Hrqls: That's an interesting position. I'd probably make your 4 point instead, but putting both pieces on the bar with only one exposed may gain some time. I think it's probably a close call.

grenv: ah ok .. thats something to keep in mind .. i already to focus especially on the 5 point .. but 4 is important as well i guess :) .. makes sense :)

Hrqls: Here's and example of when you can play a double hit:

After opp rolls 4-3 and moves 24/20 24/21

Then you roll 3-2. Now you can play 8/5* 8/4*. The possibility of closing the 3 & 4 points is worth the risk. However hitting the 1 & 2 points is not helpful at all.

grenv: i edited my post to add an example which just occured in which i did send both pieces to the bar :)

Hrqls: IN that example definitely not, too risky. I would play 24/20 13/8. Maybe 13/8 13/9 if you're going for a gammon. Problem is that with the split the piece on 9 is more vulnerable.

Which, by the way, is another reason splitting the back men is good, makes it easier to hit the opponent on the next turn. :)

skipinnz & playBunny: uhoh ... i guess i have to bribe the gods of dice then :)

barb .. lets do a special type of game .. lets see if you can roll more 1+2 than i can roll high doubles ;)

grenv: *nod* *blush* :)

suppose my opponent rolls 1+5 on the first roll and moves 13-8,24-23

i then roll 4+5, is it wise to send the pieces from 23 and 24 to the bar but leaving 2 singles in my home ?

or like in this example, where i did send both pieces to the bar (my other option was 16-19,1-3 ?)

i remember it going well for me, but also going pretty bad :)

playBunny: uhm .. i guess i used the word 'home' wrong there :)

suppose your opponent has 2 singles in your home, is it wise to hit both, but leaving 2 singles of my own in your home ? (again, early in the game)

'home' is where i am bearing off from or where my pieces from the bar enter the game ? .. i now guess i bear off from my home :)

Hrqls: I believe your question was meant to be "should i hit twice in my home?". The answer to this is not so clear. Chance of being hit is about 55%, but the advantage gained if not hit can be quite large.

I'd say it depends on how well developed your opponents home is (which would increase the risk) and how many builders you have ready to take advantage next turn.

Hrqls: is it always best to capture 2 pieces of your opponent ?

Not always but much more often than not. The stronger your board the better because the chances of their missing a turn or of only getting one man back in increases dramatically. With 3 points blocked, the table is 75% open for a single man on the bar but with two there the chances of getting both back in is only 25%.

suppose your opponent has 2 singles in his home, is it wise to hit both, but leaving 2 singles of my own in his home ? (again, early in the game)

I'm not sure I understand you here. Blots in his home are to be snapped up in great gulps!

What's a blitz?

This is a devastating attack, often starting with a double against split backrunners, in which the table gets rapidly closed. In the worst case (for the victim) they get to make one move at the start of the game and then have to wait until their opponenent is bearing off before they get another go.

An example.

Going for a blitz usually entails risk, eg. lots of blots as builders are brought into the area to get the table closed, midpoint blot left behind, backrunners left stranded. If the victim recovers (and again doubles often feature quite strongly), the attacker can be at a disadvantage and have the tables turned on them.

Hrqls: You've got 10 half-crossovers or 5 full crossovers to get all your men home. Barb has only got 2. That gives her a lot of time in which to make up for the gap on 23 and 24. (A gap on 4 or 21 is usuually more disaster-prone)

Another way of gauging the race is with the pipcounts. 88 vs 73 has you trailing by two full rolls. Generally, in reasonably matched positions, a deficit of 8% is enough to offer the cube and you'd take when up to 12% behind, depending on how long there is to the end. You're trailing by way too much.

Couple that with the half-crossovers measure and it's a bad picture. Even a juicy 5-5 next go will have you not even matching Barb's current position and she'd have had another roll by then and still be on roll.

That "feeling lucky" needs to be working well, and not be daunted by this spelling out of the situation! May the best dice win.

Hrqls:I wouldn't have accepted double.

i accepted the double in this game .. but i fear i should have dropped ... i am feeling lucky though and hope she will miss some bear offs because she only has 1 piece on 23+24

any opinions ?

is it always best to capture 2 pieces of your opponent ?

suppose my opponent leaves a single in his home, and another single somewhere else on the board. i can hit both singles but i will leave a single in his home (which will cost me quite some pips when hit) ... i am talking about early in the game when not much has changed yet

suppose your opponent has 2 singles in his home, is it wise to hit both, but leaving 2 singles of my own in his home ? (again, early in the game)

(and another question: whats a blitz?)

DragonKing: Correct exept for the opening roll of a new game and if crawford rule is in operation. (that is when 1 player is a point away from a win)

What determines whether or not the doubling cube is used in the games here? And, the cube is used in most games today- in tournaments or what have you. Is that correct? So, if the cube is being used here in a game here- then when I sign on to move I will have the option to double or roll the dice?

Czuch Chuckers: pair up on 18, not even close I don't think. The anchor on opponents 7 is very good.

pentejr: 2-2, 3-3, 4-4 and 6-6 are indeed 4 rolls.

However: 2-1, 1-2, 2-3, 3-2, 3-4, 4-3, 5-6, 6-5 are 8 rolls!!

remember non double rolls come up twice as often as double rolls.

In addition to playBunny's point that a double can be used well in your own home, whereas a 4-3 might not be so good without the split.

pentejr: Hmmm, but why waste juicy doubles that you could use to make home points with (having brought that 5 down to the 8-=point).

Have a look at the opening move rollouts and see how much splitting with the 1 is in favour. 5-1 as 24/18 is considered to be a blunder. (See Backgammon Links above)

The other aspect of splitting is that it gives two options on attacking the outer table or making a break for it.

grenv: So after you have moved the 24,23 then next roll is a 6 5, you would pair up on 18 or run 24 to 13? fter thinking about it, the pair does seem better,but any chance to run from the 24 point?

Thanks to both of you. Most of the reasons both of you gave made sense. However, I still say splitting with a 1 is a liability, though it may be the best of some bad options with 5-1. It reduces your chances of getting an advanced anchor. There are the three rolls grenv mentioned split, but there are four rolls (double 2,3,4, or 6) that get you there without splitting.

pentejr: 13/8 adds a safe spare to 8. As grenv says that gives you the option of using a double, 1-1 being especially tasty. Even without a double you get to use one builder to make a home point and still have another for subsequent rolls. A piece on 8 is a banked asset in a way that slotting your opponent's barpoint isn't.

If that barpoint blot is hit then you've lost the entire roll unless you get one of the 14 retaliatory rolls. You mention thos 4/36 spoilers for that barpoint blot but there's also 5-1 which gets you double-tapped and in danger of a blitz. Then, not only do you waste the opening move but also your second roll too, unless you get a 1 or a double.

The split and bring-down-builders is the best move with many rolls because it advances your cause on both sides of the board. A setback in one of these areas isn't a total loss.

Splitting with a difference of 1 is relatively safer than other splits. A point made on the 2 is deep and commits two builders. Splitting with 2 is vulnerable to a 5-5 and a blitz. Splitting to the 4 and 5-points and getting pointed on is much more uncomfortable than the same on 2.

None of these things is conclusive but they all add their tuppence worth to the mix.

pentejr:
possible reasons

1. Four pieces is better than three (if you roll a double for instance)

2. Splitting the back with 24/23 is good - if you roll 6-5, 4-3 or 3-2 next turn for instance you get an advanced anchor.

3.Rollouts say 13/8 24/23 is better, so who am I to argue?

grenv: Ok, disagreeing is great. I figured most people would. I just can't figure out why. What about my reasoning doesn't make sense?

I don't think this move would help in gammon save situations because it is more risky than the move you suggest, not less. I don't like 13/8, 24/23 because it doesn't really accomplish anything. Splitting your back men without getting any real separation between them, in my experience, makes it harder to get them out rather than easier. 13/8 doesn't build anything, as you already have 3 pieces on the 8 point. So disagreeing is cool, but why?

pentejr: oops, my mistake. In that case I vehemently disagree.
Your move may be correct in gammon save situations, but I think 13/8 24/23 is correct in most cases.

grenv: I didn't say 13/8, 24/23. I said 24/23, 23/18. Much different move.

pentejr: I agree with 13/8 24/23. I never play anything else.

I'm pretty convince on 13/11, 6/5 for 2-1, but I would like to hear what others think on the opening roll of 5-1. I move 24/23, 23/18 with 5-1. This gives me a good chance to make my opponent's 7 point, which pretty much cripples their chances for locking in my runners. Also, if my opponent hits my blot without covering (and a cover there is pretty unlikely, just 4 rolls out of 36, by my count), I have good chances to hit back (any 6 or 7) on my next turn. Plus, every time we trade shots on my opponent's 7 point, I gain in overall pip count. What am I missing here.

I consider myself an aggressive player, and I regularly slot the 5 point with both 2-1 and 4-1. However, with 5-1, you can't generate any cover for that slot with the 5, which makes 6/5 more dangerous and less rewarding.

So...what about all that?

Czuch Chuckers: Perhaps they mean the Outer Board 5 point? Just because the 1 through 24 numbering system is used here for notation doesn't mean that some people don't describe Backgammon by the actual names of the points. Could that be what the author means? Your Outer 5 point is the 11 point on this site.

grenv: lol, Yes, impossible's a strong word. I suspect that it's close to the truth though. I'd have to see the code too. (btw. The quick check bit isn't quite right. There would have to be a dice roll at the end of each move in order to know whether the next move is possible or not.)

My point is that there are already elements of n auto pass type system already coded into part of brainking, as given by the example from Luke and this particular one as well, and there are probably more.....

So any reason for not having autopass is only an excuse as the only valid reason is that Fencer just doesnt want to do it.

playBunny: I can't imagine it's impossible actually. All it would take is a quick check at the end of the turn, if the next player can't move then roll the dice and move for that player (using the current code but calling it now instead of waiting for a player action).

I don't think it breaks the design so much so as to make it so very difficult to code. On the other hand I won't know for sure unless I see the code.

Czuch: "when white goes to that game both dice are rolled until there is no double"

This is correct.

"why is it okay for me (as white) to roll for black in the initial roll?"

This is not quite correct.

The server rolls the dice not the players, though a player is required to trigger the rolling. So white isn't rolling one for himself and one for black. White is asking the server to roll for both of them. There's no need for turn taking at this stage. In real life both players can roll simultaneously or in any order - it makes no difference as long as there are two dice values coming out of it.

"if auto pass isnt acceptable, then I should be promted (as white) to enter the game and one die should be rolld, [..elaborate sequence..]"

But even allowing for this conceptual sequence.. Because auto-pass isn't unavailable out of principle, the sequence doesn't follow from there being no auto-pass. It's not that auto-pass "unacceptable", it's that it's impossible (without reworking of the design).

in some line variations where the first move is forced by the rules, the first move is done by the system.

playBunny: Lets see if I have it correct.... The program gives white the first turn, when white goes to that game both dice are rolled until there is no double, but we do not see this nor does black have any involvement, except that one of the die are considered to have been rolled by black and the other by white, and if the one considered to be rolled by white is higher than that of black, then white takes their turn right then with the two dice that were rolled to determine who goes first, then the program will not roll the dice again until black enters for their turn?

I guess my point is, why is it okay for me (as white) to roll for black in the initial roll? To me, if auto pass isnt acceptable, then I should be promted (as white) to enter the game and one die should be rolld, end my turn. Then black should be prompted for their turn to roll the die, then if both die have the same roll, it goes back to white for another turn and back to black until the dice have different olls, then to the player with the highest roll for the next turn.

So I contend that indeed turns are skipped, the way it is played out, therefore auto passed for the sake of saving time!

grenv: The concern over "chatting" is ridiculous.

Yeah!!!!!!!!
The first 2 reasons of Fencer are very easily rejected by the simple way of making auto-pass an extra option and the default the current way. So less-experienced users won't be confused at all.....!
The 3rd is the ridiculous we agreed....LOL!

Czuch Chuckers: That's not an auto-pass because nobody skips a turn. The dice rolling code is entered and it doesn't leave until it has a non-double - totally different from auto-pass. And that initial roll still only occurs when the player visits the page. An if they lose that dice roll and the other player has to start, there's been an unnecessary delay there too!

playBunny: Well, this double roll to begin a game is an example where auto pass is already in use! Thats my point! If it can be used in this instance, why not in others?

grenv: I disagree with the 24/22.

I agree, you're right. I'm doing too many things at once here and that one was hasty. 13/11 is vital cover for the slot. I'd never do 24/22 and slot!

So the typo was in "Split your back checkers (24/23) and slot your five-point. It " would be the 'and' which should have been 'or'. but worse, they've completely missed out the "bring a two down from the mid-point (13/11" (copied from the 3-2 above on that page) which makes that section sensible.

playBunny: Hear hear

The concern over "chatting" is ridiculous. What's the difference between making one move or ten and then chatting? I don't get it. I think your reason is likely the only one.

Czuch: Fencer's reasons.

As far as I'm concerned there's only one real reason why auto-pass can't be done and that's because the original design didn't allow for it. The method of dice-rolling is to roll them when the user accesses the page. This precludes auto-pass.

Sites that implement auto-pass roll the dice at the first opportunity. At GoldToken, for instance, if you make a move and then visit the game (non-cube) page immediately afterwards you will be able to see the dice that your opponent will be playing - whether they're online or not. By rolling the dice automatically the system is in a position to skip the move if necessary. At BrainKing, because the dice are rolled only when the player visits the page, there is no opportunity to skip the move. I reckon the changes required would be quite considerable, hence auto-pass is not an option. Any other reasoning for auto-pass being BAD is spurious.

playBunny: I disagree with the 24/22. Here is the whole text for context.

"Split your back checkers (24/23) and slot your five-point. It was right to split your back checkers until recently, when modern computer rollouts showed that slotting is usually better, but you can vary this depending on the match score."

Clearly it is comparing splitting to slotting and assuming the 13/11.

In fact later in the site it has the two options:

"Opening 24/23, 13/11 13/11, 6/5"

Czuch, Grenv: There's no doubt that slotting the five must use the one so you can assume that 24/23 is a typo and should be 24/22.

However, that opening rolls article is the easy-to-use one and is older than the Opening Move Rollouts (link at the foot of that page) which show 13/11 6/5 to be the best move for 2-1 except in the gammon-save situation.

So for a nice read use the opening rolls page and for accuracy you should go by the Rollouts page.

Czuch Chuckers: Yes good reason to chat and see the move that auto-passes, but why not make it an option? At least an option.....It would speed up the game considerably and i think many would use it.....

About seeing what was the starting double. It is completely pointless! I can't find any reason i want to see which was the starting double that happened and led to a re-roll by the system for having a non-double.....
Tell me a reason....

grenv: It also doesnt mention the 13,11 either?
Are there any other typos or mis-statements in this link as well?

Now I have something to go on about.....

One of Fencers reasons for not having it is so we can chat between moves. We even have to see when we have "lost the initial roll" and have to pass that "non turn" but at least we can still write a message!

So, my question, why cant we see when the initial roll is a double and have that opportunity to chat as well? Why is that the only instance that this site uses the 'forbidden auto pass'????????

Czuch Chuckers: I understand what it says, I am telling you it is a typo and means what I said it means.

hat is copy and pasted straight off of the link word for word, it says clearly to split the back and slot the five....

Czuch Chuckers: 2-1 would normally be 13/11 24/23

I think it probably means 13/11 is correct no matter what, and then either 24/23 OR slot the 5-point. Slotting the 5-point is better than it looks, especially if you need a gammon.

playBunny: For the roll 2,1
it says....Split your back checkers (24/23) and slot your five-point.
If you split your back checkers (thats using the 1 roll) how do you slot your 5 point with the 2 roll? I am haing a blind spot to see how this is completed?