There is a forum problem dealing with a proto-backgame in which mr. Robertie mentions that you should proceed forward in order to avoid to get into the backgame. There will be few beginners who read and study those forum posts, so those comments are meant for people who know how to play the game. Now suppose you are playing against a weak player. Won't he have more difficulty to play against a backgame than to play the backgame himself?

Backgames are very hard to play, and beginners will have great difficulties from either side. Having said that, I don't think it indicates that you need to do anything special against a beginner in terms of steering into a backgame. When playing a beginner, just play your normal game and you will pick up equity in all phases of play.

Thanks for answering anyway. I know this general recommendation, but when they come to realize that they should get an advanced anker as soon as possible, and they succeed, the holding game starts off, and a lot of your know-how edge gets lost. When they have got their 21point i attempt a priming game, and often i am succesful. But if they are on their 20point or 18point, and throw one or two good doubles, i am the underdog.
What about the idea to hit whenever they split, and in case they have got their 20point and 18point to slot to men in front of them, as long as they have no more than 2points in their homeboard. Very likely they hit what they can, and possibly they allow you to play a 3-point backgame.

Try posting some specific positions and rolls. Then it will be easier to comment on the points you're trying to make.

Those were remarks from memory. I will try to get my guinea pig neighbour for some investigation. The results may take some days.

couple of days have passed now.
it takes a lot of time to get the desired holding games. it can go awfully wrong, because you possibly end up with 3 or 4 checkers behind instead of 5, and that's not the right timing.
i lost also a 3-point backgame, because i had to few checkers to prime properly, and the guy was lucky and threw a double that landed him in his outboard, hitting a checker. upon entering i was not able to hit, and next turn he got into safety.
a scenario for beginners tactics might be: he splits to his 20point, you hit, he hits back, and this or next turn makes his 20point. Now with three checkers behind, the situation is more suitable to provoke a backgame by slotting in front of his advanced anker. the backgame though can be rather erratic when doubles are thrown. the moderator doesn't need to tell everything, and i will still do some experimenting.

As I said before, try posting specific positions with questions. You'll be more likely to elicit helpful responses.

Sorry, mr. Robertie, but it is just laziness. One month ago i found out about the 2+2 backgammon forum. I used to play a couple of matches a day on gnu, but when i saw the problems with solutions, i decided that playing games was a waste of time at this moment, and threw gnu in the garbage, to be sure i would dedicate my time in the right way. Ofcourse downloading a second time won't cost me anything, but the next step is getting the board posted. I know there is a sticky thread for windows, but my laptop is malfunctioning. I have done a mailorder for a desktop with ubuntu preinstalled. So from my perspective, why undertake the trouble. I rather give it a try when i have my new operating system.

What do you consider a "weak" player?

When playing against a novice or beginner, they will not know how to play the different types of positions. They won't try to blitz you (not by hitting loose at least), they won't try to build primes, they don't know about backgames and do not understand the concept of timing. Against these types of players playing the "pure" style is very effective, slot freely to build primes and play backgames when they occur (Your actual equity in these positions is much higher than your theoretical equity as your opponent does not know how to play the positions).

When playing against an intermediate or advanced player but who is weaker than yourself (say a player who understands all types of positions and is very comfortable in the most common positions - one or two way holding games), try to steer the game into more complex positions (positions with more contact), but not with the same abandon as you would against a novice or beginner. For instance suppose your standard opening play with 4-1 is 24/23 13/9, against a weaker player you might instead play 6/5,13/9 thus inviting a blot hitting contest which leads to a game with many men back for both players.

You can also try adjusting your doubling window slightly if you feel your opponent either plays his cube too aggressively or too passively (I don't recommend a huge adjustment).

Now to answer your specific question about backgames, when playing a player who does not understand the position, your actual equity in these games will be higher than your theoretical equity, (and you may get into doubling situations where your opponent believes he's the favorite when you are actually heavily favored) but even with these factors, you go forward when it is still a viable option. The reason for this is that your actual equity in the resulting position (from you going forward) will still be higher than your actual equity should you play the back game. The reason for this is that you will have at least 3 men back, and much contact will ensue, and beginners do not play games that involve much contact any better than they play backgames.

The man i have been using as guinee pig proofed to be something like a psychological burden, and what i can recommend is not to play with a beginner for fun when you have been bragging, because the dice could become erratic. I am playing heads-up limit poker with him, and though i have pretty much absorbed Harrington/Robertie I,II (though for nolimit ringgames) i am defeated more than once by his peoples pub skill and his luck. I mentioned this in the other topic, he defies probability law. When i have two pair, he has got a straight, and when i have a flush he 's got a full house, and so on. It 's a thing he even acknowledges himself, and we both came to the conclusion that the phenomenon of a rush is a fact.
Too many times the same thing happened in backgammon. He does not want to play for money, because i am the one who is more experienced, and he doesn't want to play with th cube. Gammons don't count, accept when he wins one. And unhappily this also has occurred more than once (laughs from the tyros here, but i was also in experimental mode, or call it beginner's luck), though he is totally tight/passive, the true characteristic of a beginning player; for example never hitting twice if he has to leave a blot in his motherboard and me not having a board myself, not paying attention even to my position. If i win it is natural after studying all those books, and when he wins it is a proof that i am not so good as i claim to be, notwithstanding all my experience, that it is a confirmation of his right play and of the fact that the dice rule the game. (In answer to my topic about cold runs, superstitious experience tells me that one should not fear to lose, and maybe better quit when someone has got a hot run (and like a seesaw you could have a cold run)). But on the whole my skill is overpowering, which is now interpreted by him as having a cold run.(aaaarrggh). Superreality can be sticky business.
Obviously the above is meant as a therapeutic means. |The things shuque says i have done myself, and it works most of the time, but beware of the beginner's rush. Keep a low profile, and play at least a 9-match.

If I understand what you're saying, you're playing this person with no cube, and gammons count for him but not for you. That's a huge spot, and probably accounts for the fact that you're not winning.

I'm not so sure of that. I introduced my partner to Backgammon, and it took her literally two games only to discover the importance of primes and how to play the undisputed opening rolls, and then she started to grasp the basics of the backgame shortly after. Then again, she has a chess background and when I taught her Go a few years ago, she rapidly improved past the beginner stage there, too. Maybe she's just a natural.

slow and steady wins the race