Magriel: Backgammon--2004 Edition
|
|
A new hardcover edition of Magriel's Backgammon is out. It is almost
identical to the original. The pages are a little narrower, and the
diagrams are in black ink only whereas the original had green and black
ink. Also the quality of print is not quite as good as the original
(possibly a photocopy).
But the new edition has a 10-page forward written by Renée Magriel
Roberts (Magriel's wife at the time the book was written, but separated)
entitled "Paul Magriel and the Making of Backgammon". Near the end of
the Forward, RMR writes:
> Button [Paul Magriel] now feels that he made a significant error in
> Backgammon when he named the opponent's 5-point the "Golden Point" and
> called the capture of it the most important objective of the early
> game. Time (and yes, Snowie) have since shown us that the opponent's
> bar point is actually the true Golden Point, a much better point to
> attack and claim in the early going. As long as you and your opponent
> are battling for the bar point he is not making home-board points, so
> getting closed out is less of a risk early in the game.
>
> Meanwhile, his bar point, if successfully annexed, gives you great
> conrol and flexibility in your opponent's outer board. Moreover, by
> holding the opponent's bar point, you have an excellent chance of
> staying in the game right until the end; it holds your opponent's mid
> point checkers and frequently generates a shot as the opponent is
> clearing the mid point to come home.
I'm curious to hear what others think of this. Is it really better to
fight for the opponent's bar-point early in the game than his five-
point?
|
|
|
Gregg Cattanach writes:
I agree with Magriel's first notion that the 20-point is the best
defensive point. The 20-point covers the opponent's outer board AND
prevents any permanent closeout. You can easily construct positions when
you have a man on the bar and are holding the 20-point where you have an
easy take but in the identical position if you only hold his bar point
you should pass. The point about direct contact with the midpoint is
valid, but in general that doesn't make up for the safe re-entry point
provided by the 20-point.
The errors in the book are most those of individual positions, not
really the bigger concepts. I think Renee/Paul have made a mistake here.
(Curious whether Paul 'signed off' on this new forward.)
|
|
|
Daniel Murphy writes:
You get the rolls you get, and you do with them what you can, depending
on the positioning of your and opponent's checkers. "Now I'm going to go
after the 18 point" doesn't properly characterize opening tactics.
For example, a common tactic in the fight for an advanced holding point
is to come to the bar point, whether on the first roll, first response
or soon thereafter in the face of outfield builders for opponent's 7, 5
and 4 points. This forces opponent to either attack the bar point blot
or ignore it. As the excerpt correctly observes, "as long as you and
your opponent are battling for the bar point he is not making home-board
points." But what this means tactically is that if opponent attacks the
bar point, you have good chances of making the 5 (or 4) point anchor,
largely negating the value of opponent's 7 point. If oponent ignores the
bar point slot (perhaps making his 5 or 4), you have good chances of
making the bar point pseudo-anchor, an excellent holding point.
It's a bit of a stretch, though, to deduce from these tactical
considerations that you're better off with the 18 point than the 20!
Doesn't the 20 point also "give you great control and flexibility in
your opponent's outer board"? Doesn't the 20 point also give you "an
excellent" [I daresay better] "chance of staying in the game right until
the end," of holding opponent's midpoint checkers, and frequently
generating shots?
Something the 20 point gives you that the 18 point does not is the
security of a home board anchor to play boldly on your own side of the
board. With that security, you are often freer to attack and bring an
even earlier end to the game.
|
|
|
Casper van der Tak writes:
There is a set of holding positions where you'd like to shift from the
20 to the 18 if possible (typically rolling a 22), depending on the
status of the race and other factors. But in abstract, I'd prefer the
20, which is a better anchor to hold in positions with a lot of mutual
hitting and blitzes as a possibility.
|
|
|
rew writes:
Yes, I was first aware of this when I read Paul Lamford's simple but
nice quiz book for intermediates called _100 Backgammon Puzzles_ where
you should switch from the 20 to 18. His tip is that "the best defensive
anchor is the bar point when the opponent still has the midpoint to
clear" and I have found this to be true in most positions I have seen
from my own or others matches. I guess it is because even though he will
often have the 8 and or 7 and 6 point left to clear after clearing the
midpoint when you have the 20 point, and he is also slightly less free
to dump checkers when you hold the deeper achor, it is more than
compensated by the fact that if he fails to clear the mid you get a
direct shot instead of an indirect and you also block the doubles better
from the 18 point particularly on 66.
In most positions though I view the 18 or 20 anchor as about equally
valuable.
|
|
|
Gregg Cattanach writes:
Here's two very similar positions where O is on the bar against a 3-1/2
point board. Holding the 20 point he has an easy take. Holding the 18
point he has a big pass.
Position 1: X on roll. X doubles.
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 145
| O O X O | | O X |
| O X O | | O X |
| O | | O |
| | | O |
| | O | |
| X | | |
| X | | |
| X X X | | O X O |
| X X X X | | O X O |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 127
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Position 2: X on roll. X doubles.
24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 149
| O O X O | | O X |
| O X O | | O X |
| O | | O |
| | | O |
| | O | |
| X | | |
| X | | |
| X X O X | | X O |
| X X X O X | | X O |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 119
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
|
|
|
Chuck Bower writes:
This points out a fallacy in the Magriel argument: True, when you're
fighting for the advanced point, you don't want to be hit loose on the
20-point. But later in the game, having the 20-point could pay
dividends.
|
|
|
|
![[GammOnLine forum]](pics/GammOnLine.gif)
![[Long message]](pics/Long.gif)
![[Recommended reading]](pics/Star2.gif)
Recommended reading
![[Recent addition]](pics/New.gif)
Recent addition