13/10		8/5 6/5
>6-2 :  13/5			24/20*
>6-2 :  24/18 13/11		8/5 6/5
>5-1 :  24/18			8/5 6/5
>5-1 :  13/8   6/5		24/20*
>2-1 :  13/11  6/5 		24/20*

also:

6-4  :  24/18  13/9		8/5 6/5
5-4  :  24/15			13/10* 24/23
4-1  :  13/9   6/5		24/20*
5-2  :  13/8   6/4		24/21*/20
3-2  :  13/10  6/4		24/21*/20

David
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Cube action problem
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:29:09


            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?




Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: jrk2v@galen.med.Virginia.EDU (John Robert Klein)
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 20:05:11 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
>
>
>     Search your books, everyone!  This is in one of them.
>
>
I couldn't find it.  But I didn't look too hard.

I like making the 4 point.  X is way up in the race.  The 4 point
will be valuable if the checker on Os 5 point is attacked.  If
O makes the bar point X can just play behind her.  X's plan should
be to get his last checker home and win the race.
X won't have too much trouble clearing his midpoint since he has
lots of time to roll a double or a well timed 5-3 (if O does make  the bar)
Actually IF O does make the bar and X gets his last checker free and 
X's racing  lead stays around the same then X will have a good double.

13/7* rates to get hit back either on the bar or on O's 5 point.
If hit back on the bar, X loses his race advantage and If he's hit on the
5 he may have a hard time covering the checker  on the bar safely (the 10
and 13 points are stripped). 


jk

Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: ekw@world.std.com (Elliott C Winslow)
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Distribution: the world
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 23:02:20 GMT

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

O to play 43

John Klein's latest comment:
> 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.

First off, X has accomplished a six-prime, with quite a few pips of
timing, so it looks *very* bad for O.  It might just be right to not
get any more men sent back, to minimize the gammon.  Oh, shame on me
for thinking this way!

Second, 8-4x 7-4 might not be so bad, since if he comes in on the 1,
he might actually lose the timing battle.  It wouldn't even take a
miracle, since the men on the 8 point are some time.  Even if he
enters on the 2, there's some hope that he'll have some problems.

If 8-5, 7-3, can he *really* crack on 4-4!?  Almost a reason to play
it.

With the 6-prime, I think that the suicide plays are just that.

  --Elliott
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Re: Yet another 42 problem
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<RCHAUNCE.92Apr14134718@occs.cs.oberlin.edu>
Date: 14 Apr 92 15:39:46

In article <RCHAUNCE.92Apr14134718@occs.cs.oberlin.edu> rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey) 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.


  Don't forget the hitting numbers 33 (Bar/22, 24/18*, 8/5*) and 22.

  But what does X gain after hitting?  Some ground in the race; but X is
  ahead a mile anyway.  Chance to make bar; but the bar isn't that important
  here.

  Hitting keeps X busy on two fronts (forward, he has to worry about the
  blot he's created; backward, he has to worry about escaping his last
  man) instead of one.  As others have seen, if O misses the return on
  X's bar point she'll probably hit on her 5 point.  Busy on two fronts
  indeed.  The straightforward game plan is best here:  strengthen the
  board in preparation for a hitting contest, and hope to win by racing.

  Compare this position with the position after O *opens* with 51 24/18.
  In that position, X can hit with 42, but it's certainly a close choice
  between 13/7* and 8/4, 6/4.  O's position above is the same as after
  she opens with 51, but X has a big racing lead with fewer men back,
  so return shots are relatively more harmful for X, so he should make
  his 4 point.

  There, that's a dead horse well beaten...


			Play well,

			Marty
From: king@reasoning.com (Dick King)
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Date: 9 Apr 92 00:44:30 GMT
Organization: Reasoning Systems, Inc., Palo Alto, CA

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


8/4*/1.

The slim reed you're grasping is 

    * getting hit on the ace point, dancing while X gets bogged down

or

    * burning bigtime bit only with the checkers NOT primed.



Reed 2 is a bit plumper.  I would not argue with a chouette player who wanted
to play 8/4* 5/2.


Before PC my circle used to call this sort of thing a "Polish prime".

A full Polish prime would be six consecutive blots.


-dk
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer )
Subject: Re: 42 problem
Organization: M.I.T. Lincoln Lab - Group 43
	<HUNTER.92Apr2185041@work.nlm.nih.gov>
	<MARTYS.92Apr3110510@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
	<HUNTER.92Apr3164137@work.nlm.nih.gov>
	<MARTYS.92Apr6093217@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu>
Date: 8 Apr 92 20:14:07

In article <MARTYS.92Apr6093217@escalus.juliet.ll.mit.edu> martys@juliet.ll.mit.edu ( Marty Storer ) writes:

>             + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>	      |             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  |
>	      + --  --  --  --  --  -- +++++ --  --  --  --  --  -- +
>
>				   X to play 42


  Walter Trice also likes hitting.  "Clearly right," he says.



			   Play well,

			   Marty
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
From: rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Rob Chauncey)
Subject: Re: Backgame problem
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<1992Apr6.161812.14674@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:32:11 GMT

	Could someone please explain to a novice player the terms
"time", "timing", "checker", and "dancing"?

Sorry, but I love backgammon, and want to be able to keep up with you
all...
I would have gone 8-5, 6-3 on this one, figuring on having the rolls
on the bar to wreck X's board.  

Rob Chauncey
rchaunce@occs.cs.oberlin.edu