Backgammon Pip Counting

Pip Counting

Live play versus online

From:   Rich
Address:   rich@NOTyahoo.com
Date:   8 March 2006
Subject:   Re: Hank Come Clean please for the sake of the game
Forum:   rec.games.backgammon
Google:   25tu021f2d4c52t47gp9a0emha6nkkus03@4ax.com

I prefer computer play to [live, face-to-face] play for a few reasons. It is usually quicker since there is no need to set up the board. Pip counts are done automatically. I hate pip counting and don't do it very quickly. I also often come up with the wrong pip count so my decision is based upon faulty information. Maybe I need to work on doing quick pip counts but I guess I am too lazy for this mechanical aspect of the game. Rich

Paul Epstein writes:

I agree that pip-counting is a dull and mechanical aspect of the game. However, as you know, it is an _extremely_ important component of live play. There seems to have been a shift of opinion as to whether it is desirable to display pip counts automatically and therefore eliminate a skill that is essential but tedious and mundane. In the early days of FIBS, all money competitions had the stipulation that no pip counts be displayed. Now, I gather that it is extremely rare for an online tournament to ban pip-count displays.

Raccoon writes:

If you ever decide to play live, quick pip counting will be very helpful. Fortunately it really does not take much practice to learn to count pips quickly. If you can learn to do it quickly it becomes less tedious. Some years ago I was watching two good players play a money game at a fast pace. In one game after one player picked up his dice the other immediately doubled. The first player quickly said "four?", the other player said "five" and the first player took. Both of them, you see, had been keeping a running pipcount from the beginning of the game. It's surely not necessary to do that, but it's not impossible for mere mortals, either.

Rich writes:

Actually I can count quickly but my counts are often inaccurate and it is often critical for the count to be accurate to a pip. An even bigger problem, I say with some embarrassment, is that after counting the second pip count I forget the first and then while recounting the first, forget the second. Could this be early dementia:-) Are there good sites that give tips on counting? I know that there is a backgammon player who wrote a book Mathemagics. I forget his name but wonder if that book might provide some tips.

Adam Tansley writes:

Find a good system, and with a bit of practice you will be doing fast, accurate counts over the board. Personally, I like the methods involving counting cross-overs, and then if necessary refining the count with residual pips (Nack Ballard's term). There are a few variations on this theme, but real speed can be gained by introducing pattern- recognition for groups of cross-overs/residuals. At a tournament last week, I overheard a player saying that he couldn't be bothered to do any pip-counts that day. I suspect that for him, counts felt like hard work. Once you've got a method, and practiced, they are not hard work, and you will have a distinct advantage over players like him. In Nack Ballard's excellent article outlining his system ("Naccel", based on crossovers and residuals) he gives an example from Jerry Grandell's Important Matches (Ortega/Kleinman): GNU Backgammon Position ID: yR3MAAeMt3NAAA Match ID : cAkAAAAAAAAA +24-23-22-21-20-19------18-17-16-15-14-13-+ | O O O O | | X O | 0 points | O O | | O | | O O | | | | | | | | | | | | |BAR| |v (Cube: 1) | | | | | X | | | | O X | | X X | | X O X | | X X X O | On roll | X O X | | X X X O | 0 points +-1--2--3--4--5--6-------7--8--9-10-11-12-+ Ballard says: "In the actual game, X did not even proffer an initial double. Perhaps he was operating on a certain general principle which advises, when bearing in against a semi-primed holding game, to get the straggler home and lose the market small. I have to wonder, though, if X counted the race." In fact X leads the race by 33 pips, and not doubling is an error, with the real question being whether it is a take or not. I suspect that most players at expert level and below (and maybe some above!) would not bother counting this position, but if you have a method that is fast, accurate and you are comfortable with, then why not count it? As for forgetting the first count as you do the second, you are by no means alone. Develop a way of recording the first count on your fingers. For example, hundreds, tens, units: forget the hundreds (the difference between 32 & 132 should be obvious), then use one hand for tens, one for units. Extend fingers 1-5 for numbers 1-5, hide fingers 1-4 for numbers 6-9. Or come up with something you find easy. tansley

Gregg Cattanach writes:

I 'put' the first number on my fingers: left hand is the 10s digits and right hand is the 1. Extend one finger for 1-5 and extend all fingers except one for 6-0. Mathemagics won't help with pip counting. It's more about doing stuff like multiplying large numbers, or adding lots of large numbers together. An interesting book, and written by an excellent backgammon player from the past, Art Benjamin. Pip counting should just involve adding up 3 or 4 small numbers. The pip counting system I got from Jack Kissane gets you both numbers and it seems to be easy to get it right each time. Check it out at: http://www.bkgm.com/articles/McCool/cluster.html

Did you find the information in this article useful?

Do you have any comments you'd like to add?