Backgammon Strategy--Backgames

Strategy--Backgames

Play for a backgame from the start?

From:   Alan Webb
Address:   vsg-isg@t-online.de
Date:   14 December 1998
Subject:   Backgames
Forum:   rec.games.backgammon
Google:   752r2q$rsm$1@news00.btx.dtag.de

Can anyone help me with the following questions regarding backgames please? 1) Anybody know which are the 2 points to be made in your opponents home which statistically provide the maximum hit opportunities? (I previously thought it was the 1 and 2 points but Im not so sure now.) 2) Does the answer to (1) depend on the opponents experience/ability? f.i. A novice would more than likely attempt to move his/her pieces in a.s.a.p, whereas an experienced player might attempt to prime it in order to create "crunching". 3) Does the cube have an effect on the points used? (ie if doubled, higher points to avoid gammon) 4) Are there any top draw players who activily seek from outset to play a backgame? I've only recently become aware of the power of such a tactic, and would like to learn more about it. Thank you in advance for your reply(s) Alan Webb

Kirk Rupnik writes:

There are a number of articles regarding backgames archived at http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?menu+strategybackgames . Marc Gray listed a rough generalization of the relative strengths of backgames: What I think that you need to know is the linear ORDER of effectiveness of a backgame. It is, in my humble opinion, as follows: 2-3 ... the best 1-3 ... almost as good 1-4 ... very good 2-4 ... pretty good 1-2 ... weak 3-4 ... poor 2-5 ... poor Following up with TC Hathaway: The problem with ace point backgames is your opponent can often leave men on the bar point and thus be unable to play sixes, and very possibly wreck your timing. When it is a 1,2 backgame, this applies to fives as well. The good part is, of course, he can't play behind you. But, generally speaking, you'll take whatever backgame you can get. Usually by the time you're committed to it, there's not much time or room for adjustment. BTW one of the nice things about "one-pointers" is backgames are much more playable: you never have to drop & you have no gammon worries. Of course a lot of times, you don't have a lot of choice what points you CAN make when forced into a backgame. You are correct in questioning the success of a 1,2 backgame from the explaination above. Backgames are all about timing. Generally, the player defending against a backgame will try to wreck his oppenent's timing by priming him. If you occupy higher points in your oppenent's homeboard, and/or the points are separated by 3 or more, then they tend to fall under the classification of holding games as opposed to backgames. In these situations, it is much easier for the opponent to bear in without leaving blots. Again, the question assumes you have a lot of control what points you occupy, which is rarely the case, unless you roll small doubles for instance. At any rate, assuming a backgame is unavoidable, stick with the strongest ones (2-3, 1-3). > Are there any top draw players who activily seek from outset to play a > backgame? I couldn't possibly imagine that they ever do. It is much easier & successful to win forwards than to try to send everything into a backgame, as they tend to get very complicated (even given good timing) and their overall winning percentage is relatively low. And when you do lose, it's a gammon or backgammon often with you holding the cube at 2 or more. In Robertie's Advanced Backgammon Vol. 1, he relates a backgame to a goal-line stand (i.e. last ditch effort to save the game). If you are constantly putting yourself into that position willingly, you're going to a lose a LOT of games. Kirk (Grignard on FIBS)

Donald Kahn writes:

> 2-3 ... the best > 1-3 ... almost as good > 1-4 ... very good > 2-4 ... pretty good > 1-2 ... weak > 3-4 ... poor > 2-5 ... poor Recording a mild difference of opinion. I don't like 1-4 very much, while 3-4 is a terror to come in against, if you have any stuff on your 9 and/or 10 points.

Chuck Bower writes:

I agree with Donald. I also think it is shaky to rank backgames and to give a qualitative assignment (...very good, poor,...). It's not that there necessarily isn't a ranking (if you define the conditions well enough). My feeling has something to do with the current state of backgammon research--the robots. Now, even the ones that do generate unbiased (pseudo-)random numbers don't like to play backgames. It's kinda like putting a cat in a closed paper bag. It may pretend to like being there for a short time but pretty quickly it goes into a frenzy trying to get out! I think for backgames we are stuck in the dark ages (lighten up! I'm half joking) when we had to depend on the experience of mere mortals. Robots can do thousands of rollouts overnight. Humans are doing well to play through 100 (and then they have to sleep!). Also, human skills (and attitudes and prejudices and...) change with time, so if a person's feeling about a back game has some memory from a while back when s/he wasn't as good of a player, or from one time where the cube was at 64 in a $10 chouette and s/he got some bad rolls, or whatever, then maybe that feeling is ill-founded. I don't (nor does anyone) know the consensus opinion of strong players as to the best and worst backgames. I believe the 2-3 has been highly regarded for a couple of decades. The 1-3 is reasonably well- liked. I think the 1-5 is almost universally unpopular. In between you will probably get a LOT of varying opinions. IMO, the first key to backgame play is to learn how to defend against one. Next, learn how to play one (which is obviously not independent from step 1). Finally, the seasoned player learns how NOT to play one! (Aside from playing with words, what I mean is: since it is part of good backgammon to maximize your equity, only go into backgames when they are the best road to success. Often a better [non-backgame] path will be preferable. Learn when backgames are the right choice. Don't just play backgames for the fun of it unless you are willing to suffer some monetary bruises.)

Donald Kahn writes:

A good post, thanks. If I may be permitted a personal reminiscence: My late father, who was a keen player (wasn't a h--- of lot else to do as a Wall Street broker in the 30's) loved backgames. When he would play me (and he never taught me anything) - I would make a point if I could, hit his blots, or stack. He goes into a backgame and I don't think I ever won a game from him. (I suppose we last played when I was 14). Oh, what I would give to have him here now. Of course, he would be 100 years old, and probably not too keen to play anymore. (I finally got around to learning to play a little around 1971.) Any good player takes a backgame only as a last resort. Too many things can go wrong. And when it loses, it loses a gammon.

Hbrennan writes:

1-2 is a lot better than people give it credit for... if it is well timed. the reason it isn't favored is that the opponent normally has a prime built out to the eight point in front of it, and gets to a point where sixes can't be played, helping the primer's timing, and then to a point where fives and sixes can't be played, further helping the primer's timing. The 2-3 backgame is favoured because almost all rolls must be played when the primer is coming in. when this isn't true, the primer has had to leave a gap in the prime, which enhances the odds of leaving an early shot. A well timed 1-2 backgame is better than the others, all other things being equal, but are much harder to keep well timed... in summary.

Bob Hoey writes:

There is an infamous book on backgammon with the great title, Backgammon for Blood, written by Bruce Becker. Becker was not much of a player from all I could tell and his advice in the book is very bad. One of his favorite things was to play backgames. When I read his book, some 20 years ago, I tried to pursue backgames a lot and learned my lesson. Backgames are great, if you know when to seriously pursue them, but they are only a way of cutting your losses. To seek to play backgames as an aggressive strategy is lunacy. As for position, I prefer 2-4 as my favorite backgame position, followed by 2-3, 1 -3, 3-4,1-4 and 1-2 as the least desireable. The key to backgames is timing. Knowing when to move aggressively to establish a backgame is the most critical skill in my opinion. Too soon is a bad thing and too late is disastrous.

Did you find the information in this article useful?

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