Black to play 66; single-point match situation.

GNU seems to like 21/9 21/15 13/7, which finishes the 5-pt prime and exhibits maximal outfield control, but leaves 2 direct shots in doing so. I'm not sure what's going to happen to black after one of his outfield blots gets sent to the bar, especially if white hits & covers? Seems like black losing half of the next roll, and likely half the one after that, isn't going to help with containment. What about locking up an outfield anchor and waiting to attack white's back checker when the time is right (say, 21/9(2))?

Your position is so strong, you don't care about getting hit.
Even the hit & cover won't mess you up too much because white will only have a 3 prime and he'll have to break the anchor to hit.

If you want to play safer, you can move 2 checkers to the bar point and play 21/15 (2)

Chances are, you'll be able shut white out with either move.

I play 21/15(2) 13/7(2) pretty quickly.

Three of the sixes are completely obvious IMO, 13/7 (complete the 5-prime) and 21/15(2) (escape two checkers without risk), and the only possible question is what to do with the fourth one.

I don't really see how playing 15/9 with the fourth one even helps outfield coverage all that much. In that case, 6-2 is the only leaping roll that doesn't either hit or play safely.

Maybe Black isn't worried about getting hit because the return shots are so powerful, and he can't really get into trouble?

In fact, I'm baffled as to what 15/9 accomplishes. Flexibility, I suppose.

As for 21/9 (2) I really don't see how you can pass up the chance to make a 5-prime here.

Yeah, that's what i found so wierd about GNU's play. Anyone got an explanantion for this?


Yeah, i think you're probably right about that... it's a great long-run asset.

When you're not hit, you have a lot more opportunities to complete the prime. White doesn't really want to hit because your structure is strong and he's got a blot in his home board. I'm not sold that it's better, but it's not totally unreasonable.

You should get in the habit of going to 4-ply or even rolling out positions that don't immediately make sense to see whether anything changes.

Good tip, thanks.

Does anyone know if it's really true that GNU regulairly blunders routine plays? If I'm going to take BG seriously, is buying Snowie a non-negotiable?

If you set GNU to 0-ply, it will make some really strange plays. If you set it to 2-ply it will play pretty well. If you set it to 4-ply, it will play above the level of most players in most situations.

I don't think you need to spend $400 on something that may only be slightly better than something that's free. If you're only considering taking BG seriously, you probably haven't played long enough or are good enough that you're going to see the difference.

In my view, Snowie is definitely worth the money.

2-ply already plays as well or better than anyone in the world. 4-ply is overkill for the time increase. Though it will play marginally stronger than 2-ply. 3-ply checker is also marginally stronger than 2-ply checker, but 2-ply cube is marginally better than 3-ply cube.

As a serious player my [very well-informed] opinion is that GNU is better than Snowie in every way, faster, stronger, more flexible, and is still being developed whereas Snowie is not.

Thanks for the input Bill-- is that primairly due to GNU's frequent blunders? Other than the gameplay, I'm not too sure what else distinguishes them...

Out of curiosity, where did you get the notion that GNU makes "frequent blunders"?

http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...44&postcount=8

This is a total joke.

Pick any human in the world and back them against GNU. I will wager a large sum of money on GNU.

Snowie's interface is a pleasure to use, whereas I've heard many complaints about the buggy GNU interface.

What about GNU's screwups of "relatively routine positions"?

I would suggest taking some time to do some research and see what other experts say as well. It seems that a lot of people at bgonline use GNU, and there are some very high caliber players over there.

I suppose I should follow this up:

Bill, where (and perhaps when) did you get the notion that GNU screws up "relatively routine" positions?