• Match to 7 White (0) vs. Red (1)
Position posted by Michael Depreli [101903]
Pip counts: White: 151, Red: 159
• Red to play 
• Equities 3-ply, cubeful [grandmaster/Jacob & Trice Met]
|
|
|
|
24/20 |
+0.273 |
| |
59.1% 19.5% 0.8% 40.9% 11.5% 0.4% |
|
|
|
8/4 |
+0.243 ( -0.030) |
| |
59.1% 20.8% 1.2% 40.9% 14.0% 0.9% |
If Red plays 24/20 instead of 8/4, I see gains on White's 18 rolls; they are especially clear on White's 6-6, 6-5, 6-3, 5-1, 4-4, 3-3, 3-1 and 1-1.
I only see significant losses on 10 of White's rolls -- the worst being 6-2, 5-5, 5-2, and 3-2.
Looking at the big picture, I see two important aspects:
Red loses with 24/20 when White hits with a 2. But this doesn't happen often, and when it does, White's position is still vulnerable, so Red remains the favorite a good part of the time. And Red always has the high anchor for security.
When White misses, Red is a huge favorite to end up with both the golden point and a broken five-prime in front of White's rear checkers.
I doubt many players would find this play over the board. Humans learn to generalize and rely on known visual patterns, so unless there is something exceptional about a positions, we don't stop to do the analysis. What interests me about this position is not so much what the best move is, or even why, but rather what is the "red flag," and why didn't I see it?
What feature of this position can I learn to recognize as an indicator that it's time to pause and consider?
-- Dean Gay
With Red having the clearly better board and White's inner-board blot, it doesn't seem like the split is in much danger, nor is the high anchor badly needed.
If the blot on the 4-point gets hit it will be costly for Red, so Red should cover it.
-- Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
|
• Match to 7 White (6/Crawford) vs. Red (4)
Position posted by Ian Dunstan [111203]
Pip counts: White: 128, Red: 147
• Red to play 
• Equities 3-ply, cubeless [grandmaster/Kazaross Met]
|
|
|
|
24/22 8/6 6/4(2) |
+0.237 |
| |
60.5% 17.5% 0.8% 39.5% 18.5% 0.6% |
|
|
|
24/22(2) 13/11 7/5 |
+0.202 ( -0.034) |
| |
59.0% 16.7% 0.6% 41.0% 11.6% 0.4% |
|
|
|
24/22(2) 13/11(2) |
+0.173 ( -0.063) |
| |
57.7% 15.3% 0.5% 42.3% 11.5% 0.3% |
|
|
|
24/22(2) 13/9 |
+0.171 ( -0.066) |
| |
57.7% 14.8% 0.5% 42.3% 12.9% 0.4% |
|
|
|
24/22(2) 13/11 8/6 |
+0.165 ( -0.072) |
| |
57.2% 16.0% 0.6% 42.8% 11.7% 0.3% |
|
|
|
13/11 8/6 6/4(2) |
+0.150 ( -0.087) |
| |
56.2% 18.1% 0.8% 43.8% 16.3% 0.9% |
24/22(2) does great damage to White's priming abilities, while keeping open the possibility of extending Red's prime later.
After that 13/11 7/5 looks nice, safe and flexible.
-- Lasse Hjorth Madsen
If Red makes the 22-point anchor and plays 13/11 7/5 White has few good shots. Two large numbers will play poorly and if White rolls a number that hops out Red gets a triple shot since 5's hit on White's 8-point.
Making the anchor looks far better than making the 4-point and playing a battle of primes in spite of better timing.
One point to note is that after making the 4-point, White's runners are split and diversified while Red's are not (unless he plays 24/22 8/6 6/4(2) and gets attacked, which risks White hopping later).
24/22(2) 13/11 7/5 for me.
-- Neil Kazaross
Red has superior timing, so he would be happy to go into a prime vs. prime mode and wait White out, which argues for 13/11 8/6 6/4(2).
However, GNU keeps telling me not to put all my eggs in one basket--to go ahead and grab the anchor now so there is a plan (B) in case the prime fails.
Let's see if I've learned the right lesson: 24/22(2) 13/11 7/5.
-- Dean Gay
Rollouts (First 6 plies: 2-ply/50%, later plies: 0-ply/expert, cubeless, Full, 1296 games) indicate that 24/22 8/6 6/4(2) is better by .020.
It makes the 4-point, creates a five-prime and splits the rear men. I admit the arguments made here for 24/22(2) 13/11 7/5 are strong, but the five-prime created after 24/22 8/6 6/4(2) is very strong against White's backmen and White's suspect timing.
-- Ian Dunstan
|
|
