{"id":141,"date":"2018-09-05T21:16:33","date_gmt":"2018-09-05T19:16:33","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/hallberg.dk\/?p=141"},"modified":"2018-09-05T21:16:33","modified_gmt":"2018-09-05T19:16:33","slug":"learning-from-mistakes-4-conflicting-concepts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/hallberg.dk\/?p=141","title":{"rendered":"Learning from mistakes 4: Conflicting concepts"},"content":{"rendered":"

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.<\/p>\n

The steps are<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Understand why<\/strong> you came to the wrong conclusion.<\/li>\n
  2. Understand how<\/strong> you come to the right conclusion.<\/li>\n
  3. Review the positions multiple times until it becomes natural to you what the right concepts are.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In the following part I have selected two of the positions and go through step one and two.<\/p>\n

    Example 1<\/h2>\n

    Score: 0-0\/3 – Cube centered. White to move 43.<\/p>\n

    \"\"<\/p>\n

    I looked at the following concepts\/rules of thumb:<\/p>\n

      \n
    • 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.<\/li>\n
    • Don’t be afraid of being blitzed when the attacker has 8 or less checkers in the zone .<\/li>\n
    • Don’t be afraid to split when your opponent has striped the 8-point (only two checkers on the 8-point).<\/li>\n
    • Unstacking the heavy mid-point is good.<\/li>\n
    • Bringing more builders into play.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

      Based on these ideas I have three options:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. 24\/20 13\/10 (going for better anchor)<\/li>\n
      2. 24\/21 13\/9 (going for less shots)<\/li>\n
      3. 13\/10 13\/9 (going for more builders)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        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).<\/p>\n

        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.<\/p>\n

        The above conclusion points to a concept that I forgot in my analysis done over the board: Efficiency of opponents next roll<\/em>.<\/p>\n

        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.<\/p>\n

        Example 2<\/h2>\n

        Score: 0-0\/3 – Cube centered. White to move 32.<\/p>\n

        \"\"<\/p>\n

        Concepts that I took into account:<\/p>\n

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

          Again I considered three options:<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. 13\/11 13\/10 (going for prime)<\/li>\n
          2. 13\/10 6\/4 (going for attack)<\/li>\n
          3. 13\/8 (going for safety)<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            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.<\/p>\n

            The next question is should we attack or should we prime?<\/p>\n

            Pro attack (option 2):<\/p>\n

              \n
            • Only one blot<\/li>\n
            • 10 checkers in the zone for a quite strong blitz next roll<\/li>\n
            • Behind in the race<\/li>\n
            • Black has a blot in the home board<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

              Con attack:<\/p>\n

                \n
              • Difficult to attack only one checker<\/li>\n
              • Black has better relative board strength<\/li>\n
              • White is not lost in the race<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                Pro prime (option 1):<\/p>\n

                  \n
                • More checkers in the zone<\/li>\n
                • More control<\/li>\n
                • More possibilities to make point next roll<\/li>\n
                • Behind in the race<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                  Con prime:<\/p>\n

                    \n
                  • Two blots (more risk)<\/li>\n
                  • Not leaving 3 checkers on the mid point<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n

                    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.<\/p>\n

                    The missing piece of the puzzle was that the attack is too slow and it does not have the necessary power.<\/p>\n

                    Good luck with your training. See you at the tables.<\/p>\n

                    Share this:<\/h3>
                    • <\/div><\/li>
                    • Tweet<\/a><\/li>