Article View: rec.games.backgammon
Article #36Tournament Match
From: David Escoffery
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:07
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:07
371 lines
17800 bytes
17800 bytes
butch meese recently posted a match between two open (and known) players ..
others have responded that they would like to see such annotations continue
to be posted .. I agree ..
as a contrast, here is a beginner's match which I annotated last month in
las vegas .. one of the players is a friend of mine who was playing in his
first tournament .. the caliber of play is quite high, although as with
many beginner's matches, cubes are often thrown too late, and rejected too
quickly .. my complete analysis of the match follows at the end .. enjoy ..
Nevada
Backgammon
Championships
June 20, 1992
Beginner's Consolation
Semi-Finals:
7 Points
GAME 1
White: [0] Black: [0]
1 43: 13/9 13/10 64: 24/14
2 64: 10/4 8/4 64: 24/14
3 63: 24/18 13/10 33: 13/7*(2)
4 26: bar/23 9/3 63: 14/8 14/11
5 65: 10/4 8/3 22: 6/4(2) 1j1/7
6 24: 6/4 24/20 double
7 drop
GAME 2
White: [0] Black: [1]
1 21: 13/10
2 41: 13/9 6/5 52: 13/8 24/22
3 42: 9/5 13/11 62: 22/14*
4 21: bar/24 13/11* 21: bar/24 13/11
5 63: 24/15* 43: bar/21 24/21
6 45: 24/15 52: 21/14*
7 63: bar/22 24/18 55: 8/3*(2) 21/11
8 36: 0 32: 14/11 24/22
9 65: bar/20 8/2 55: 6/1(2) 11/1
10 32: 20/15 22: 11/7*(2)
11 36: 0 51: 22/16
12 56: bar/20 15/9* 33: bar/22 8/5*(2) 6/3
13 62: bar/23 15/9 63: 13/10* 13/7
14 66: 0 42: 22/18 7/5
15 34: bar/21 6/3 42: 10/4*
16 21: bar/23 3/2 double
17 drop
GAME 3
White: [0] Black: [2]
1 52: 13/8 13/11 22: 24/20(2)
2 63: 24/15 62: 20/14* 20/18
3 45: bar/20 15/11* 21: bar/24 18/16
4 33: 8/5(2) 11/8 24/21 65: 24/13
5 31: 13/9* 41: bar/24 6/2
6 31: 21/20 8/5 34: 6/2 6/3
7 44: 8/4(2) 6/2(2) 56: 24/13
8 43: 20/13 66: 13/7(4)
9 53: 20/15 9/6 11: 7/6(4)
10 double drop
GAME 4
White: [1] Black: [2]
1 63: 24/15
2 11: 6/5(2) 8/7(2) 33: 8/5(2) 6/3(2)
3 65: 13/8 13/7 62: 15/9 8/6
4 21: 13/10 64: 13/3
5 55: 13/3(2) 21: 9/6
6 32: 7/4 6/4 62: 13/5
7 double drop
GAME 5
White: [2] Black: [2]
1 54: 13/8 13/9 32: 13/10 13/11
2 21: 9/7 8/7 32: 24/21 13/11
3 65: 24/13 62: 21/13
4 61: 13/7 24/23 63: 13/7 10/7
5 33: 8/5(2) 6/3(2) 41: 11/7 24/23
6 53: 13/8 23/20 52: 11/6 23/21
7 32: 7/4* 6/4 26: bar/23 8/2
8 double drop
GAME 6
White: [3] Black: [2]
1 54: 13/8 13/9
2 32: 13/10 13/11 33: 8/5(2) 24/21(2)
3 53: 24/16* 13: bar/22 6/5
4 52: 16/11 10/8 22: 6/4(2) 22/20 13/11
5 53: 13/5* 22: bar/23 5/1* 8/6
6 51: bar/24* 13/8 54: bar/20*/16
7 16: bar/24 8/2* 46: bar/21 16/10
8 65: 24/13 63: 10/4 11/8
9 54: 8/3 6/2 53: 6/1* 3/1
10 23: bar/23 6/3 31: 13/9
11 63: 11/5 8/5 43: 21/14*
12 32: bar/22 13/11* 66: 0
13 double drop
GAME 7
White: [4] Black: [2]
1 64: 24/14
2 41: 13/9 6/5 11: 24/20*
3 42: bar/23 9/5* 26: bar/23 14/8
4 61: 13/7 6/5 32: 23/18*
5 11: bar/24 8/7*(2) 23/22 43: bar/21 13/10
6 33: 8/5 24/15* 14: bar/21 6/5
7 31: 24/20* 23: bar/23 13/10*
8 52: bar/23 20/15* 53: bar/17
9 22: 24/20 22/20 15/13 41: 17/13 23/22
10 43: 7/3* 6/3 21: bar/24 8/6
11 32: 23/20 13/11 21: 6/3
12 41: 20/16 7/6 32: 8/3
13 21: 16/13 11: 3/1(2)
14 54: 6/1* 5/1 43: bar/21 6/3
15 63: 20/11 44: 21/9 13/9
16 33: 11/8(2) 13/9(2) !! 44: 9/5*(2) 8/4(2)
17 31: bar/22* 9/8 65: 0
18 61: 22/16 9/8 55: 0
19 35: 8/5 8/3 53: 0
20 41: 16/11 26: bar/23 13/7
21 32: 11/6 54: 7/2 6/2
22 52: 13/8 13/11 52: 21/11*
23 44: 0 double
24 take 23: 23/21 14/11
25 21: 0 33: 13/7 13/10 11/8
26 32: bar/22 8/6 32: 8/3*
27 54: 0 11: 7/3
28 --- 42: 10/4
29 --- 31: 4/1 2/1
30 51: 0 65: 21/15 21/16
31 41: 0 54: 6/1 6/2
32 62: bar/19 8/6 55: 16/6*/1 15/10
33 55: 0 64: 10/off
34 55: 0 64: 5/off 5/1
35 44: 0 31: 3/2 3/off
36 65: bar/14 53: 4/off 4/1
37 51: 14/9 8/7 53: 2/off(2)
38 11: 9/6 7/6 43: 2/off 1/off
39 31: 3/off 1/off 43: 1/off(2)
40 resigns
GAME 8
White: [4] Black: [4]
1 61: 13/7 8/7
2 32: 13/10 13/11 55: 13/3(2)
3 42: 8/4 6/4 51: 24/18
4 43: 11/7* 10/7 25: bar/20 24/22
5 63: 24/15 44: 13/5(2)
6 63: 24/15 53: 20/15 7/4
7 63: 13/10*/4 56: bar/20 22/16
8 11: 6/5*(2) 13/12(2) 36: bar/16
9 21: 8/6 8/7 56: 6/1 7/1
10 53: 6/1 4/1 43: 6/2 5/2
11 33: 15/12(2) 7/4(2) 61: 8/2 6/5
12 43: 12/5 32: 6/3 6/4
13 41: 7/3 4/3 52: 8/1
14 63: 12/6 5/2 43: 5/1 5/2
15 62: 12/6 12/10 64: 16/10 16/12
16 62: 10/4 2/off double
17 take 61: 12/6 10/9
18 54: 5/off 4/off 55: 9/4 6/1 4/off(2)
19 24: 6/off 66: 4/off 3/off(3)
20 55: 6/1(3) 5/off 51: 2/off 1/off
21 41: 4/off 1/off 62: 2/off(2)
22 21: 4/2 1/off 66: 2/off(3) 1/off
23 51: 4/off 1/off 32: 1/off(2)
GAME 9
Crawford
White: [4] Black: [6]
1 63: 24/15
2 32: 13/10* 13/11 42: bar/23 13/9
3 41: 11/7 8/7 21: 9/7 8/7
4 51: 10/5 6/5 21: 24/22 23/22
5 42: 24/20 24/22 21: 6/5*/3*
6 32: bar/22* bar/23 31: bar/21
7 64: 22/16 13/9 21: 6/4 22/21
8 44: 7/3*(2) 6/2(2) 53: 0
9 11: 23/21* 7/6(2) 21: bar/24
10 42: 16/10 65: 0
11 63: 9/3 10/7 43: 0
12 23: 13/11 13/10 56: 0
13 52: 11/6 7/5 61: bar/24 13/7
14 41: 21/16 61: 13/7 6/5
15 43: 10/6 16/13 65: 8/2 7/2
16 42: 13/7 52: 13/8 7/5
17 53: 7/2 6/3 52: 8/3 13/11
18 55: 7/2(2) 5/off(2) 42: 24/20* 8/6
19 16: bar/24 52: 6/1* 3/1
20 14: bar/21 3/2 64: 24/18 21/17
21 33: 6/3(3) 56: 18/7
22 31: 3/2 42: 11/5
23 11: 3/1 2/1(2) 43: 17/13 7/4*
24 22: 0 56: 21/10
25 35: bar/17 54: 13/8*/4
26 64: 0 61: 20/13
27 44: 0 61: 10/3
28 25: 0 45: 7/3 13/8
29 -- 54: 7/2 8/4
30 -- 41: 5/off
31 -- 21: 2/off 4/3
32 -- 31: 6/3 6/5
33 66: 6/1 62: 5/off 2/off
34 32: 3/off 2/off 42: 4/off 2/off
35 52: 3/off 2/off 53: 5/off 3/off
36 53: 3/off(2) 63: 5/off 3/off
37 54: 2/off(2) 65: 4/off 3/off
38 61: 2/off 1/off 32: 3/off 1/off
39 62: 1/off(2) wins game and match
Overall Impression
What follows are only my impressions -- for most surely my own
tournament record doesn't lend any credibility that my suggestions
are any better than those moves actually played or others not even
considered!
Black was a deceiving player; someone who has studied the game and had
previous tournament experience. However, he is still a beginner in
that he tends not to look past the beginner's (i.e. cautious) move if
he finds it. Only when the position got complicated did he appear to
reach beyond and make superior plays. White was the better overall
player, but played down to Black in many games. White was beaten in
the match because he did not take advantage of his position in the
earlier games, while taking his opponent for granted in the latter
games. Both players appeared equally lucky. Both players made
errors, while both also made excellent plays. White should have won
this match.
Game 1
Nothing exceptionally noteworthy. Black played cautiously. When he
threw the cube White was down only 5 pips (123-118), but up 2
crossovers. White was afraid of being gammoned, and as such finding
himself down 4-0 in a 7-point match. Plus, thinking Black was a
beginner, White elected to drop. White had a take.
Game 2
Black made minor tactical mistakes, opting again on the side of
caution, including unnecessarily burying checkers. White should have
played Move #10 as 18/13. White was forced to leave a shot, and
leaving it in Black's home board would have given White more returns.
Black correctly played for the gammon until White reestablished his
anchor. Correct double and correct drop.
Game 3
I did not like Black's 3rd and 5th moves. Much better would have been
to come in and hit White on his 5-point. But at this point Black
probably felt White was the weaker player. Good double, but a
beginner's drop. Black was only down 1 pip and 1 crossover in a
straight race. A clear take.
Game 4
Much like Game 3. Again Black's 3rd and 5th moves were overcautious.
As White had no bad rolls, White should have played on for several
moves to see if he could have picked up a second man and go for a
gammon. White doubled too soon and let Black off the hook with less
than he deserved.
Game 5
Almost a mirror image of Game 4. Once again White doubled too early.
Even after White's worst possible roll (1-1) White could have still
double Black out if he wanted to. White should have played on, trying
to hit the loose checker behind his prime in order to pick up a second
man and a possible gammon.
Game 6
Here in Move #3 White had the option to make his 5-point. I might
have done so (although I am not 100 percent sure) rather than hitting.
White left himself very vulnerable after the hit. Whereas making his
5-point evened the positional game. The 13/5* hit on White's 5th move
was unnecessary, as White was ahead at the time and his board was much
stronger -- 8/3 6/3 was called for. Overall I felt that Black should
have won this game. But it was a correct double on White's part
(especially in light of the last three games knowing Black would
drop), and a correct drop by Black.
Game 7
This game marked the turning point in the match. Black opened
conservatively, electing to run with 6-4 (24/14) rather than play
24/18 13/9, and then hit the slotted man with 1-1 (24/20*) rather than
the more solid 6/5(2) 8/7(2). I feel that 24/18 is a better play with
the 6 on White's 4th move. Slotting the bar is too committal to a
backgame if Black hits, while Black's bar creates more action, control
of Black's outfield, and less likelihood Black will use his next roll
to escape. On the 6th move, I feel White should have hit on the
4-point: either 24/15* 7/4* (my preference) or 13/4* 7/4. Then,
Black should have hit White's man on his 5-point on his 7th move
(8/5*)
White chose correctly to consolidate with the double-2's on his 9th
move, having won the exchange of hits and positional battle. Holding
both 5-points, Black's poor distribution, and with some market losing
rolls, I think White should have doubled Black prior to his 10th roll.
Besides, Black had not taken a cube yet, and might very well have
dropped.
After coming in, Black plays 8/6 -- 13/11 would have been better. I
would have played Move 11 as 23/20 7/5, but I don't know if it is any
better. Slightly better is 6/4 24/23 instead of 6/3 for Black's 11th
move. Similarly, 8/7(2) 3/2(2) is better than 3/1(2) on Black's 13th
move.
White most surely had a double on his 15th move. More so, I am quite
convinced Black would have dropped.
The misplay on Move 16 made little difference in either the game or
the match.
Again on Move 18 White should have doubled. There is no chance for a
gammon, and no reason to believe Black would take. Once he got the
lucky shot, I think White was upset with the turn of events. Black's
double was correct, and although close, I think White should have
dropped. Why in the world did Black then play 4/1 2/1 for his 29th
move instead of 21/18 4/3. He probably just missed it.
Game 8
To me there was an obvious double called for prior to both White's 7th
and 8th rolls, but perhaps White thought the position too good.
Black's 10th move was excellent. He also correctly played his 12th
move. Black's double was exceptionally good, made at a critical point
in the match. Although White was already bearing off, distribution
favors Black. The pip count really does not matter, although White is
down 49-58. As this is a non-contact position, I ran it through
simulation -- 5000 rollouts show that Black is a 54.2% to 45.8%
favorite. Correct double and correct take.
Game 9
There is no question that Black was quite lucky in the Crawford game,
but he also played a more aggressively than he did in any other.
Perhaps Black sensed the kill. After White brought builders down on
his 11th move, he should have hit 3/1*. White could have also hit
7/1* with the 4-2 on his 10th move, although White really did not need
to go for the gammon at this match score. However, White still should
have hit 3/1* with the 2 on his 10th roll.
I would have played the 5-3 on White's 17th move as 7/2 5/2, keeping
an even number on the last two points, and leaving the same number of
possible bad rolls (4) as 7/2 6/3. Who knows which one is better.
Epilogue
Black went on to win the finals of the beginner's consolation.
===========================================================================
David Escoffery Tel: (408) 427-7718
The Santa Cruz Operation Internet: davide@sco.COM
P.O. Box 1900
Santa Cruz, CA 95061
===========================================================================
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Jul24.230752.7673@sco.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!scorn!davideReferences:
<1992Jul20.160805.20424@cbnewsm.cb.att.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!scorn!davide From: davide@sco.COM (David Escoffery) Subject: Tournament Match Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 23:07:52 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jul24.230752.7673@sco.com> References: <1992Jul20.160805.20424@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> Sender: news@sco.com (News admin) Lines: 372