Learning from mistakes 4: Conflicting concepts

Yesterday I played a 3-point match where everything went wrong. Somehow I managed to use the wrong concepts in a lot of positions. It is rather painful to go through the game step-by-step but that is in fact the most important part of improving.

The steps are

1. Understand why you came to the wrong conclusion.
2. Understand how you come to the right conclusion.
3. Review the positions multiple times until it becomes natural to you what the right concepts are.

In the following part I have selected two of the positions and go through step one and two.

Example 1

Score: 0-0/3 – Cube centered. White to move 43.

I looked at the following concepts/rules of thumb:

• Don’t split when your opponent made the 2-point early in the game. By splitting you give the opponent a chance to attack you and get value of the 2-point.
• Don’t be afraid of being blitzed when the attacker has 8 or less checkers in the zone .
• Don’t be afraid to split when your opponent has striped the 8-point (only two checkers on the 8-point).
• Unstacking the heavy mid-point is good.
• Bringing more builders into play.

Based on these ideas I have three options:

1. 24/20 13/10 (going for better anchor)
2. 24/21 13/9 (going for less shots)
3. 13/10 13/9 (going for more builders)

Choosing between option 1 and 2 heavily relies on the amount of good rolls Black can roll. Black will hit the checker on the 10-point with both 54 and 63 where only 44 and 62 will hit on the 9-point (22 will make the 4-point).

On top of that Black is more happy to hit loose on the 5-point with aces because they are not especially useful anywhere else. We can conclude that 24/21 13/9 is better than 24/20 13/10.

The above conclusion points to a concept that I forgot in my analysis done over the board: Efficiency of opponents next roll.

Now, choosing between option 2 and 3 is difficult. Looking at the concepts option 3 seems to meet most of the criteria. Option 2 win more games where option 3 win more gammons. It turns out that they are basically equally good with a very small bias towards option 3.

Example 2

Score: 0-0/3 – Cube centered. White to move 32.

Concepts that I took into account:

• Pip-count: Down by 18 before the roll
• Risk of being hit
• Relative board strength
• Builders for attacking
• Unstacking the mid-point (13-point)
• Leave 3 checkers on the mid-point

Again I considered three options:

1. 13/11 13/10 (going for prime)
2. 13/10 6/4 (going for attack)
3. 13/8 (going for safety)

Analyzing option 3 is easy. We are behind in the race and it is not super risky to be hit because of the blot on Blacks 4-point. These factors are enough to dismiss option 3.

The next question is should we attack or should we prime?

Pro attack (option 2):

• Only one blot
• 10 checkers in the zone for a quite strong blitz next roll
• Behind in the race
• Black has a blot in the home board

Con attack:

• Difficult to attack only one checker
• Black has better relative board strength
• White is not lost in the race

Pro prime (option 1):

• More checkers in the zone
• More control
• More possibilities to make point next roll
• Behind in the race

Con prime:

• Two blots (more risk)
• Not leaving 3 checkers on the mid point

Taking all these considerations into account one point becomes clear. We do not have a position where we can win here and now. If we have to build up to an attack or a priming game the latter has way more long time potential. This takes a lot of power out of the attacking plan and leaves us with the priming option.

The missing piece of the puzzle was that the attack is too slow and it does not have the necessary power.

Good luck with your training. See you at the tables.