| |
|
| |
Steve Sax
|
Competitive backgammon players play at all levels of ability. While each player has their strengths and weaknesses, to define how good a specific player is can be answered either subjectively based on another player's opinion or using objective evidence which can be obtained by using bots such as Gnu or Snowie.
Since I'm most familiar with Snowie I'll refresh the reader's knowledge of the ranking system Snowie uses regarding skill level. The lowest rank is Novice and the highest rank is Extra-Terrestrial. In between there is Beginner, Intermediate, Advanced, Expert, and World Class.
| The rest of this article (71.99 K) is premium content. |
GammonVillage Subscriptions:
Choose a subscription length. Your best value is the lifetime subscription.
|
Article text Copyright © 1999-2008 Steve Sax and GammonVillage Inc.
Feedback about this article:
# 1
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
23 Feb 2008 12:08 EST
|
Hey Steve, can I now lobby Markowitz to stay in the Intermediate? (;-)) [not gonna happen, playing better players only improves one's own game] One of the vagaries of backgammon is that any of us can beat the world-class or expert players some of the time. My Snowie ratings are getting better, but not consistently enough. But playing great players and recording the matches allows me to study and improve. Thanks for the article and for being part of Gammon Associates for so many years --and mostly for being so open to discussions and mentoring us wannabes. ________patrick (mfic)
# 2
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
26 Feb 2008 19:28 EST
|
Great article as always, Steve. Looking forward to a collection of your articles in book form one of these days. It seems that you left out 2-2 as a possibility to hit in Sax-Gibson 9; not that it would make a difference in the logic of the situation and, perhaps, it would be better played without hitting anyway.
# 3
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
26 Feb 2008 22:25 EST
|
Hi Steve: Cube action between mismatched opponents is a complex subject; one could write a book about it. :-) An important factor for deciding whether to deviate from theoretically correct play is the FUP (the last letter stands for "Pontential") of the position. It is hard to screw up a race or bearoff, so those games are ones where if the stronger player is considering a pass he probably should. But an early game blitz is very hard for the blitzer to play, and is probably a take. (Most players trying to use the Fish Factor get these backwards.) In the position above where Pat doubled the decisions look fairly straightforward. Pat doesn't have the ammo to attack right away (unless the dice deal him a barrage of doubles), so he will bring builders down, probably built a prime from the back, and wind up bearing in against a 3pt or 4pt holding game. Any game has potential traps for the unwary, but a player of Pat's strength is not likely to fall for many more than a player of yours would. This isn't the part of the boat that leaks. Passing was probably correct. Best, Jake
# 4
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
27 Feb 2008 12:05 EST
|
Great article Steve, very helpful. Hope to see both of you and the L.A. crew soon. Take Care, John Jennings
# 5
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
28 Feb 2008 13:05 EST
|
Ho hum...just another great article that reminds me how little I know! Relative to ranking players, more and more I have been using the golf handicap system to describe players. As you pointed out, no single name or number can accurately describe a player's skills, as some players are far better money than match players, and some who might be excellent money players are lousy in chouettes. Having said that, I rank Snowie as a scratch player, and give the top players in the world -1 to -4 handicaps. Top open players are around 1-5 handicaps, and low open players are around 5-12 handicaps. Intermediates can range from 12-24 handicaps, and after that, the handicaps are not applicable or necessary. What's nice about golf handicaps is it can be used to help level the playing field for gambling and even tournament play. I am sure the same can be done in Backgammon, though when I try to determine what a fair handicap would be if one player is a 5 and the other is a 10, I get a headache. But what I have found is when I sit around with friends and we discuss the comparative skills of various players, using the golf handicap system is very useful and descriptive compared to using non-numerical terms. I also use Snowie numerics, saying that I think one player is a 6.5 player and another is a 6.0 player. Using the on-line ratings, such as 1800 and 1900 etc. are, in my opinion, pretty useless, as I have seen many people with ratings no where near their true skill level. Phil Simborg (by the way, I rate myself a 9 handicap, and I'll be happy to play you for whatever you like if you give me a 3-1 opening, the cube on my side, one roll-over, and Paul Franks rolling for me.)
# 6
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
02 Mar 2008 10:16 EST
|
I have a feling that u write the aticles that i want:0everytime i wanted to learn something it appear in your articles;)hello Pat:) gl both in Midwest..!:)
# 7
| Subject: |
Re: Competing Against the Advanced Level Backgammon Player |
| From: |
|
| Date: |
26 Mar 2008 01:06 EST
|
Steve, Thanks so much for your articles. I have gained so much from them. I'm curious, in Sax-Gibson 9, my first instinct was 22/18 11/5. I set it up on GNU to see where it ranked compared to the two plays you compared and it came out ranked first. Is this a misprint of the position or do Snowie and GNU differ in their analysis? Curious how you would rate this checker play. Maybe its a match score play? Thanks in advance, MD
You must be signed in to post comments.
|
(19%)
