Forum Archive : Terminology

"Holding game" From:   Alan Webb Address:   vsg-isg@t-online.de Date:   21 December 1998 Subject:   Holding Games? Forum:   rec.games.backgammon Google:   75l9j3$dqu$1@news02.btx.dtag.de What is a holding game? My impression is that it is the making of an advanced anchor, which should not be broken, so that if you find yourself behind in the game, it acts to slow down your opponents bearing in and gives you the opportunity to build your board and hope for a hit. Surely that can't be it? Alan Webb Brian Sheppard  writes: You nailed it: a holding game involves a high defensive anchor that provides some chance of getting a shot. The distinction between "high" and "low" defensive anchors is important because of cube-handling. If you hold the 18 or 20 point you can almost always take a double, but the 21 point does not always provide enough equity to justify taking and it gets still worse as you go still lower. I would put the dividing line for holding games at the 22 point, calling games with lower anchors "ace-point" or "deuce-point" games. Brian Julian Hayward  writes: The point is not to slow down your opponent's bearing in but to hinder him from clearing points to bear in safely. A typical position along these lines is: 24-23-22-21-20-19----18-17-16-15-14-13 o o o x o o o x o o x o o o x o o x x x x x x o x x x x x o 1--2--3--4--5--6-----7--8--9-10-11-12 The aim is to make life as difficult for O to clear the three remaining outfield points. In this position X is not badly placed - there are plenty of rolls for O which force him to leave 17 rather than 12 in order to avoid leaving shots, and 6-3 forces him off 18 (even beter for you). The critical aims for you are: (i) You hold points that cover more or less all the outfield space that O has to play through, so if O leaves shots they will be direct ones, (ii) You have a relatively good home board *now*, so that O is under pressure to play safely, (iii) O's position is relatively stripped, so he is likely to be forced off his outfield points very soon. (iii) is very important - if you move O's two spares from 21/22 to 19/18 he has three, maybe four rolls to get a 65 or any double. That flexibility means the game will turn out to be little more than a race in which you are far behind. Another common position is for you to hold 13 and 18, in which case O reduces to two men on his midpoint, then often gets forced to play one of them off with 6-x. If O sees this sort of situation developing, he can try to defeat it in several ways - use good numbers to clear points at the back rather than build the home board - accept an early shot to clear an awkward point *before* X has built up his prime - avoid building outfield points that don't extend the prime in front of X's back men without good reason. Hope that's helpful! Julian Donald Kahn  writes: The checker play in these games is not among the most intricate. I don't pose as an expert on the matter, but here are a few random observations. If opponent has three points inside or better, breaking the point can be dangerous. You tend to wait for a "convoy" (set of doubles). Otherwise, expect to be "worked over", as my old teacher Art Dickman put it. Remember if he hits you loose, you are not a favorite to survive. Certainly never run off voluntarily when you are behind in the race. It can't be right to race, when you are losing the race. If he still has the midpoint to clear, you can use some sets of doubles to move into the outfield to "oppose" it. The real art, from both sides, is the cube element. This separates the men from the boys. If you have a 20-pt anchor, what racing lead and how many outfield points does the racing leader need to double you? When is it a take? Used to be you had to have played a **lot** of backgammon to have your feet on the ground on this kind of stuff. But with programs such as JellyFish, you set up variation after variation, ask the evaluation, roll it out if it's close, and deduce your own set of rules for active play. deekay David Montgomery  writes: The term isn't really well-defined. There are positions that everyone would call a holding game, but there are also a lot of positions that some would call holding games, while others would call them something else. I call a lot of positions anchor games that others call holding games. The fundamental idea is maintaining contact in order to be able to hit the opponent while they are coming home (bearing in or clearing their last few outside points). Usually you maintain this contact with a point, although often a blot a ways behind the point provides additional contact, making it harder for the opponent to play safely behind you. The point(s) held usually include the 22, 21, 20, or 18 points. However, you could also have a 15 point vs 15 point holding game, and a midpoint holding the 18 point isn't that uncommon. I tend to think of a position as a holding game only when there is a credible chance of getting a shot while the leader is bearing home. So I wouldn't call holding the 22 (or 21 or 20) point against a six prime a holding game -- I would call it an anchor game. However, if I held the 22 point against the 4, 5, 6, and 9 points, it looks more like a holding game. If your main holding point is an anchor, you may need a second point in the outfield to have a good chance of a shot. Let's say your opponent is bearing in and needs to clear the mid and 8 points. Holding the 22 point alone, I would tend to think of this as an anchor game. With the 22 point and the midpoint (or some other outside point bearing on the opponent's mid) I would call it a holding game. Holding games are distinguished from backgames primarily by when you intend to hit your opponent. In a backgame, often the plan is not to hit until your opponent is bearing off. In a holding game, usually you will hit as soon as possible, as long as your offense isn't a shambles. (However, in advanced backgames, like a 54 or 53 backgame, you usually do intend to hit while the opponent is bearing in.) David Montgomery monty@cs.umd.edu monty on FIBS   Did you find the information in this article useful?           Do you have any comments you'd like to add?

 

Terminology

Alphabet soup  (Tom Keith, Apr 2004) 

"Anchor and guard" position  (Chase+, Apr 2010) 

"Back game"  (Marty Storer, Jan 2004) 

"Baffle box"  (garyo+, Mar 2005) 

"Bagai position"  (Timothy Chow, Dec 2012) 

"Banana split"  (Rich Munitz+, June 2011) 

"Banana split"  (Adam Stocks+, Sept 2004) 

"Beavers"  (Sander van Rijnswou, May 1999) 

"Beavers"  (Shuman Lloyd Lee, Aug 1991) 

"Blunder", "whopper"  (Raccoon+, July 2005) 

"Bot"  (Pit Bull+, Mar 2004) 

"Bronstein" clock setting  (rew+, Sept 2012) 

"Calcutta auction"  (Roland Scheicher+, Dec 2001) 

"Chouette"  (Roland Scheicher+, Mar 2002) 

"Cube provocation play"  (Chuck Bower+, Apr 2007) 

"Dance"  (William R. Tallmadge, May 1998) 

"Dropper"  (Robert D. Johnson, Sept 1996) 

"Duplication" and "diversification"  (Simon Woodhead, Nov 1991) 

"Equity"  (Gregg Cattanach, Aug 2000) 

"Equity"  (Gary Wong, Dec 1998) 

"Equity"  (Chuck Bower, Oct 1996) 

"Equity"  (Michael J. Zehr, Mar 1996) 

"Equity", "volatility", "claim", "market"  (Erik Gravgaard, June 1995) 

"Freeroll"  (montygram, Nov 2005) 

"Gammon price"  (Ron Karr, Aug 1996) 

"Gammon rate", "gammon price"  (David Montgomery, June 1995) 

"Gammon-go" (GG) and "gammon-save" (GS)  (Mary Hickey, Feb 2004) 

"Gammon-go" (GG) and "gammon-save" (GS)  (Marty Storer, Oct 2002) 

"Gammon-go" (GG)   (Chuck Bower, Jan 2004) 

"Golden point"  (Daniel Murphy, Dec 2004) 

"Holding game"  (Alan Webb+, Dec 1998) 

"In the box"  (Ken Bame+, Sept 2012) 

International phrase dictionary  (David Allen Sorensen, Sept 1997) 

"Joker"  (Richard Divdesman, Sept 1998) 

"Kamikaze play"  (Bill Patterson+, June 2011) 

"Kauder paradox"  (Carl Tait+, Nov 1995) 

"Latto paradox"  (Jean-Pierre Seiman+, July 2004) 

"Lose your market"  (Shuman Lloyd Lee+, Aug 1991) 

"MCV"  (Mislav Radica+, Oct 2009) 

"PRaT"  (Raccoon+, Jan 2007) 

"Phantom double hit"  (Marty Storer, May 2010) 

"Polish prime"  (Jason Lee+, Jan 2006) 

"Pure play"  (Daniel Murphy, Nov 2000) 

"Pure play"  (Casey Forrest+, Feb 1996) 

"Raccoon"  (Steven Keats, Feb 2011) 

"Root number"  (Ken Bame, June 2004) 

"Russian Bridges"  (leobueno+, Mar 2013) 

"Short play"  (AJ+, July 2012) 

"Speed board"  (Gregg Cattanach, June 2004) 

"Splot"  (mamabear, Apr 2007) 

"Squeeze", "trap play"  (Philippe Michel+, Feb 1997) 

"Suicide play"  (Brian Sheppard, Aug 1997) 

"Swing tournament"  (Carlo Melzi+, Mar 2006) 

"Table stakes"  (Carlo Melzi, Sept 2002) 

"Technical play"  (Adam Stocks+, July 2002) 

"Thematic"  (Beauregard+, Aug 2009) 

"Thorp count"  (Stephen Turner, June 1996) 

"Time," "timing," "checker," "dancing"  (Marty Storer, Apr 1992) 

Turkish names for rolls  (Lars Soezueer, Mar 1997) 

"Vigorish"  (Anthony R Wuersch, Feb 1995) 

"Volatility"  (Michael J. Zehr, June 1998) 

"Wash"  (Hardy Hübener+, Sept 2004) 

"Wash"  (Brian Sheppard, July 1997) 

"Weaver"  (Alan Webb+, May 2000) 

"Zone" of attack  (Matt Reklaitis+, Dec 2007) 

From GammOnLine         Long message         Recommended reading         Recent addition

 

Book Suggestions Books Cheating Chouettes Computer Dice Cube Handling Cube Handling in Races Equipment Etiquette Extreme Gammon Fun and frustration GNU Backgammon History Jellyfish Learning Luck versus Skill Magazines & E-zines Match Archives Match Equities Match Play Match Play at 2-away/2-away Miscellaneous Opening Rolls Pip Counting Play Sites Probability and Statistics Programming Propositions Puzzles Ratings Rollouts Rules Rulings Snowie Software Source Code Strategy--Backgames Strategy--Bearing Off Strategy--Checker play Terminology Theory Tournaments Uncategorized Variations