I liked that book. I didn't completely buy into its four main theories, but I still found a lot to like. It's been so long since I read it that I probably should go back for a second look. I doubt that all of its plays will stand up to modern XG rollouts.
In my analysis of early game play (and all plays, really), I like to "tell a story" to explain why a bot chooses one play over another. The stories I tell can then be used to find the correct plays in related positions. At its worst, this is called "ex post facto" analysis. The stories may sound good, but that does not mean they are right.
If you test your theories enough, however, and compare them with the ideas of others, you will eventually find some "stories" you like.
Let me give an example.
For a very long time, I have been trying to figure out why it is sometimes wrong to make two points when you roll 11 on the second roll. Usually, you just grab the bar point and 5pt, and be done with it. With certain openings, however, that is wrong. In particular, that's the wrong way to play 11 after you opponent opens with 54-split (24/20, 13/8) or 43-split (24/20, 13/10).
White - Pips 158
Black - Pips 167
54S-11: Black to Play 11
The story we are usually told is that you would have to leave a blot on the 8pt if you make the bar point. What a terrible risk! The opponent can hit with an 8 from the bar. That's a whopping 5 shots. You should be scared. (Note that 22 is blocked, so not all 8s will hit).
I'm calling balderdash on that story! Obviously the 5 shots are important, but they can't be the whole story. The bar point is a valuable point. It is worth taking some risks to make it. There must be a million positions where we would risk 5 shots to grab an asset such as that. The 5 shots are certainly part of the story, but we need something else to go with them.
At first, I toyed with the idea of anchoring rolls. So long as you can enter easily, having a checker on the bar is like have your back checkers split. The bar is like a phantom 25pt. When your two rear checkers are split to the 25pt and 24pt, there are more rolls that make an advanced anchor than there are when both checkers are together on the 24pt. So, the second part of my story became this: against an advanced anchor, the 8pt is a better blocking point than the bar point. Since you can't have both of them, keep the 8pt.
I tried this story for a while, but eventually I decided it was not a very good one. For one thing, there are not that many anchoring rolls anyway, just 43, 32, and perhaps 21.
Now I have a better tale. The problem, indeed, is the blot you leave behind when you make the bar point. The problem is not, however, the 5 shots. The problem is that the opponent will almost never voluntarily enter on the 24pt. The checker on the bar is coming in on a higher point, and no matter which point that is, it will be within 6 pips of the blot on your 8pt.
That means you will lose some of the initiative. It's not the 5 hitting rolls. It's the 23 rolls that neither hit nor dance nor force an entry on the 24pt. Those are the rolls where you will be forced to deal with a blot that is exposed to a direct shot. Instead of playing freely, making the best of what the dice give you, you will be forced to consider whether to save your blot on the 8pt.
In addition to that, I get to toss in a piece of my anchoring story. This time it applies to a blot, however, rather than an anchor. Here goes: Against most splits, the 8pt does a better job of containment than the bar point.
So, that's my new story. I'm still trying it out. I don't know if it's any good. One cool thing is that I invented this story. Unlike the other 99.9% of everything I know about backgammon, this is a theory I came up with by myself.
Hope I don't have to toss it out next week!