I was watching some matches on that WSOB TV channel er sumthin' and one of the commentators commented (or one of the commentors commentated ) that one of the players played with a Middle Eastern style and the other played more modern "maybe too modern."

Well, these are both top-notch players. If they play with different "styles," they can't be using the math move by move. If all players used math the same way on each move, they would all have the same style. Instead, each player has his own idea of what strategies and tactics to use, thereby straying away from the "mathimatically optimal" moves. Yet they win enough to make it to the top.

Well realize that there are really only two styles of backgammon play (at least the way I see it). There's the conservative route, where you are making safe plays and trying to win the race by creating positionally sound formations, and there's more aggressive (modern) play, where you are taking risks for big pay offs in your positioning. I've seen that episode of the WSOB you are talking about, and what I think the commentators are referring to is how aggressive the play is. These top players certainly make mathematically correct plays, but where their style comes into play is when the choice of play is not so clear. If it's really a toss up between two plays, one player may make the "safe" play to protect his checkers, while another player will go for the aggressive hit, hoping that his opponent can't roll a return shot. The difference between both plays are most likely minimal, but one play is still more mathematically correct over the other. So these top players still got to the top by playing mathematically correct backgammon, but their individual styles influence their decisions in unclear situations.

Except for a few racing situations and some tournament match score calculations, high-level backgammon isn't a game of 'math', it's a game of logic and memory. Players think in terms of their own internalized rules for handling various types of situations, try to remember analogous positions that they've rolled out at home on their bot, then try to make the play that seems the best fit.

Probably something like 30% to 40% of the plays in any typical long game are either somewhat or very unclear for the players. They think about the issues involved and make their best guess as to the right play. They'll note down interesting positions and compare them later to see what XG or GNU or Snowie would have done. The fact that the error rates for good players are pretty low show that their internal rules and judgment are pretty good overall, and getting slowly better as time goes by.

I had a friend who was originally from Iran, and he played the Middle East style -- where the #1 priority seemed to me to be getting the back checkers free. He was very good at getting those darn things past me. My style is very close to the bots, and I have to say that I really found it frustrating playing him.

I still think my style is the better style (and the math backs me up ), but his style did seem to work for him. I've also seen people, who it appears to me, actually try to end up in a backgame. Whatever works for you I suppose.

We had a player who played middle eastern openings who came to a tournament and came second because his middle game play was very modern and most players made the wromg replies to his openings -

ie he played 32 : 24/21 24/22 how do you play 62?
He played 43 : 24/20 24/21 how do you play 65?

Know your replies! I did, I won.

Answer to 32 - 13/7 6/4*
Answer to 43 - 24/18 13/8