By Robert Wachtel
Perhaps the Swiss Backgammon Open was a bit steep for the locals. It drew only 16 entrants – though even this small field proved insurmountable for me. I had more luck in the smaller-money tournament, the official Swiss Backgammon Championship, with its 45 participants. I made it, in fact, to the finals, where I faced local favorite Serge Didisheim in a 17 point match. We seesawed back and forth in the opening stages, and then I pulled away. I led 14-11, and was I was winning the next game and holding the cube as well. We reached an “almost” two roll position:
Last chance to redouble, for surely there will be no market left for a take after most sequences. Time to put the match on the line, no?
Well, no, absolutely not! If I redouble and Didisheim passes, reaching 16-11 at the Crawford game, he will retain only about an 11% chance to win the match. And that, consequently, is his take point here, since once I redouble to 4 he will redouble to 8 on the next roll, putting the entire match on the line. Yet he has 22.5% winning chances in this position! Redoubling would be a horrible blunder.
Even in a pure two-roll position like this,
Black, with 14% winning chances, has a very easy take (though it is right for White to redouble).
To get Black close to pass territory, we need to take away one of his working doubles in the two-roll position:
To get Black close to pass territory, we need to take away one of his working doubles in the two-roll position:
This one is very borderline, but probably still a take, with Black having about 11.5% winning chances.
The good news: I didn’t redouble. The bad news: my opponent shot a double three on his next roll! So I lost two (not eight!) points, and the backgammon match continued, with the score now 14-13. Didisheim won the next game as well, bringing us to 14-14. Our 17-point match had boiled down to a three-point match. And now Mr. Didisheim, who had been too slow with the cube on a number of occasions earlier, seemed to find his rhythm. He doubled me in this early position:
The good news: I didn’t redouble. The bad news: my opponent shot a double three on his next roll! So I lost two (not eight!) points, and the backgammon match continued, with the score now 14-13. Didisheim won the next game as well, bringing us to 14-14. Our 17-point match had boiled down to a three-point match. And now Mr. Didisheim, who had been too slow with the cube on a number of occasions earlier, seemed to find his rhythm. He doubled me in this early position:
A very easy take, and technically a little too early – but it’s still no fun to be doubled in a short match when you are an underdog. I took, as I had to, and things went badly – very badly. I came within one roll of getting gammoned (and losing the match)! But I survived and even won the next (Crawford) game, leaving me at 15-16. Didisheim got the opening roll in the next game, I (automatically) doubled, and he took. So we were now playing one game – without the cube – for all the marbles. The pressure was on, and every decision was crucial. I started badly, and was always the underdog in this game, but I kept some fighting chances. Then I rolled a 4-4 in this position:
A very nice roll, but a difficult one to play, for I have many objectives: I would like to escape from my opponent’s board, block him, and smooth out the distribution of my home board checkers. Let’s see what the three candidate plays look like:
(1) the running play
(1) the running play
(2) the blocking play
and (3) the distribution play
Continue reading Robert Wachtel's analysis of backgammon positions from Montreux