{"id":583,"date":"2023-07-02T11:55:34","date_gmt":"2023-07-02T11:55:34","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/?page_id=583"},"modified":"2023-07-02T18:22:07","modified_gmt":"2023-07-02T18:22:07","slug":"the-big-doubling-skill-test","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/the-big-doubling-skill-test\/","title":{"rendered":"The big doubling skill test :-)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Okay, my checker play skills continue to improve, while my cube skills stay on a horrible PR 20 “casual player” level. Time to practice. Maybe you’d like to join – I’m taking cubing positions from the wonderful bgtrain.com<\/a> that I failed to assess correctly and discuss them here. Did you find the right answers?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Enjoy!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Position 1: Doubling against a back game<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Black to play. Should he cube? And if yes, should white take?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I was guessing this is a “no double \/ take”. In my experience, a 43 backgame is a strong backgame; white has some timing to fix his board until black might run into trouble. I considered the fifth man behind an asset rather than a liability – gives white plenty of timing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the machine thinks otherwise:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Seems I was both right and wrong – black’s winning chances are not high enough for a double – white will win over one in three games. However, I didn’t take the gammons into account. And with five checkers back white, if black manages not to get hit, or even occupy the 2 point and let white dance for a while, there will be gammons. 28% gammons is a lot, turning the decision into a double\/pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Position 2: Late-Game Hit: Redouble or not?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
Black’s roll. Cube action?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is obviously a game that went well for white, who doubled and then got hit immediately before bearoff. However, black has not built a strong board yet. Should black redouble?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

My reasoning was that black’s board is not strong enough for a redouble. (S)he has good chances to make the 5 point, but if (s)he fails or white enters with something like 64 or 54 this can easily turn around. Black has some outfield control but not much. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But again I was wrong. Not re-doubling is a serious blunder.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I must confess I’m a bit confused by this analysis – 70% isn’t too much, 4% gammon chance also not overwhelming. It’s also not the close match – if black redoubles in a match to 5 pt, white doesn’t gain much by owning the cube. But also in a money game, black should double (although it’s not a -0.15 blunder but only a small -0.05 mistake to not double).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hm, maybe I was just wrong about the 75% you need to redouble? Anyway, the biggest portion of my blunder was not seeing that white re-cubing this re-cube has little value, and that in a match to 5, recubing to 4 is doesn’t require as big of a lead as a money game recube.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take against a weak board and many opportunities?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
White has re-doubled. Should black take or drop?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In case you’re wondering – this is a screenshot using BGBlitz and one of its beautiful designs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is a tricky one. Black has a very strong board, white a blot and a weak 3-point board, but black has one checker on the bar, white has >50% chance of hitting a second checker. But white also has to take care of its own blot urgently – if it can’t cover and black comes in with a 5, the game will turn around.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I decided all these factors are well enough to take.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Wrong. Again. And badly wrong at that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Taking is a -0.457 super blunder. kruidenbuiltje has given a great explanation on the page: “Red has good diversification: 1,3,6 + {D4,D2,42} = 31\/36 covers. Of those {24,D2,D4,23,21,43,41,62,64,D1} = 17\/36 hit + cover. And then there is the match score, and the double kills the cube for white. At 0-0(5) it is a Take.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And he’s right :-). As a money game this is a take, as a redouble to 4 of a 5pt game it is a pass.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It’s the match, stupid<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\"\"
White is redoubling to 4. Should blue take or drop?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

This is all about the match score. White has 83 pips to go and only a lead of 5 pips. An easy take. If this wasn’t a match to five where white trails 1-2. If blue takes, the game is about the match win. If he drops, he trails 2:3. So while white has only 70% wins and 0% gammons, blues prospects of winning the match are better at 2:3 (where, if we trust XG2, he still will win 40% of the matches, not just 30%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Do I need to stress that I, roughly remembering a rule about racing lead and taking once the groups have split, decided to take?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Okay, my checker play skills continue to improve, while my cube skills stay on a horrible PR 20 “casual player” level. Time to practice. Maybe you’d like to join – I’m taking cubing positions from the wonderful bgtrain.com that I failed to assess correctly and discuss them here. Did you find the right answers? Enjoy! […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-583","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/583","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=583"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/583\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":612,"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/583\/revisions\/612"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gammonrants.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=583"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}