Gambling Wizards – Conversations with the World’s Greatest Gamblers by Richard Munchkin

The following is a small excerpt from:

Gambling Wizards – Conversations with the World’s Greatest Gamblers
by Richard Munchkin

For those of you who didn’t know, Richard Munchkin is the brother of backgammon player and author Jake Jacobs.  Who has penned many backgammon books, but is also the author of a great fiction book, The Battered Butterfly.

In Gambling Wizards, Munchkin interviews gamblers from several disciplines.  Interviewees are Billy Walters, Chip Reese, Tommy Hyland, Mike Svobodny (BG!), Stan Tomchin, Cathy Hulbert, Alan Woods and Doyle Brunson.  There’s something for everybody in this book and all of it is entertaining and informative.

From Chapter 2 – Chip Reese (He is speaking of Nick Vachiano, poker and pool player).

The only downside he (Vachiano) had was that when he was winning, he was a hit-and-run guy.  He’s win a little bit and if he lost, he would go for a number (take a big loss).  Most of the time he won, because usually, during the course of a session you get ahead a little bit.  So he booked a lot of winners and very few losers, but when he did book a loser it was a big one.

I remember one time we were playing $300-$600 (seven card stud) at the Flamingo and Nick was losing about $40,000. …The game had been going on a long time and I quit,  There were a couple of other guys who didn’t want to play short-handed, so the game was going to break up.  Nick says, “Hold it.”  …He gets up and takes me to the cage.  He goes to his safe deposit box, and he’s got a big box.  I only had a little safety deposit box – I had about $300,000 in it and I was proud as hell….He opens this big box and he probably had a million dollars in it.  He says, “See this here.  You know me.  I always win and I leave.  This is the only time you get a shot at this money – when I’m going off (losing and steaming).”  He says, “Are you sure you want to quit?”  You can tell when a guy is in heat from gambling.  I smiled and said, “You’re right.  Let’s go back and play.”  He went off for about $200,000 in that game.  He talked me into staying and winning a bunch of money.

You can get Gambling Wizards from Flint’s Carol Cole here Flint Backgammon Boutique  or any online bookstore.

Where the Rich And the Royal Play Their Games

The Washington Post

September 6, 1981

IN MONTE CARLO one day last July, a tanned, middle-aged woman stepped onto a private beach and spied an old acquaintance. “Darling, you look so pale,” she said with obvious concern. “You aren’t working for a living are you?”

While the rest of the world works, Monte Carlo plays. During summer days, everyone is on the beach, some of the women bathing topless, their men ordering champagne from refrigerated drink carts. At night, the sunbathers don resort white and fill the restaurants, discos and casinos, where Europeans play roulette while Americans crowd the blackjack tables.

And once a year, several thousand people arrive to play in the world’s richest and most prestigious backgammon tournament. This year, by chance, I was invited to compete in the Sixth Annual Merit World Backgammon Championship along with a bevy of countesses, princes and other professional sharpies.

In a hard-fought duel of the dice in Georgetown last fall, I’d beaten Helga Orfila, wife of Organization of American States chief Alejandro Orfila, to win a division of a backgammon tournament sponsored by Black & White scotch. As my prize, I was to have been sent to play in the national championship in Los Angeles. But before I could collect, the scotch folks decided to change their promotion strategy in North America and to stop underwriting backgammon competitions. As consolation, they suggested I compete in Monte Carlo, where Black & White of Europe annually joins Merit cigarettes in sponsoring what they like the press to refer to as “the Wimbledon of backgammon.”

To the Monte Carlo tournament come the world’s best backgammon players, including the tournament’s organizer from London, Lewis Deyong, a fast-talking gambler who knows every pro and can state odds at the drop of a bet.The feared Gino Scalamandre, backgammon book author and champion player, would be there, along with Joe Dwek — a British citizen born in Cairo with the fast, dark eyes of a cobra — who makes his living winning games of chance in the world’s capitals. A wealthy young Iranian couple no longer welcome in their homeland would be there. Players with last names like Maxaculi, Bellavita, Cojab and Abimerhi would mix with gamblers and their groupies at the bar of the Hotel de Paris.

Backgammon appeals to the wealthy because it is a fast game that lends itself easily to betting. Skill is critical to winning, but, unlike chess, the dice add an element of luck that makes the game exciting in its unpredictability.

Most of the best players feel right at home in Monte Carlo, because like many of the principality’s residents, they don’t hold regular jobs. And what labor expert players must do to stay solvent — rolling dice onto backgammon boards — is generally accomplished in the shade of palm trees; like congressional junkets, tournaments are held in sunny climes. Purses at big tournaments can total tens of thousands of dollars, and side bets can double or triple a player’s winnings.

I resisted the temptation to call Helga Orfila and gloat, packed my tuxedo, and left to find out what Monte Carlo had that Ocean City lacked.

Foremost, there is the gambling. Until 1860, Monaco was a scrubby principality blessed only with abundant sunshine, olive trees and fields of violets. Today, Rolls Royces joust for parking spaces outside the palacial casino that, as European aristocracy flocked to gamble there, made Monte Carlo the premiere jewel in the Cote d’Azur’s necklace. And free of income, property and inheritance taxes, Monaco quickly found favor among those who have the most to be taxed. Now, sandwiched in the one-half square mile between Monaco’s dramatic cliffs and the Mediterranean, studio apartments in high-rise condominiums begin at $300,000.

Monte Carlo’s harbor is filled with the yachts of the very rich. Saudi Arabian businessman Adnan Khashoggi often docks his boat there, a sleek, gray, villa-sized vessel called the Nabila that looks like the villain’s ship in an Ian Fleming novel. Its heating vents slant upward from the bridge, and a couple of $200,000-plus cigarette boats, as sleek as quick-looking as their mother ship, are tucked on the middle deck of the Nabila. I asked the captain if Monte Carlo was the Nabila’s home port.

“The entire world,” he said cooly, “is our home port.”

But residents say that with the opening of the American-style Loew’s hotel and casino a couple of years ago, Monte Carlo became appealing to people who, well, who actually work for a living.

“Monte Carlo is not just catering to the millionaires anymore,” said an American stockbroker who has lived there for a decade. “To survive, the hotels have began soliciting corporate meetings and conventions. Insurance brokers, investment bankers, textile concerns are meeting here.”

The place is run with an iron hand, despite the fairly tale image Monaco projects to the world, thanks in part to handsome Prince Ranier and his American-born actress wife, Princess Grace.

“It’s an extremely disciplined country — you can see it in the cleanliness of the streets,” says the American broker with admiration. “They don’t tolerate bums here . . . Monaco has benefited from the ills of the world. A lot of people used to go to Beruit, Africa, Spain or Italy on vacation, but because of the various troubles in those places, Monte Carlo has benefited. Let’s hope we can keep the place clean and that we don’t get annoyed by jealous or envious people.”

Long-haired hitchhikers or others not likely to carry an American Express card are politely shown to the border of Italy or France by the authorities; there is no poverty in Monaco, and the citizens like it that way. Because the state has an obligation to support any permanent resident who should find himself destitute, residents of Monaco are forbidden to gamble in the principality’s casinos.

The benevolent master of fun in Monte Carlo is the Societe des Bains de Mer, or sea bathing society, a quasi-government organization (the principality owns 69 percent of the SBM’s shares) that operates most of the grand hotels, the golf and tennis clubs, and more exclusive beaches, discos and other facilities. (Once, Aristotle Onassis tried to buy controlling interest in the SBM; the government thwarted him by simply issuing more stock and diluting his interest, though it is said he received a fair price when he sold out in defeat.)

When I checked into my hotel room, a card from Prince Louis de Polignac, the chairman of the SBM’s board, welcomed me to Monte Carlo. It wasn’t a note on scented stationery from Princess Caroline, but then, since she’d broken her marriage with that rogue, Philippe Junot, she was busy elsewhere. This summer she frolicked near Cannes on a yacht with Roberto Rossellini Jr. The young couple explained to the press they were just childhood friends, but le tout Europe hoped otherwise; after all, with Prince Charles’ marriage, Princess Caroline moved center stage for fans of royal romance.

Also waiting for me at the hotel was a bottle of Black & White Scotch and an SMB gold card, passport to the SBM’s facilities, including Jimmy’z, the disco of choice for Monte Carlo’s smart set.

With the gold card, I was admitted to Jimmy’z even though I was neither titled nor wealthy. But like your average marquis, I was permitted to pay $20 a drink — for any drink — at the bar. There, after midnight, I watched impossibly handsome young men in white suits dance with slim, bronze-skinned young women wearing the kind of clothes I thought they threw away after Helmut Newton photographed them on Vogue models. Jimmy’z is a dark room with floor-to-ceiling windows that overlook a tropical garden. A cramped dance floor and elegant bar are, along with the patrons, the disco’s focal points.

I confess I wanted to win the backgammon tournament if only so I could walk into Jimmy’z and get noticed. I wanted to show the European playboys that an American could gamble with ice water in his veins and win. I wanted to smirk across the table at my opponent the way James Bond does when he wins at chemin de fer.

I wanted to win the $44,640 in first place prize money and — when the world’s press asked me what it felt like — I’d look as bored as possible, shrug and say, “It’s a living.”

The road to victory began each evening at 4, when a couple thousand players gathered in several halls to meet their opponents, selected by lot. An hour or so into the matches, as half the players began accumulating enough points to win that evening’s match (and half began losing), the rooms became quiet and smoke-filled. Muttered curses in Spanish, French, Arabic, German, Italian and English accompanied unlucky rolls of the dice. Cool blonds began biting perfectly manicured fingernails, men fiddled with the bands on their Rolex watches. And each night half the players advanced up their ladder, while the others had their names entered in consolation rounds.

Black & White spent about $50,000 to help Philip Morris (makers of Merit cigarettes) sponsor the tournament, according to Anthony Hal, merchandising and promotion manager for the scotch’s distiller, Buchannan & Co. of London.

“Like the tobacco industry,” said Hall, “we’re under so many controls that we’re gradually being forced out of advertising. So it’s logical that we get into sponsorship. We turned down motor racing because we didn’t want to associate liquor with driving cars. And we like to sponsor events rather than individuals, because individuals can get unlucky.”

Hall, in conjunction with Buchannan’s public relations firm, the London office of Burson-Marsteler, selected seven journalists from England, Germany, Holland, Italy and France to come as guests to report on the tournament. (One French magazine, displaying a kind of Gallic gall that would horrify American editors, declined to send a reporter on the junket unless the deal was sweetened by a payment of $10,000; Black & White declined.)

“We sponsor backgammon because it’s an old game with a new wave,” said Omar Laghzaoui, head of public relations for Philip Morris in the Middle East and Afica, who declined to say how much money his company spent to stage the seven day soiree.

Tobacco and alcohol marketing aside, my fortunes appeared mixed even before the tournament began. I was playing tennis on courts Black & White reserved for tournament entrants. Bjorn Borg calls them his home courts and the bougainvillea was in bloom on the courts’ retaining walls, but I still thought the $65-an-hour court fee even members must pay was steep. Between sets, I played some $20-a-point backgammon with Katie Wright, who along with her companion, Gino Scalamandre, is among the world’s top backgammon players. I quickly lost a couple of hundred dollars. The pain of this defeat, however, was eased by Scalalmandre.

“You haven’t made a mistake since I started watching,” he said at one point, and I swelled with pride. It was pride purchased rather expensively, of course, but it was pride nonetheless. Then Scalamandre and Wright asked if I cared to sell them a piece of myself.

In backgammon tournaments, a player can sell percentages of himself to others, who might, in turn, sell a percentage of their percentage to others. While that helps a player defray his expenses and entry fee, it also means sharing a percentage of any winnings.

I was flattered by the Scalamandre-Wright offer. I expecially liked the slightly sinister ring to the name “Scalamandre,” and didn’t mind the prospect of telling people that I was “Scalamandre’s horse” in the tournament. We agreed to consummate a deal that night.

It was Scalalmandre’s good fortune that we couldn’t find one another on the opening night of play. His would have been a borderline investment — I lost may first match and had to wait until the next night to resume play in a consolation match. Still, if I could win the first consolation match, I’d pocket more than $1,000, enough to buy a round for a few of the boys and girls at Jimmy’z.

All around me the show was dazzling. Players met each night in three, high-ceilinged rooms. Wooden backgammon boards the color of a pack of Merit cigarettes lined rows of long tables. Among women, Yorkshire terriers as decorative accessories, clutched to sides like handbags, were the rage. The pets seemed comfortable in the crook of the arms of their mistresses, though some impatient ones drew rebukes when they licked the face of their Cartier Santus sports watches, the heavy looking gold ones with the rivet-like stainless steel screws.

“The terriers’ mistresses tend to be blond, long and slinky, be they models, actresses or singers — or royalty, from the Duchess d’Orleans to Princess Caroline of Monaco,” reported the International Herald Tribune earlier this summer. In France, women pay $700 for the pick of the litter that best matches their wardrobes. Toward the end of the evening, as the little fellas grew impatient to leave the backgammon hall, their yapping mixed with the clatter of dice.

Livia Sylva Weintraub’s purse was not a terrier, but a small, jewel-encrusted brass elephant. Inside, in addition to the usual contents of a fashionable woman’s purse, were wads of $100 bills. I know this because Weintraub sat down next to me at a black-tie dinner held to auction the top-rated players to investors interested in creating a side betting pool. Weintraub opened her purse to dispense perfume samples with a note card that read “A Little Love With Livia.”

Livia Sylva Weintraub, of New York, looked like a quen bee in a black evening gown with white puffed sleeves. Her red hair was set dramatically against a complexion so pale Gloria Vanderbilt would look tan next to her. (Sun apparently never kisses Weintraub’s skin – I saw her the next day pool side in an ankle-length white peasant dress with a matching parasol.)

“I am the first in the United States to develop a complete bee pollen treatment,” she told me as she distributed samples from her purse to women at the dinner table. “The bee pollen was used by all Hungarian beauties.”

Weintraub explained tht she hailed lfrom Transylvania — “I can make you do anything I vant, darlink.” She said she inherited her mother’s secret Romanian recipe for bee pollen cream and four years ago began marketing a line of cosmetics under her name, with financial help from her husband, a real estate developer and financier. “They finally bottled Livia,” read a slogan on a promotional flyer called a “Liviagram”.

During dinner, Weintraub pointed out some of the other guests around the room. Over there was the wife of the man who created Las Brisas, the expensive resort hotel in Acapulco. Near her was the Milan manufacturer of an exclusive line of designer dresses. There, the elderly gentleman with silver hair, was the Marquis d’Arcangues, of Biarritz, and his blond girlfriend, the Baroness von Meks. I remarked that the marquis seemed a good deal older than the baroness.

“Yes,” cracked a male British gentleman seated near me, “and he doesn’t seem to mind at all, does he?”

Seated near the marquis and the baroness was a duke who told his dinner companions that people ate like savages before his ancestors invented the dinner fork. Someone dubbed him the duke of Fork, a possible rival to the earl of Sandwich.

While watching the rich and the royal, I notice Wientraub and a partner bid several thousand dollars to back several top-ranked backgammon players. Several days later, before flying back to New York to attend a private dinner with New York Gov. Hugh Carey, Weintraub earned back her bet many times as her players finished in the money. I also contributed in a small way to her good fortune, losing $150 in a small stakes side match with the queen of bee pollen-based cosmetics.

Never, I decided, play backgammon with a Transylvanian.

After a bad start, I began cutting a swatch through my opponents in the first consolation tournament. I beat an earnest young man from Austria and a British mum with orange lipstick, gold high-heeled shoes and glasses with rhinestones in the frames. A Mexican gentleman who looked like a 75-year-old George Hamilton lost to me, as did a beginning player from Los Angeles who sported a diamond pinkie ring, a wafer-thin Piaget watch and a brown suede jacket. I was hot.

In the quarter finals, on the brink of entering the semi-finals and the money, I batted a nervous, middle-aged British woman named Mary Wyndham to a 12-12 tie in a 13-point match. The last game decided our fates, and we played evenly until the end, when Wyndham rolled a heart-breaking double five to take the match. As protocol dictated, I congratulated her with a handshake and a smile. Inside, I was crushed. There would be no trimphant entrance at Jimmy’z, no cool comments for the press. There would be no telegram to my editor telling him I’d be taking an extra month off to tour the south of France — as the eventual winner of the tournament, a Long Island woman named Lee Genud, did after her victory.

But then I remembered Chico Kranz, with whom I’d played a pickup set of tennis earlier in the week.

Kranz, a heavyset and olive-complected man with a diamond ring on one hand, explained he was cooling his heels in Europe until America’s baseball strike ended and he could return to making his living betting on baseball games in Las Vegas.

Kranz talked to me about gambling.

“Most guys, they start losing, they start making bigger bets,” Kranz told me. “When you lose, you got to decrease your bets.”

Kranz told me the successful, disciplined gambler understands losing and winning are not emotional events. On the court next to Kranz and me, two professional backgammon players batted a tennis ball around like a couple of Sunday amateurs. They laughed at their mistakes and seemed to thoroughly enjoy themselves. Only when the set was over did I learn they’d bet a friendly $4,000 on the outcome. After Monte Carlo, it was time to decrease my bets.


Sports Illustrated – September 16, 1974

The voyage promised to be rough, with high-rolling in the richest backgammon tournament ever, but a first-class gambol was assured

Esmond Cooper-Key woke up early on a Tuesday morning in his London town house with the feeling, as he later said, that he was about to do something many people, not the least of them being his wife, might consider naughty, or even mondo bizzarro. But the hell with what they might think for the moment; he could either lie back and reflect about obstacles to what was becoming his plan or he could get up and carry on with it. Esmond opened his suitcase and threw in a tuxedo, a pair of sneakers and random garments that his eye fell across. He trotted out to the car, drove to the bank as it opened, wrote a check for cash and headed for Heathrow Airport, where he caught a noon flight to New York.

About eight hours’ worth of champagne later, at Kennedy Airport, Esmond Cooper-Key climbed into a taxicab and asked to be delivered to Pier 84 on the Hudson River side of Manhattan. There, beside the pier, gathering power of sorts from the broken boilers that had stranded her near Bermuda two weeks earlier, rose the astonishing bulk of the Queen Elizabeth 2. From keel to funnel, as high as a 13-story building. From bow to stern, longer than three football fields. Yes indeed, this was the place he was looking for. Esmond plunged through the ring of toy balloons at the end of the gangplank and hurried toward the First-Class cabin he had just booked for the QE 2’s return voyage to France and England that very same evening.

Up on the Quarterdeck, in a room colored maroon and gold and tucked away behind one of the two First-Class restaurants, gaffers were setting up movie lights, cameramen from Paragon Films were tinkering with their machines and pretty girls were tugging into place a board that said DUNHILL INTERNATIONAL BACKGAMMON TOURNAMENT with spaces below for the names of 32 invited players and the results of the matches.

Esmond’s name was not on the list of 32, but he had, after all, once reached the quarterfinal of a junior backgammon tournament at the Clermont Club in London, and he was a friend of some of the assorted elegantini—an earl, a lord and what not—who had been included. Besides that, Esmond had bought his own ticket, which most people had not, for what was until then the richest backgammon tournament ever held. In all there was close to $100,000 to be played for out in the open, not to mention the private betting in a game of which Prince Alexis Obolensky says, “You don’t play backgammon just for fun—always for money, even if you are playing the game with your little daughter, it should always be for money.”

Not that Esmond came on board to look at money. They did it all with checks, anyhow; one never saw stacks of cash moving across the tables as one often does in Las Vegas. Esmond merely had a notion that he ought to go have a bit of adventure and meanwhile indulge his fascination with backgammon at the world’s first floating tournament. However, six nights later when Prince Obolensky, a father figure of the modern version of the game, arose to speak at the black-tie gala that ended the tournament, it was a celebrating Esmond who walked past and said, “It’s not necessary to hear from you, old chap,” and dismissed Obolensky back to his table until part of the crowd began to applaud for the prince to return to his speech. By then so much had transpired that such a scene seemed not at all strange, and the next morning Esmond claimed not even to remember it.

“Waiter, actually my wife can’t see a damned thing with you standing in front of the window, now can she?” said the old British gentleman.

As the QE 2 pulled out of New York Harbor during dinner hour the waiters found reasons to linger in front of the big windows, polishing away tiny specks with their napkins while the food cooled. The lights of New York are a rare and incredible sight. One of the headwaiters, a man not easily moved, could stand beside a table at a meal and recount tales of torture and mutilation he had witnessed during World War II in Kenya in the same stolid tone with which he discussed aircraft maintenance or snake handling. But the view of New York Harbor reached his soul. “It’s a grand sight, sir,” he said, “one of the grandest that exists, and I’ve seen most of them.”

The lights of New York had barely vanished astern when the auction commenced in the maroon and gold room. An auction in backgammon is what is called a Calcutta pool at a golf tournament; players are sold and the purchaser wins if his player fares well. It is not uncommon for a player to buy himself at an auction by arranging for someone else to bid for him. He ordinarily buys back a piece of himself if he is bought by someone with whom he did not have an arrangement.

The auctioneer on the QE 2 was Charles Benson, 38, who describes himself as a constant gambler who spent four years at Eton studying racing charts. Benson is a racing correspondent for the London Daily Express, for which he tries to pick winners under the name Bendex. When Esmond Cooper-Key walked in, Benson was auctioning Philip Martyn (36, Lincoln College, Oxford, member of the 1964 British Olympic bobsled team). For a year and a half, Benson has lived with Martyn and Martyn’s wife as what Philip calls “our permanent and very welcome guest.”

“Philip Martyn is the world’s first self-professed professional backgammon player,” Benson was saying to a roomful of backgammon players.

Vast sections of America may be astounded to hear that there is such a thing as a professional backgammon player. But, in fact, there are a lot of them. Many with backgrounds in clubs like the Racquet in New York or the Clermont in London refer to themselves as gentlemen gamblers, amateurs who nevertheless play backgammon for very large amounts of money. Others go to backgammon tournaments the way professional golfers go to golf tournaments and hustle the sales of backgammon boards and books as golfers sell equipment. Gentlemen gamblers sometimes hustle a few books and lessons themselves, which makes the distinction between a gentleman gambler and a professional even more vague.

To those who still think of backgammon as that odd foreign-looking diagram on the back of a checkerboard, this may be hard to swallow, but backgammon in the Western world has broken out of the clubby atmosphere in which it flourished for a century as a smart, inbred game not meant for the public. (In the Middle East, they have been playing it in cafes for thousands of years.) People who might never be suspected of playing backgammon have taken it up)—housewives in Fort Worth, Gestalt therapists in Santa Barbara, Calif., retired postmen in Hollywood, Fla. Backgammon is getting as hot as Mah-Jongg and Scrabble were in their day.

With all that action in tournament prizes, gambling, auction sales, backgammon schools, backgammon books and equipment, it was inevitable that agents would be drawn to the scene by the smell of money. Thus came Mark McCormack, agent for professional sporting figures like Arnold Palmer, Rod Laver, Larry Csonka and Jackie Stewart. McCormack signed a contract that made Philip Martyn the world’s first professional backgammon player with a manager. A number of people pick up a handsome, even a semiglamorous, living out of the game. As head of the World Backgammon Club and promoter of many tournaments since he staged a big one in the Bahamas 10 years ago (SI, May 4, 1964), Prince Obolensky, whose face looks like a granite outcrop, is an example of one whose profession is, in fact, backgammon. But Philip Martyn is one of the few who admit backgammon is his livelihood, rather than passing it off as a game he happens to be so good at that he doesn’t need to go to the office very often.

So as Benson was selling his London host, Martyn, at the auction, Esmond Cooper-Key wandered into the maroon and gold room and bid ¬£1,100. Esmond’s smile seemed a bit too bright when he realized his was the winning offer. Already that day Esmond had flown across the Atlantic to begin sailing directly back home, and now he had just paid the top price for a player in the tournament.

“Why did you do that, Esmond?” someone asked.

“I only heard what they were saying about his professionalism, and of course I do know something about Martyn,” Esmond said. “But I don’t know anything really about whether he will win, do I? I mean, one doesn’t follow backgammon players the way one might follow thoroughbreds. Actually, I thought the numbers would keep going up, and someone else would buy him. Well, there’s no use crying, is there?”

Esmond sipped a glass of Mo√´t and leaned on a railing that separated a gallery from the carpeted pit a few feet below, where the auction was in progress and the games would be played. “Some people are spending tremendous sums of money to promote backgammon, and I wonder why,” mused Esmond. “I can’t imagine the masses are clever enough to buy millions of boards, can you? I mean, backgammon is more of an in-here game than an out-there game, it seems to me.”

From reading the invitation list of players, it was clear Richard Dunhill, the deputy chairman of Alfred Dunhill Ltd., intended his tournament to be an in-here affair. “Backgammon is a good promotion for our company because it has a certain snobbish appeal,” Dunhill said. But Dunhill wanted to be certain the tournament was heard of out there. Hence free airplane tickets to New York and First-Class return passage to England on the QE 2 for members of the British press. Hence the invitation of celebrities to keep the press awake once the fascination with galloping checkers wore off. Singer-actress Diana Ross, who would have provided the tournament its only woman and only black in the same body, turned down the trip, as did Playboy magazine Publisher Hugh Hefner, in whose heart of games backgammon has replaced Monopoly. British TV star Spike Milligan came along to chat up the press, but spent much of the time in his cabin writing a novel. “I always thought backgammon was a particular cut of bacon,” Milligan confided at dinner on the night of the gala.

Liberal M.P. Clement Freud, who occupied a penthouse suite, was knocked out in the first round as a player but served as a narrator for the film and phoned in stories to the Daily Express. Bulge-eyed and bearded, Freud (grandson of Sigmund, of course) roamed about the ship scowling and looking perpetually startled, as if he were afraid he might have accidentally said aloud what he had just been thinking, and that was why people were behaving toward him in such a manner.

Richard Dunhill, though, was pleased with his lineup. “It’s been wonderfully traumatic wondering if we would make it,” he said. The idea for the floating tournament was conceived a year before when Patrick, Earl of Lichfield, cousin of the Queen, winner of Male Elegance and Best Dressed awards and a free-lance photographer to boot, phoned up and suggested it. “I rushed out and bought a book on backgammon and became terribly keen on it,” Dunhill said.

By now Benson had come to the last players to be auctioned. “One of them is tall, handsome, witty and well-bred, and the other is Takis,” he said.

Crash! Takis Theodorocopulos threw a champagne glass at the rostrum. Takis, 35, Greek, karate champion and former Davis Cup tennis player, is a gentleman journalist for the National Review and heavy gambler with a fortune somewhere behind him. He was bought for ¬£400 by his friend John Zographos (Greek, 45, called “King Zog,” Cambridge, investments and real estate). Wait, a player had been overlooked. The Hon. Michael Pearson (29, Gordon-stoun, the Household Cavalry, film producer, son of Lord Cowdray, whose family in this century controlled more than 1,500,000 acres in Mexico, with attending mineral rights and the country’s only Atlantic-to-Pacific railroads) was sold for ¬£500. Then Benson himself was peddled for ¬£500, and most of the players retired to the ship’s casino to get in shape for the next afternoon when half of them would be losers. The ship’s casino was a very good place to get accustomed to losing.

In the game of backgammon each player has to move 15 disks around the board as determined by skill and by the roll of the dice, which obviously means it helps to be lucky. The first player to get all his disks off the board wins. A disk can be “hit” by an opponent if not protected, and must start all over again. A “doubling cube” is used to raise the stakes and test the nerve or sense of the players. If you are offered a double and feel the odds are too strongly against it, you can decline and forfeit the game and cut your losses, or you can accept and perhaps defeat the odds and win extra points. “A good player is one who knows when he has the advantage,” said American Tim Holland. “A mediocre player is one who thinks he has it when he doesn’t. The cornerstone to backgammon is anticipating future moves.”

It is said that among players of equal skill luck is about 80% of the game. Supposedly the superior player will overcome the luck factor and beat his opponent if they play long enough. But a player who can count up to 24 (the sum of a roll of double sixes) and can keep his head clear enough to march his men in orderly fashion is liable to beat a master anytime by shaking hot dice. Holland, 43, who is not reluctant to acknowledge that he is tops at backgammon, estimated that five or six of the 32 players in the Dunhill tournament could be rated among the world’s elite 50.

A few of the best players in the world play not at the Racquet or the Clermont, but at New York’s Mayfair Hotel in a place called The Dump. They are known as Dumplings. Some of the Dumplings don’t get their shoes shined, their sweaters don’t cover their bellies, they have social connections that reach into the wrong Queens and they are too shrewd to be allowed access to big games like the Dunhill tournament.

“You can’t blame Dunhill for not inviting them,” said Holland, who occasionally plays at The Dump but usually at the Regency in New York. “Dunhill has worked hard to build up the Beautiful People aspect of this promotion. Five Dumplings could come on board and take everybody’s money. How would that look?”

Some say the best players are found at none of those places but in sleazy little clubs in Beirut. Obolensky learned to play the game in Turkey.

Jack Vietor is an American, 59, educated at St. Paul’s and Yale, former publisher of San Francisco magazine, grandson of the inventor of Jell-O. Though he has held the Vietor Round Robin Private Backgammon Tournament at his home in La Jolla, Calif. since 1962, Vietor says he is merely an amateur. He says one big problem with backgammon tournaments is keeping the hustlers out.

In the first round of the Dunhill tournament Vietor beat Philip Martyn. Martyn had been twisting in agony in his seat at each throw of the dice, raising his eyebrows as if to ask heaven how things could be going so badly for one who deserved so much better. Vietor was flushed and sweating, lighting cigarettes while previous ones still burned in the ashtray. Both men looked as if the game were as pleasant as sinking in quicksand. “A lot of top players go through pain when they play. They fight as if they think they can control the dice,” said Claude Beer (American, 36, former squash champion, winner of the Clermont Club British backgammon championship in 1970 and the 1974 Las Vegas World Championship). “I always try hard, but it’s not worth agonizing over.”

At the final roll Martyn leaped up from the table and rushed out of the room like a Tex-Mex border-town tourist who just found out that wasn’t chicken in his taco. In a minute or so Martyn was back to shake hands with Vietor.

“It must be a terrible feeling for a pro like you to lose to an old California hacker like me,” Vietor said with a smile.

“Absolutely galling is what it is,” replied Martyn. “Staggering.”

In the back of the room Esmond Cooper-Key steadied himself against the subtle movement of the ship.

Martyn is a tall, lean, athletic-looking man with hair that has turned muddy gray. Besides being on an Olympic bobsled team, he played rugby at college and he drives fast cars. Martyn runs in a park for exercise with his friend Jackie Stewart, and he is married to Nina Rindt, 28, widow of racing driver Jochen Rindt. Talking about backgammon, Martyn describes some fierce primeval struggle that may not be immediately apparent to a casual observer.

“Backgammon is a sport, not a game,” Martyn said after he had calmed down a bit from his loss to Vietor. “It has contact, violence, one-to-one competition like boxing. Good players tend to stay in good physical shape. People used to think you had to stay up all night and drink and smoke to be a backgammon player. That’s silly. One can think much more sharply when the body is fit.

“This is not an intellectual endeavor like bridge, where the players are usually ashen gray and cigarette stained, and it’s certainly not like chess. Backgammon is all out in the open, full of stingers, very aggressive. I went bonkers when I lost to a softer player like Vietor. Backgammon has had the image of rich, bum sportsmen and very private clubs, and some of these sportsmen want to keep it their own private affair, but I want to see backgammon become widely popular. It’s not hard to learn. I’ve got no flair for math. Even a beginner can play well if he doesn’t let his ego defeat him. The doubling cube is what makes it so extraordinary.”

Martyn foresees pro backgammon leagues with players dressed in sweatshirts that say OMAHA or MADRID, competing with each other on TV. The final of the Las Vegas tournament, in which Martyn lost to Claude Beer, was on closed-circuit TV at the Hilton with a commentary by Lewis DeYoung (London, 39, Oxford, noted amateur tennis player and international gambler). “The tension of an international match would be terrific,” Martyn said, “and all there for the audience to see, millions of people watching and criticizing the moves.”

While Martyn was talking, Esmond Cooper-Key went to recoup his fortunes at the ship’s casino. But he was distracted by his friend the Baron, who had put down quite a few doubles at the bar and had decided to disrobe.

The Baron, it should be explained, is not actually a baron. He is a young London businessman who came on the voyage to be with some of his pals who were involved with the backgammon tournament. On a whim, he wrote on the booking form, in the space for titles, that he was a baron. As a result he was furnished with a dressing room, refrigerator and enormous stateroom at no extra charge, addressed as Baron by the staff and requested to dine in the smaller and more exclusive of the First-Class restaurants.

The Baron’s real name will not be mentioned here for reasons to be made clear. For now it is enough to say that when the Baron felt the urge to undress in the casino, he even removed his eyeglasses. The Baron trotted around the casino naked a couple of times and then careened into the Tourist-Class disco. There is an assumption in First Class that people in Tourist Class are probably having more fun, the swine, and the disco in the QE 2 was crowded every night with elegantini looking for a serving wench to pinch or a plumber’s apprentice to say hidy to. The Baron loped onto the dance floor and blinked at the laughter. Abruptly, he whirled and fled from the room.

When he was asked why he had chosen to put his clothes back on so suddenly after all the terrific trotting and loping, the Baron said, “It was really quite thrilling to be buffers in the casino, and it was a kick to arrive in the disco. But standing there nude on the dance floor without my glasses—couldn’t see a bloody thing in that violet light—I began to feel a small touch of paranoia.”

Mondo bizzarro, all right. By the second night out, when the captain’s cocktail party was held in the First-Class nightclub, the ship was already steaming half a day behind schedule with its impaired boilers. “Right now, at this moment, I can hopefully say that I think we’ll come out on top,” the captain assured his cocktail guests. His leeriness was as sensible as the sign posted in First-Class cabin bathrooms that said: DO NOT STEP INTO SHOWER BEFORE TESTING WATER TEMPERATURE.

There already had been open snarling about the food. Not that it was in short supply during the limited hours it was available, but a piece of fish, a filet of beef, a slice of veal, a Caesar salad, all seemed to taste pretty much like a piece of newspaper.

After having returned a few meals to the kitchen for further study, Clement Freud, who appears to examine everything placed before him as if it might be made of spiders, decided to investigate the source of this paper food. He went into the kitchen, lined up the staff and marched up and down peering around with his look of surprised disgruntlement. “These are the boilers back there, are they?” Freud asked the chef.

“No sir, those are the cookers.”

“Ah. I have been under the impression that you did the cooking in the boilers.”

Adding to the general feeling of oddness aboard the ship, it was soon discovered that one stateroom key would open many other staterooms; exactly how many is not known, but experimentation proved it true in dozens of cases, and a steward cheerfully admitted, “Saves us the trouble of different passkeys, and only old ladies lock their doors, anyway.” Patrick, the Earl of Lichfield, is not an old lady in any sense; he even has a tattoo on his arm. But he rushed to the captain to demand protection for his photographic equipment. There is a story in Dunhill publicity releases that the Earl of Lichfield, “coordinator” of the tournament, is forbidden by his family to play backgammon because an ancestor had lost a fortune at the game. True or not, the earl certainly had no desire to lose his cameras. “Outrageous,” is what he called the matter of the door keys. Mondo bizzarro is the way Esmond put it.

Charles Benson, the auctioneer, kept advancing in the backgammon tournament in the maroon and gold room, while better rated players like Tim Holland, Ted Bassett, Walter Cooke, Claude Beer, Philip Martyn, Joe Dwek, Gino Scalamandre. Porter Ijams, Lewis DeYoung, Michael Stoop and others fell out. In one match Benson needed to throw double sixes on the last roll to win, and he did it. Benson’s puckery smile grew steadily. A friend described Benson as “the sort of fellow who owns two coats, three shirts, a necktie and a Ford, but when the rest of us are betting ¬£2 on a race at the dog track, Benson will be betting ¬£200.” Lewis DeYoung said, “Benson has tremendous courage. He’s been whipped by every bookmaker in London, and he keeps coming back.”

“Going to the track with Benson is a thrilling experience,” said Takis Theodorocopulos. “If people find out he’s the famous Bendex whose tips they’ve bet their life savings on, they’ll try to kill him.”

At last it was the final, and Benson was still in. His opponent was Barclay Cooke, who could hardly be more unlike Benson. Cooke, 61, an American, is from Yale, a gentleman gambler, coauthor of a backgammon book, winner of the Clermont Club British Championship in 1972 and co-holder, with his son Walter, of the World Cup Duplicate Backgammon Championship. “Barclay Cooke was the best player in the game until about 10 years ago,” says his friend Porter Ijams. “Then a number of people went past him, but in the last two or three years Barclay has become the most improved player in the game.”

Barclay Cooke does not drink or smoke. Benson, on the other hand, was furnished for the final with all the Moet champagne he could put away, and that turned out to be an amount that would have floored a goat. Where did this champagne come from? The donor was Esmond Cooper-Key, who had taken the waiters aside and told them to keep Benson’s glass full no matter what the cost.

Esmond, it developed, is married to the sister of Benson’s dear friend. Lady Charlotte Anne Curzon, a lovely blonde girl who was sitting at Benson’s side during the final match. Why did Esmond do this with the champagne? Was he for Benson or against him? “I’m totally for him, old man,” Esmond explained. “I don’t own a piece of him, and it’s costing me a bloody fortune the way he drinks. But I want Benson to win, and he plays best when he’s loaded to the ears.”

“Merry Christmas,” Benson said to Cooke before the match. “Let’s shake hands now. It’s liable to turn ugly later.” That morning Benson had left the Tourist-Class disco at 5 a.m., at the gentle urging of Lady Curzon and Victor Lownes, a 46-year-old American who is managing director of the Clermont Club and of Playboy’s European enterprises, of which the Clermont is one. “Look at Benson’s eyes. He’s in absolutely perfect shape for the match,” Esmond said as the two opponents faced each other across one of the $1,000 leather boards that the Dunhill company had supplied for the tournament.

Whether a spectator cared much for backgammon or not, there was excitement in the Benson-Cooke match—two greatly different personalities opposing each other in the glare of movie lights, with the audience crowded close around and the waiters pushing to get through with trays of champagne. Benson started poorly but recovered to tie the 29-point match at 27-all. Cooke won the next point, and Benson tied the match again. The last point developed into a running game in which each player had his disks clear of his opponent’s end of the board. The winner would be the one who threw the highest dice.

Benson looked at the board and took a thoughtful gulp of champagne. Cooke toasted him with a glass of ice water.

Benson spoke in a low voice to Cooke. He was asking if Cooke would care to split the prize money. That meant each would receive £7,500 instead of the £10,000 that was to go to the winner and the £5,000 to the runner-up. Cooke agreed. That done, Benson shook the dice cup and rolled double fours. Benson had won the tournament.

At the black-tie gala that night, wine was thrown about, large splashes of it landing on chests, laps and faces, and a great many speeches were made, including the one by Obolensky that was interrupted by Esmond Cooper-Key, champagne glass in hand. Later, Benson capered madly through the noisy Tourist disco with his shirt off, buying drinks as fast as they could be poured, howling and singing, unreservedly celebrating his victory.

“This was definitely not a triumph for clean living,” Philip Martyn said, grinning as he watched his permanent guest crash through the dancers. “One drinks milk and is hard as nails. The other dunks champagne and is soft as butter, and wins.”

In another room Barclay Cooke stood quietly in a corner, replaying the match in his mind. “I wanted to win,” he said. “It wasn’t the money, though that was pretty nice. I just wanted to win. My son, Walter, thinks I played the six-four move wrong. I don’t think so. What do you think?”

Some people said they thought he was wrong. Some said they thought he was right. Benson hardly seemed to care.

Under its previous owner, the celebrated London gambler John Aspinall, the Clermont Club on Berkeley Square was an 18th-century Palladian mansion where one could gamble for very high stakes and might also be invited to parties that included entertainment by lions, tigers and midgets. Now the Clermont is a Playboy property renting out its basement to an outstandingly snotty private disco called Annabel’s. Upstairs from Annabel’s the gambling continues with roulette and craps and chemin de fer, and there is a good restaurant, but the preoccupation of most of the Clermont clientele appears to be backgammon.

In fact, only a few hours after the QE 2 docked at Southampton a full day late, the Dunhill tournament was no longer the richest backgammon tournament ever held. The Clermont tournament, with Charles Benson acting as auctioneer, quickly surpassed the Dunhill. With the players’ pool and auction pool, the prize money rose to more than $50,000.

“This is just the tip of the iceberg,” said Tim Holland. “It’s like golf a few years ago. Soon we’ll have regular $150,000 tournaments. Sponsors are signing up all the time. You can become a good player without spending a lifetime at it. That is an important point.”

Holland was rated at 12 to 1 in the Clermont, in which there were 80 players, a number of them women. Benson was 22 to 1 and had spent part of his QE 2 winnings buying a piece of a player named M. Baquiche (20 to 1).

A private backgammon game was already under way in which one of the Dunhill players would lose close to $200,000 before the following night. “The biggest gambling games in the world are in London,” said Lewis DeYoung, who came downstairs shaking his head over the beating he had just been watching. “London makes Las Vegas look like very small change. I’ve seen $312,000 wagered on one spin at roulette in a club here, the man going from $400,000 loser to $150,000 winner in a few hours.”

A little later a visitor walked out in front of the Clermont, where Rolls-Royces and Bentleys were double-parked and gleaming under the lamps. The visitor saw several banknotes fall onto the sidewalk and thought he saw who had dropped them. The visitor picked them up, but before he could call to the person he thought had lost the money, one of the best-known backgammon players in the world snatched the bills out of his hands and said, “Thank you, I’d hate to lose those.”

“But you didn’t lose them,” the visitor said.

“Of course I did,” said the backgammon player and entered a chauffeured Bentley with a bar in the back.

“Now you see what it takes to become an international shark,” another well-known player told the bemused visitor.

At cocktails at the S.W. 1 area home of the Baron, people were betting on how many times a certain letter appeared on the back of a particular cigarette package. The Baron wasn’t playing. The letter he was interested in was the one he had just received from an aunt, who had read in a London newspaper about the Baron’s naked romp on the QE 2. The story had been radioed from the ship to a London columnist by an unidentified snitch who was among the Baron’s crowd. “You are a spoiled rich kid with more money than brains,” the letter from the aunt said. “You have given your family a right royal black eye. Your uncle has gone into a silence.”

“All my mother said was she had looked at my body for quite a number of years, and couldn’t understand why I would want to show it around,” the Baron said.

Later, back again at the Clermont, one could see across the room the backsides of many people pressing in to watch the final of the tournament. “I would like to see what they are doing,” said Esmond Cooper-Key, “but I would rather need to be a giraffe, wouldn’t I?”

“With a grasp of the game,” the Baron said.

Charles Benson joined the group at the table.

“Are you doing well, Charles?” asked Esmond.

“We’ll know in a few minutes. You know I bought Baquiche at the auction,” Benson said.

A sudden prattle burst from among the backsides.

“Baquiche has won,” someone said, heading for the bar.

“Not too bad a week, all in all,” said Benson.

Trumped Up Backgammon

(If Donald Trump played backgammon, what might it sound like?  Here is one possibility.)

So I guess you know we’re live on the Whittenburg Network. They’ve got this camera here and we’re live. The other players never have their matches covered live. You know 24 million people watched my last match.

Live Match

I’m leading in the race by the way. Everyone’s counted and Trump is ahead on every count. It’s amazing. Gerry counted, and in Gerry’s count we’re leading big. Another count just came out from Cliff and we’re leading even more in that one, and Trump’s lead is tremendously big in Litton’s count. So we’re winning the race.

Winning Race

So I see this guy Michael, a total lightweight, was talking about Trump. You know Michael. What a stiff. I hear this guy Michael calls me a pigeon. I said to myself it’s amazing, here’s a guy who must not be a very bright guy. Anyway, he said some terrible things about the way Trump plays. Where is Michael on the scoresheet? Zero.

He might be smarter than DT, but what do I know. I saw DT the other day. He’s doing very poorly on the scoresheet, by the way. And he puts on glasses so people will think he’s smart. But lots of people have tried to come after Trump and they all go down on the scoresheet. Trump is leading on the scoresheet, by the way. We have a tremendous score. It will make your head spin.


The other day, I played Jana. By the way, look at that face. What a face. Is that a face you want to sit across the board from? Anyway, I’m playing her and I think she got some very unfair dice against me. It was clear they were gotcha dice. You could just tell there she was there to beat Trump. I mean she had dice coming out of her…wherever.


And we’re going to do some amazing things, I have tremendous plans for this match. It’s going to be terrific, we’re going to do great things. I don’t want to talk about it too much now in terms of specifics, but I’m very smart. I went to the Magriel School. So you’re going to see some amazing things in this match.

Trump smart

So one problem we’re having in this game is checker security. It’s a tremendous problem. Huge.

And by the way, I love checkers. I have a lot of respect for checkers. A lot of people say, “Oh, Trump doesn’t like checkers.” But I do. I’ve had thousands of checkers working for me. I’ve built points with checkers. They love Trump. Seriously, they love me. And by the way, a poll just came out, and your checkers love me more than they love you, they want me to win. I’m gonna win with the support of your checkers. But anyway, I love checkers. They’re great.

But one thing checkers do is they make anchors. We’ve got to talk about the anchor checkers. And so now people will say, “Trump hates anchor checkers.” But that’s not true, I love them, they’re tremendous checkers, but we can’t have that. Just because they start over here, they think they have a right to stay here and make an anchor but that’s not right. A lot of smart people have looked at this and I think we’re gonna find out that we need to change the rules on allowing anchor checkers.

U.S. Republican presidential candidate, real estate mogul and TV personality Donald Trump makes a point as he formally announces his campaign for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination during an event at Trump Tower in New York June 16, 2015. REUTERS/Brendan McDermid - RTX1GRB9

So anyway, we’ve got this real problem with checker security. The checkers are being sent from over there and they’re coming over here and hitting other checkers and we’ve got to stop that, and I will stop that. We’re gonna build a prime, the most amazing prime. It’s going to be terrific, beautiful. You’re gonna love it. Because Trump builds primes, I know how to build a prime, I’ve built the most amazing primes. We’re gonna call it the Great Prime of Trump. And it’s not gonna be the kind of prime you can just come out and leap over. No, it’s going to be a smart, strong, amazing prime. You’re not gonna believe how great it’s going to be.

And I’m gonna make you pay for it.


A Few Vingnettes

Games of Chance

I have heard a story of two persons playing backgammon, one of whom became so enraged at losing his match at a particular point of the game, that he took his board and threw it out of the window.  It fell upon the head of one of the passengers in the street, who came up to demand instant satisfaction for the affront and injury he had sustained.  The losing gambler only asked him if he understood backgammon, and finding that he did, said that if upon seeing the state of the game he did not excuse the extravagance of his conduct, he would give him any other satisfaction he wished for.  The tables were accordingly brought, and the situation of the two contending parties being explained, the gentleman put up his sword and went away perfectly satisfied.


The Manitowoc Herald, May 5, 1859

Tom Browne Says

“A woman may learn one useful doctrine from the game of backgammon, which is, not to take up any man ‘til she’s sure of him.”

The Athens Post, June 3, 1859

Tric trac

Treatment of the Insane in Russia

The behavior of the attendants is polite and courteous; every patient is received very respectfully, and first taken into the society of the most rational of the lunatics, who have likewise acquired the same tone of politeness.  Here the patient is shown the interesting collections and productions of art; refreshments are brought in; he is invited to a game of billiards or backgammon…


Burlington Weekly Free Press, February 17, 1843

More Funny Papers!

On October 11, 1821, the Times of London gives us an account of two people who loved the game a little too much.

It appears that one fine day, a certain Mrs. Kahl of London went out visiting in the morning around 11:00 am and returned about 7:00 pm the same evening.

But Mrs. Kahl returned home to a bit of a shock. She was:

Struck with astonishment at seeing a light appearing and disappearing at the windows of her house.

And as she knew no one was home, Mrs. Kahl leapt to the only logical conclusion. Burglars! But she did NOT panic.

Instead of making a noise that might alert the thieves as most other females would have done, she quietly went to some of her neighbors and communicated her suspicions…

The troupe of neighborly Good Samaritans reconnoitered the house, procured a ladder, and entered quietly as mice through a second floor window. They crept down the stairs and tiptoed to the parlor door where:

They saw to their great surprise the two thieves playing a game of backgammon. They were sitting on a sofa and had the backgammon table between them. One of them instantly started up and said, “We’ll make no resistance.” On examination it was found that the house had been ransacked from top to bottom!

If only one of them hadn’t steered for a backgame and successfully executed the coup classique they would have gotten clean away! The moral of the story is, that if you MUST play backgammon while burgling a home, try for racing games!

Charles_Peace_penny_dreadful_1Burglar Bill

In November of 1822, The Hagerstown, Maryland Torch and Light Public Advertiser gives us a punny backgammon tale.

Apparently, it was the fashion of the era to make backgammon boards in the form of books like so:

bg book set

One day, a gentleman named Adam purchased one of these sets that was housed in the shell of Milton’s Paradise Lost.

Upon taking the set home to his fair Eve, it was found that the dice cups and checkers were all present and accounted for, but:

The magical cubes (proverbially the device of the Old Serpent) which give life to the whole system were missing!

Whereupon Eve remarked:

In truth, my dear, this is Milton’s pair o’dice lost!


In June 1840 the New York Evening Post reported an unfortunate occurrence in the life of a player who was loving but not much loved in return:

On Saturday evening last, Major John Loving, proprietor of the Commercial Hotel in this place, was dangerously wounded with a dirk, in a personal affray with Dr. E.E. Slade.  The misunderstanding arose respecting a game of backgammon they had been playing together.


CSI Final with Commentary by Gerry Tansey – Part III

Final of the  2015 Central States Invitational


Tak Morioka and Gerry Tansey

13 point match

Game 12

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 9, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9

Brown rolls 5-4, 24/15.


There are times when making the 5-point is better than hitting the outfield blot with 31. This isn’t one of them, since I can also use the ace to split after hitting. For more information, read “Backgammon Openings, Vol. 1” by Nack Ballard and Paul Weaver.

Brown rolls 4-3, bar/21, 24/21.


When your opponent has made an advanced anchor, the bar point goes down in value, and the point 6 pips away from the anchor goes up in value (at least in the early going). XG’s play is just better than mine here.

Brown rolls 4-2, 8/4, 6/4.


My play strips the midpoint. I don’t typically like to run with a checker if it only gets to my opponent’s 9-point, but getting the back checkers moving and keeping a spare on the midpoint is more important here.

Brown rolls 3-1, 6/3*, 3/2*.  White rolls 5-1, bar/24, bar/20.


Tak’s play puts a checker on the bar against a three-point board with no inner board blots. This would probably be the right play if he had more ammunition in the zone to follow up on the blitz, or if he had a big lead in the race. As it is, the backup isn’t there yet, and the race is close, so making the 5-point is a better play for the long term.


What a swing number. Instead of dancing, I make the 20-point anchor and can heave a sigh of relief.

Brown rolls 3-2, 13/8.  White rolls 6-3, 8/2, 6/3.


Brown can take advantage of the two blots in my board to put a checker on the 9-point. He might be able to make it next turn, or he can use it as a cover for the 3-point.


I regretted this play as soon as I picked up my dice. While my play leaves no shots this turn, the follow-up is very difficult with all of my outfield points stripped. At a cost of just 4 hitting numbers, I create a much more flexible position, and I even create builders for the 5-point.


Tak makes a good play, choosing “pretty” over “safe.” If I hit his blot, it comes at a price, and his play creates a smoother, more threatening position in the future.


And on cue, I am forced to leave a shot. I chose to duplicate hitting and covering sixes.

Brown rolls 6-6, 21/15*, 13/7(2), 9/3.  White rolls 2-1, bar/24, 8/6.


I like Tak’s decision to play on. I don’t care what XG says.


I thought hitting loose just got me gammoned more, without giving me a realistic chance to win, so I played safe.

Brown rolls 6-1, 7/1*, 2/1.  White rolls 4-3, fanning.

Brown rolls 2-1, 15/13, 7/6.  White rolls 6-4, fanning.

Brown rolls 4-1, 21/17, 13/12.  White rolls 6-5, bar/20, 7/1.


Weirdly, I now like Tak’s decision to cash, despite XG’s tiny preference for playing on. I’m not going to leave any blots next turn, but I could roll 66 and have some chances in the race.

Game 13

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 9, Tak Morioka (Brown): 10

White rolls 6-5, 24/13.  Brown rolls 3-1, 8/5, 6/5.

White rolls 6-5, 24/13.


The minor split actually leads to more contact and more bad numbers for me. Since Brown is down in the race and has a better board, this is what he should strive for.


Normally with a 51, it is not right to hit two (but it is right with a 65) because the double hit strips the 8-point, so there aren’t as many ways to cover the bar point blot while keeping the 8-point.

Here, the double hit has the benefit of minimizing shots in a position where getting hit is quite bad (I’m up in the race and have a worse board). But I decided that the seven-checker stack on the midpoint was too ugly to be left unremedied, so I played 13/7.

Brown rolls 6-5, bar/20, 24/18*.  White rolls 5-1, bar/24, 13/8.

Brown rolls 4-2, 20/16, 18/16.  White rolls 5-4, 13/4.

Brown rolls 6-5, 16/11, 16/10.


My worst blunder of the match is brought to you by a nasty combination of oversight and positional misunderstanding.

I did see that this roll lets me hit the checker on the 15-point. Had I also seen that I could move 4/1, I would have made that play. Experienced players are not always accustomed to moving blots from desirable points to undesirable points, so in my mind, the blot on the 4-point was effectively nailed in place. But if I move it to the ace point, Black only has 19 hitting numbers (1’s and 3’s except 63, and 55). On the 17 non-hitters, I’m quite happy. I’m up in the race and have basically escaped all of my checkers.

Now, imagining my 4-point blot nailed down, I thought, “What am I trying to accomplish by hitting if I’m giving him 4s, 3s and 1s to hit back?” It turns out that if I play 24/15* 13/10, then Brown has 25 numbers that hit back (all 1s, 3s, and 4s, except 61 and 63, 22 and 55.). But again, I’m quite happy on the 11 nonhitters.

No, I thought, “Let’s make the big scary board and hit him later if he leaves a shot.” The trouble is that Brown has escaped all his checkers has a very nice, smooth position that is easy to improve safely. I’m giving him a chance to play 15 vs. 1. This is completely hopeless.


I would have said that my big blunder last roll cost me the match, except that Tak rolled one of the few numbers where I would have ended up with a worse position had I made the right play!

White rolls 3-1, 8/4.  Brown rolls 2-1, 6/4, 5/4.

White rolls 6-2, 24/22, 13/7.  Brown rolls 4-3, 11/7, 10/7.

Brown rolls 5-3, 13/8, 7/4.


Tak has a nice double here. His best number is 55, which buries me, gains in the race, and threatens to gammon me. 44, 42, 41, 22, and 21 make a 6-prime, after which I’m usually dead (and most of these numbers are not great racing numbers). 33 and 11 shift and put me in the air, after which I’m suffering if I roll badly from the bar. And Tak will gladly take 66 and 54 for various reasons.

So that’s 14 numbers I’d rather not see, many of which (but not all) are absolutely crushing. Tak is certainly favored on the remaining 22 numbers.

Here are a couple of mitigating factors. The less important one is that my board strength does not make his building of a 6-prime an automatic win. Tak may have to think carefully about hitting loose to roll the prime forward.

But the greater source of concern is the fact that I am up 10 pips here. If I can jump his prime safely and turn this into a race while holding a 2 cube, I usually win. More often than you may think, in fact. That’s because Tak’s take point on a 4-cube at this score is 40 percent. That’s really high! Remember that I would have roughly a 50 percent chance to win the game if I am on roll and DOWN 4 pips in a typical race. For a race in which we both have a pip count of 100, I usually have a big redouble and Tak has a take. If I have a 1 pip lead, it usually turns into a pass!

Then there’s this issue. How do you play your duds if you are Brown? For instance, how do you play 53? How do you play 31? Answers next roll…


Give yourself a thousand lashes with a wet noodle if you failed to point of White’s head with this roll. The 6 numbers that hit back from the roof are scary, but not nearly as scary as the possibility of my rolling a 6 and winning immediately.

Now, for the duds. With a 31, Brown should play 13/9, slotting the back of the prime. A 6 from White is bad anyway, so why not give White one chance to roll it, then prime him forever if he fails. This play does lose more gammons than a quiet play like 10/6, but the increased number of wins is worth it.

With a 53, one might be tempted to hit loose, but this gives White 14 immediate great numbers. It’s better to play 13/10 11/6. Then at least White’s 61 and 64 still run into a double shot.

White rolls 6-4, fanning.  Brown rolls 4-3, 13/10, 11/7.

White rolls 4-3, fanning, Brown rolls, 5-4, 13/9, 13/8.

White rolls 2-2, bar/23, 13/11, 13/9.  Brown rolls 4-3, 10/7, 9/5.


Brown rolls 5-3, 7/2, 5/2.  White rolls 6-4, fanning.

Brown rolls 5-2, 10/5, 8/6.  White rolls 3-1, bar/24, 8/5,

Brown rolls 6-2, 8/2, 6/4.  White rolls 5-3, 7/2, 5/2.


White rolls 4-3, 11/7, 4/1.  Brown rolls 4-2, 5/3, 4/off.

White rolls 5-3, 7/4, 6/1.  Brown rolls 5-3, takes 2 off.


It’s a bit better to save a 6 here. I’m not in much gammon danger.

Brown rolls 6-1, 6/5, 6/off.  White rolls 6-5, 24/13.

Brown rolls 2-2, takes 3 off.  White rolls 6-5, 13/2.

Brown rolls 5-3, takes 2 off.  White rolls 5-3, takes 2 off.


White rolls 4-2 takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 3-2, 5/off.

White rolls 2-2, , takes 3 off.  Brown rolls 6-6, takes 3 off.

Game 14

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 9, Tak Morioka (Brown): 12

Crawford Game

Brown rolls 5-4, 24/20, 13/8.


A gammon is valuable here, although actually not too much more than for money. What makes the aggressive hitting play so competitive here is that Tak’s gammons are worthless.

Brown rolls 6-2, 20/14, 13/11.  White rolls 2-2, 13/11(2)*, 6/4(2).

Brown rolls 6-1, bar/24, 11/5.  White rolls 6-1, 11/5, 6/5.

Brown rolls 5/3, 13/5, White rolls 5-2, 24/22, 11/6.


Tak should try to get to the edge of my prime while it is not too dangerous. Hitting here does nothing about the back checkers and often just gets another checker sent back behind the prime.

White rolls 3-1, bar/22*, 22/21.  Brown rolls 5-4, fanning.


Looks like someone figured out escaping is important! The blots do not matter much. Even if one is hit, that usually leads to a ton of return shots.

Brown rolls 5-4, fanning.  White rolls 6-2, 24/16.


44 is a problem. I should split the checkers on the 16-point. It is very unlikely Tak will be able to win by hitting and containing my checkers.

Brown rolls 4-2, 8/4, 6/4.  White rolls 4-1, 16/11.


Very close decision. Hitting wins more, but loses more gammons too.

White rolls 4-1, bar/24, 11/7.  Brown rolls 5-1, 24/23, 8/3.


I have to prevent Tak from getting the bar point. I think that’s why hitting is essential, even if it is ugly.


Yikes! I have some ugly numbers now.

White rolls 4-1, 24/23, 5/1*.  Brown rolls 5-4, fanning.


Whew! I escaped, and now have great gammon chances.


I think Tak would rather have fanned than come in like this.


There is relatively little danger in slotting the three point. If I’m hit, Brown usually crunches before he can get all of his back checkers out. The real danger is in never making the 3-point. Then Brown gets to play a phantom 2-3 backgame.

Brown rolls 3-3, 7/1(2).


What a horrible shake! I bet the spectators loved it!

Brown rolls 3-1, 23/22*, 5/2.  White rolls 4-3, fanning.


The bot says to lift the blot, but leaving it definitely wins more games. Tak wants to close me out.

White rolls 3-1, fanning.  Brown rolls 5-2, 23/18, 16/14.

White rolls 5-2, bar/20*, 20/18.  Brown rolls 4-4, fanning.

White rolls 6-1, 18/11*.  Brown rolls 5-1, fanning.


Slotting the 3-point is safer than it looks. Brown has three on the bar against a 4-point board. Even if he hits me, I still usually just have to enter one checker on a 5-point board before he enters 2 checkers on a 4-point board.

The real danger, again, is what happens if I never make the 3-point. Then Brown has a phantom 2-3 backgame…while I have 4 checkers on the ace point. That’s quite dangerous, and that’s why this decision is not even close.


Rats! Okay, who will get his checkers in first?

White rolls 6-2, fanning.  Brown rolls 4-1, fanning.

White rolls 2-1, fanning, Brown rolls 6-5, fanning.

White rolls 3-1, fanning.  Brown rolls 6-5, fanning.

White rolls 6-4, fanning.  Brown rolls 4-1, fanning.


I got in! Now this three was the source of some controversy. Some players thought I went “too hard for the gammon” by hitting here. I hit not because hitting wins more gammons (although it certainly does) but because it wins more games! This position is terribly problematic if I don’t make the 3-point (or worse, if Black does), so I need to fight for it now. Once again, hitting is much safer than it looks (and not hitting much more dangerous).


Ho boy! I did not want to see this!

White rolls 2-1, fanning,  Brown rolls 6-2, bar/23. 22/16.


I’m going to be honest. I thought there was a chance I might lose this game after this number 🙂

White rolls 6-5, bar/19.  Brown rolls 6-3, 23/13.

White rolls 5-4, fanning, Brown rolls 5-1, 23/18*,

White rolls 6/5, bar/19.  Brown rolls 3-2, 18/15, 16/14.

White rolls 4-2, fanning.  Brown rolls 5-5, 23/13, 15/5.


I saw the banana split play. I just didn’t think it was right given my awful forward structure. If I make the play, and if Brown fans, I guess I’m happy. I’ve got all those blots to shoot at, and plenty of hit-and cover numbers. But if I’m hit, I’m dead, since it is nearly impossible to put the front structure back together again with those 4 checkers on the ace point.

I thought that by playing Bar/18, I could keep the forward structure intact, even though it walks into a ton of shots. If I enter again after being hit, I can maybe survive.

I found this impossible to weigh accurately over the board, and the additional gammons I win with the banana split play make that play hugely right. Fortunately, this probably won’t ever come up again. If it does, two of my checkers on the ace will be on the deuce, and it will be crystal clear to hit!


Tak missed! He told me later that he didn’t mind, because it let him clean up his blots.

White rolls 4-3, 18/11.  Brown rolls 4-2, 22/16.


Hitting is clear. I thought it was time to start moving the back checkers while Brown was on the bar, but the rollout says otherwise.

Brown rolls 4-2, bar/23, 5/1.  White rolls 4-3, 19/15, 9/6.

Brown rolls 4-2, 12/16,


What a number! Well, even though my plan of eschewing the banana split to keep my structure was bad, it looks like it is working.

Brown rolls 6-4, fanning.  White rolls 6-4, 15/11, 15/9.

Brown rolls 6-5, fanning.  White rolls 6-3, 11/5, 9/6.

Brown rolls 3-2, bar/22, 12/10.  White rolls 6-4, 8/4, 6/off.

Brown rolls 5/1, 12/6.  White rolls 4-3, 5/2, 4/off.

Brown rolls 6/3, 10/1.  White rolls 5-4, 6/2, 6/1.


Again, Tak should stay, even if he has to break his board. It is his best chance to win, and there is virtually no gammon danger.

White rolls 3-2, 5/off.  Brown rolls 6-3, 16/7.

White rolls 6-4, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 5-3, 7/4, 5/off.

White rolls 6-5, takes 2 off.  Brown resigns a single game and 1 point.

Game 15

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 10, Tak Morioka (Brown): 12

White rolls 3-1, 8/5, 6/5.  Brown rolls 2-1, 13/11, 6/5.


White rolls 5-5, 13/3(2).  Brown rolls 5-5, 13/3(2).


Running duplicates Brown’s 1s and 3s to hit and cover.


The last deuce 6/4 stacking is bad enough, even at the score, that it might be right to risk a shot to slot the 4 point. I really like Tak’s play.


But I should take advantage of Tak’s blot to leave two blots in the outfield aiming at my 4-point, rather than one blot that doesn’t aim at my 4-point.


No choice for Tak here. He creates a strong board and puts it to use by putting me in the air. He can’t let me have my whole roll to do what I want.

White rolls 6-2, bar/23, 11/5.


How many of you would have played 5/1 5/2*?

Tak’s play loses the fewest gammons, so it has to be a contender at the score. The one-blot play of 13/6, keeping the nice structure is also a contender, even though it leaves a direct shot. I was just glad it wasn’t my decision!

White rolls 4-2, 8/4, 6/4.


The DMP play is 9/2*, hitting and leaving two blots. The DMP play is 9/2*, hitting and leaving two blots. But a hit from the bar is usually fatal, and often leads to a gammon. Tak’s safe play looks best by a little bit at the score.

White rolls 2-2, 13/9(2).  Brown rolls 5-3, 6/3, 6/1.

White rolls 6-5, 23/12.  Brown rolls 2-2, 8/2, 4/2.

White rolls 6-4, 8/2, 6/2.  Brown rolls 5-1, 8/2.


I need to keep a goalkeeper back on the 12-point to try to hit a Brown checker that is forced to run with a 6. Although this does risk losing when Brown hits a fly shot, the extra gammons that result when I can close out two checkers makes it worth it, even for money.

Brown rolls 3-1, 4/1, 2/1.  White rolls 6/2, 9/3, 6/4.

Brown rolls 6-5, 24/13.


This one surprised me. For money, hitting loose is not right. But at the score, when I am willing to make a 1-to-1 trade of wins for gammons, hitting is right. I thought that I would be sacrificing far more wins than I actually am if I hit. But I guess Black still has a bit of racing equity (indeed, I will be very sad if he rolls 66).

Brown rolls 2-1, 13/10.  White rolls 3-1, 8/5, 3/2.

Brown rolls 4-3, 10/3.



One more shot for the fans!


He missed. It’s DMP time.

White rolls 6-3, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 5-3, 14/6.

White rolls 6-6, takes 4 off.  Brown rolls 5-2, takes 2 off.

White rolls 6-1, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 5-2,takes 2 off.



Brown rolls 3-1, takes 2 off.  White rolls 5-2,takes 2 off.

Brown resigns a single game and 2 points.

Game 16

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 12, Tak Morioka (Brown): 12

Brown rolls 6-5, 24/13.  White rolls 2-2, 13/11(2), 6/3(2).


I like Tak’s play of unstacking the heavy midpoint.


It’s close between my play, running, and slotting the 5, going for the prime. One good thing about the slot is that even if I’m hit, it is tough for that straggler to get out. Another is that I’m not ahead in the race, slotting avoids making a racing play.


Wish I’d slotted the five now. Sure it would have been hit, but the six is no fun for Brown. This is too easy for Tak.

White rolls 4-3, bar/21, 24/21.  Brown rolls 5-2, 24/22, 8/3.


Hitting is mandatory. Brown can’t be allowed to leave easily.


There are two strange things about this roll. First, I would be in much better shape if I hadn’t hit with the previous roll. Second, although most players would ask for something that hit if they could call their roll, this non-hitting roll is Tak’s very best number.


I failed to hit, and now I’m a huge dog.


The ace is clear. With the deuce, Brown should absolutely not leave a blot in the outfield. He doesn’t need to build anymore. If he can come home safely, he will win. So even though plays like 8/6 and 3/1 are ugly, they are much better than leaving me 4 shots of hope.

White rolls 3-1, 11/10, 8/5.  Brown rolls 4-3, 11/7, 6/3.

White rolls 2-1, 10/7.  Brown rolls 3-2, 8/3.

White rolls 3-1, 11/7.  Brown rolls 3-3, 13/7(2).

White rolls 2-2, 13/5.


Even though Kit Woolsey’s “Clear from the rear and ask no questions” usually rules the day, here the result is an ugly stack on the 7 point. If Brown rolls too many 3s, this can become a problem.

White rolls 6-4, 13/7, 6/2.  Brown rolls 6-4, 7/3, 7/1.

White rolls 5-2, 7/5, 7/2.  Brown rolls 4-4, 7/3(3), 6/2.

White rolls 2-2, 5/1(2). Brown rolls 4-3 6/2, 3/off.


Brown rolls 6-3 (2), 5/2(2). White rolls 2-2 21/17, 15/11.

Brown rolls 5-5, takes 4 off. White rolls 3-2, 11/6.

Brown rolls 3-1, takes 2 off. White rolls 6-1, 17/10.


Tak Morioka wins his second ABT title in less than a year (he also won in Peoria in 2014). A very impressive performance indeed!

White resigns a single game and the match.

CSI Final with Commentary by Gerry Tansey – Part II

Final of the  2015 Central States Invitational


Tak Morioka and Gerry Tansey

13 point match

Game 6 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 1, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9


Coming down with two checkers is not a bad play for money. Trailing big in the match, I think it’s clearly right.

Brown rolls 6-6, 24/18(2), 13/7(2).  White rolls 6-5, 11/5, 8/3.

Brown rolls 3-3, 8/5(2), 6/3(2).  White rolls 5-1, 8/3, 6/5.


For money, this is a double and a big pass. Tak is about a 3-to-1 favorite, and quite a few of those wins are gammons. At the score, Tak should not double here, since his gammon threat is less useful as leverage here. If the game turns around a bit, I can (and will) recube to 4 to “kill” his gammons (i.e., make them useless to him) while making my gammons more powerful.

As to the checker play, XG dings Tak very hard here. The 8 point is a nice addition to Brown’s priming formation, and 13/9 provides a nice builder for the 4-point, even at the cost of a direct shot. In fact, if White rolls something like 52 after the best play, Brown really does have a double, and I have a pass.

Tak’s play places a builder on the 3-point where it doesn’t belong, and it makes it more difficult to improve the position. In particular, it is very hard to make the 4-point naturally after the what was played in the game.


My turn to screw things up. It seems unnatural to run when one is down in the race, but I’m actually running out of time here since I have 48 pips locked up in my anchor. I should run out from behind Tak’s blockade, and expect to get hit. It is not the end of the world if this happens, since I usually come in right away, either remaking my anchor, or “splitting,” hoping to make a better anchor.

My actual play leaves a blot anyway, of course, but I should run even if I my roll were 63.

Brown rolls 4-2, 13/11, 13/9.  White rolls 5-2, 13/8, 6/4.


Making the 4-point should be Brown’s overarching priority. The best play maximizes builders for it. Even if White hits a fly shot, Brown will have two blots to shoot at from the bar.

After the best play, if White doesn’t roll anything special, Brown’s threat of making the 4-point should lead him to cash the game.


After this roll, the game should be over. Brown will take control of the outfield and play 15 vs 2 against White’s back checkers.


I don’t know whether Tak thought he was too good or not good enough here. I could imagine a player thinking either one. But now I have almost no game left. Mostly I’m relying on eventually hitting a shot from my ace point game for my winning chances, and I win almost no gammons. Brown shouldn’t be afraid of doubling.

At the same time, Brown may never make the 4-point, and this could lead to some awkwardness down the line. Tak should make me pay to see that though.

White rolls 5-4, 6/1, 5/1.


For the next few rolls, XG says that Brown should cash, but just barely. I think Tak is strong enough (and I’m weak enough) to make playing on a reasonable choice. If I roll something that kind of escapes, Tak can usually cash the game.

White rolls 4-4, 6/2(2), 5/1(2).  Brown rolls 3-2, 15/13, 12/9.

White rolls 5-4, 5/1.  Brown rolls 6-6, 13/7, 9/3(3).

White rolls 5-3, 24/16.


So you think you know how to play backgammon? What do you do with this cube decision? There are certainly some blotting numbers for Brown here. 63 is an especially fun number, leaving a shot a two blots from the roof. White also has a little bit of racing equity here.

But even when Brown is forced to blot, White still has to hit it, and then win the game from there. Brown still has a big edge here, and it is very hard for White to win a gammon. Brown has a huge cube here, and XG says that White should pass. I think I would have taken, thinking that I had enough slimy variations that led to a win.

White rolls 5-5, 16/1.


Well, things have improved a bit in the race for me. It is still a big double, but now I can take.

Brown rolls 3-1, 5/2, 3/2.  White rolls 2-1, 5/3, 4/3.



Still a big cube, but now a huge take. All of Brown’s threes except 33 leave a blot, as well as 65 and 64. 63 leaves a double shot. In fact, if Tak had cubed me and rolled 63, I would have a small, but correct redouble at the score. With a centered cube, I don’t have a double no matter what Tak rolls.

Brown rolls 6-4, 7/3, 7/1*.


A pretty good miss. I am only a small underdog now.

Brown rolls 1-1, 5/4, 2/off, 1/off.  White rolls 5-4, 9/off.

Brown rolls, 4-3, takes 2 off.  White rolls 6-1, takes 2 off.

Brown rolls 6-4, 6/off, 5/1.  White rolls 6-4, takes 2 off.

Brown rolls 3-1, takes 2 off.


I rolled one of my four absolute crushers. Tak will pass unless he rolls something special.

Brown rolls 6-3, takes 2 off.

White doubles, Brown passes.

Game 7 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 2, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9


This is an old school play that has fallen out of favor in the post-bot era. It tends to be more appropriate when one is trailing (and it is definitely right in my mind when trailing 4-away/2-away). But this play sacrifices some wins for a more gammonish position, which the leader should not seek to do.

Perhaps Tak believed he was playing a weaker player, and thus tried for a prime-vs-prime game, which tends to lead to more complications.

White rolls 6-6, 24/18(2), 13/7(2).  Brown rolls 5-3, 13/5.


When you roll 66 on the second roll of the game, then turn the cube on your next turn, it is known as an “Atlanta Double.” Since Atlanta is the place where I first started playing backgammon seriously, I can tell you that I have absolutely no idea why this is the case. Players in Atlanta weren’t particularly prone to offering Atlanta Doubles.

You should know that for money, the Atlanta Double is usually wrong. The rule of thumb that I use is one I read on Stick’s site, “Double sixes plus another net improvement is a cube.”

Now, trailing big in the match, I can be a bit looser with that cube. Apparently I don’t quite have a double in this position, but it is very close. If Tak did not have his 5-point made, I’m pretty sure I would have a correct cube. Note that if I roll 31, 42, 11, 22, 33, 44, or 55 here, Brown would be very hard-pressed to take a cube if he didn’t roll something great in response.

White rolls 6-1, 13/7, 8/7.


I don’t know why XG says it is okay to split here. My position has stacks that would love nothing more than to have targets to shoot at.



For money, one might consider making the 22-point anchor and then the 4-point, noting that the additional contact might favor the player trailing the race. But with a big lead and the cube turned, Tak makes the 20-point, in effect telling me, “You shall not gammon me!” This tends to be the right idea at the score.


Tak must be pleased with his previous play, as this 21 would have allowed me to make the 5-point otherwise.

Brown rolls 6-3, 13/4.  White rolls 6-5, 13/8, 13/7.

Brown rolls 4-2, 6/4, 6/2.



I think I’m supposed to keep a spare outside my board, so that I don’t have to break one of my outside points should I roll 6x. Of course, XG’s play leaves a blot on 66.

Brown rolls 5-2, 8/6, 8/3.  White rolls 6-2, 8/6, 8/2.

Brown rolls 6-2, 20/14, 6/4.  White rolls 6-6, 7/1(2).


XG’s play is very clever. It duplicates my three’s to hit and cover the 3-point. Look at how badly my non-hitting sixes play after the right play. Yikes!


I failed to hit with this 52, and it is just an inexcusable error. I was afraid of getting gammoned, and I thought, “I’m ahead in the race; I don’t need to put all my eggs in one basket with the big play.”

The problem is that I do have a 4-point board, so hitting plays start to pan out more often than with weaker boards. Also, I am basically out of time here. This is actually an excellent opportunity to leave my anchor while getting a “risk discount.” Hitting only leaves Brown with 13 hitting numbers, fewer than the 17 (or more) numbers I will probably have to leave later if I don’t hit.

After I made my play, Tak asked me whether I would have hit if he had played 20/16 5/2 the roll before. I said I probably would have with the extra blot lying around. I would have been correct by a small margin. So Tak’s blunder induced an even bigger blunder on my part. Well played, sir.


Here, there’s no duplication involved, but Tak should take advantage of the blot in my board to give a double shot on my bad sixes.

White rolls 3-1, 6/3, 2/1.


Brown rolls a good racing number, but he is not yet ahead in the race. If he stays back, I will either have to leave a shot or crack my board next turn. Tak’s play reduces the pressure on my back checkers.


This was a hard choice for me, and apparently I got it badly wrong. I did not like the idea of breaking my board and burying another checker with the 5. The race is close, and I’d like to use my pips for racing if possible. I’m still giving Tak bad aces if I stay with one checker, but now his twos are really good. Too good, in fact. I should stand pat and force him to play inside with a “small-big” combination (or leave a shot with 61 and 62.


Tak’s dice reward me for my bad play.


Gotta go now. I’m up 9 raw pips after the roll, but my gap on the 5-point and stack on the ace point make me a small underdog.

Brown rolls 4-1, 9/8, 9/5.  White rolls 5-3, 15/12, 10/5.

Brown rolls 5-2, 8/3, 2/off.  White rolls 3-1, 12/9, 6/5.

Brown rolls 6-2, takes 2 off.  White rolls 4-2, 9/5, 2/off.


White rolls 1-1, takes 4 off.  Brown rolls 6-3, takes 2 off.

White rolls 4-1, 5/off.  Brown rolls 3-3, 5/2, 4/1, 3/off(2).

White rolls 3-2, takes 2 off.


White rolls 5-4, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 6-1, 5/4, 5/off.

White rolls 5-4, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 5-1, 5/off, 2/1.

White rolls 4-4, takes 3 off and wins a single game – 2 points.

Game 8 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 4, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9

White rolls 5-1, 24/23, 13/8.


Although the default play with a 62 is to split with the 6 and come down from the midpoint with the 2, once I have split with 51, it is right by a surprising amount to run all the way with the 62. I have too many good numbers against the other play.

White rolls 6-5, 24/18, 23/18.  Brown rolls 4-2, 8/4, 6/4.

White rolls 6-1, 13/7, 8/7.


Brown tries to keep his back checkers connected. XG thinks he should just run with the 16-point checker and leave junior to fend for himself. Hitting a blot on the 10-point comes usually gives Brown return shots. Tak’s play runs when he’s down in the race, and leaves me great hitting deuces, plus numbers to hit loose on my five-point.

White rolls 3-1, 8/5*, 6/5.  Brown rolls 5-1, bar/24, 14/9.


I’m surprised the take is this close. I think most players would pass this quickly as the leader. Heck, I think a lot of players would pass this for money (they shouldn’t; it is a big take).

Game 9 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 5, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9


Again, it is a bit anti-thematic for the leader to make the more gammonish play here with the 43. Most players would split here.


After 43 down, the bots these days favor the play I made with this 33 for money. Sometimes you put more pressure on your opponent by not hitting. I make an anchor right in front of his two builders that would like to make an offensive point. And although we shouldn’t usually like sacrificing the 8-point to make an inner board point, Tak will have to use his whole roll if he hits the 8-point blot left behind, giving me a lot of return shots from the bar.

If your opponent plays 43 down with the opening roll, 33 is a response he does not want to see. Make sure you know how to play it properly.


Hitting is right. It does come with a cost.


Usually the outfield hit is right, since it gains more in the race. But here it gives up the anchor when I have a perfectly good hit that keeps the anchor. This is a silly mistake for me to make.


Normally, putting me on the bar is not a bad tactical move. The trouble is that I have a good six to play here, so this doesn’t cut down too much on my shots. All my numbers containing a 1, 5, or 6 hit except for 66. Tak should just keep the blot count down and slot his 5-point with 10/5.


I’m going to be honest here. I didn’t do much analysis over the board in this position. I just saw that I had a better board and Tak had 3 blots lying around, so I just doubled from the roof without thinking any more about it. It is not good to trail in matches, but there are some perks. One of them is that you can be super-aggressive with initial doubles that have some gammon potential. It’s only fair. A player who is trailing by a large margin might be prone to steaming, but in turn the steaming plays are often correct at the score!

Tak may have hit on the ace point last turn to try to stave off this cube (it is tougher to cube when you are on the bar than otherwise). But he is not supposed to pass this one. There is a ton of game left. I don’t have the 8-point, and I have only 7 checkers in the zone. Even if the worst happens and I hit two blots, my lack of ammunition up front will usually mean that Tak can establish a second anchor, and it will be difficult for me to bring this home safely.

Although I was disappointed not to have the chance to win a gammon here, I was very happy to take the point.

Game 10 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 6, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9


If I had to pick a game where I felt I threw away my best chance to win the match, I would choose this one. Even though I made bigger mistakes in other games, I hated the way I played this game the most.

But I don’t hate the way I played this 43. I’m down in the match, so I make the gammonish play of two down.

Brown rolls 6-1, 13/7, 8/7.


Three of the fives are clear. XG doesn’t know whether to slot the 5 or the 4. I slotted the 5, since it is the better point.



My 55 put Black 20 pips down in the race, so auto-piloting this 65 with the Lover’s Leap play of 24/13 is a serious mistake. It is better not to run when down in the race. Counter-priming is better, so two down is the play.

White rolls 4-3, 24/21, 9/5.


Of course, if you roll TWO 65s, running is the right idea!


I just build my board and see if Tak rolls something that coughs up a blot.


And Brown has to leave a shot! I am glad it was not my decision as to how to play this roll. Tak’s play leaves only 12 immediate hitting numbers, which is safer than XG’s play, which leaves 15 numbers. And it is quite bad to get hit here. However, 13/10 13/8 unstacks the heavy point and is easier to clean up if Tak gets away with it. How do you determine which one is better? Beats me.


Mostly I’m going to tear my plays apart this game, but I will pat myself on the back for this double. XG 4-ply says this is a small double, but a rollout turns it into a monster cube at the score (it is actually a correct initial double for money). Over the board, I knew that my 12 hitting numbers were crushing. So I basically just counted the race to make sure I wasn’t horribly behind (and then counted again, then a third time, since my first two counts didn’t agree). Since I was actually up 7 pips, I was very comfortable shipping the cube here.

Since Tak is fine the 2/3 of the time I don’t hit, it is a super-easy take.

White rolls 1-1, 24/22*, 22/21, 6/5.  Brown rolls 6-3, fanning.


But here is a big blunder. Let me explain how this happens.

When conducting a blitz, your emphasis should usually be on bringing builders down first, moving the back checkers second. However, in this position, I already have a four-point board and well diversified builders to attack the open points. Although the bar point has some value if Black comes in deep, it is terrible if he rolls something like 54, escaping. The best improvement I can make to my position is to hop out with the 6. This gets the back checkers moving and provides some outfield coverage. The best ace is then 21/20, making it easier for this checker to escape.

Brown rolls 6-3, fanning.  White rolls 5-3, 21/13.


Again, I’ve got enough builders (especially if 13/10 is the 3). Jumping is the most pressing problem.

Brown rolls 5-3, fanning.


The last ace after making the 4-point is 7/6 to diversify attackers on the ace point.

Brown rolls 6-1, bar/24, 13/7.



Hitting loose is clear to maximize gammons.


Tak makes a good play here. Putting two in the air by hitting loose with the deuce gives Brown excellent counter-priming chances if he gets away with it.


Even though it breaks the 6-prime, I have to shift 2/1* after entering with both checkers. It should be clear that this play wins the most gammons, as it gives me chances to shoot at Brown’s blot while he is on the bar. It may be less clear that this play wins the most games. Tak’s counter-priming threat is very real, and very serious.

Brown rolls 6-3, fanning.  White rolls 6-2, 24/16.


A tremendous shot from Tak. If I don’t hit him, he has great chances to not only run off the gammon, but also to win the game.


Here I provoked a fight when the terms were most favorable to me by running all the way out.

First, we must reject the “safe” play 16/6, as this lets Black play 15 vs 1 against my back checker, which is just awful. Death may not come swiftly, but it does come often in the end.

My play runs into a hail of shots. The trouble for Brown is that he has to hit right now, or probably not hit at all. He usually can’t do this completely safely, as there is a blot in his board. This leads to return shots (and resulting gammons if those shots are hit). How good do you feel as Brown after my play if you roll 61?

The rollout suggests that the DMP play might be the compromise play of 24/20, 16/10. This limits the number of shots that send a checker back to 12.


Tak correctly hits, because hitting wins quite often, while not hitting basically gives up. However, at the gammon-save score of 1-away/2-away Crawford, Brown should make the wimpy play, since the additional wins from hitting are not as numerous as the additional gammon losses.


Well, I didn’t hit, but I did get to the edge of Brown’s three-prime, so I’m still a favorite.

Brown rolls 6-6, 13/1(2).  White rolls 3-1, 15/11.


Critical roll coming up. I’m a big dog if I roll poorly.


A great roll for me, and the gammon is back on.

Brown rolls 6-3, fanning.  White rolls 6-1, 16/9.

Brown rolls 5-2, bar/23, 13/8.


Although it’s not my biggest error, this is my most disappointing error of the whole match.

If you woke me up in the middle of the night and asked me how to play this 43, I would say, “Hit! And how did you get in here?” I win many more gammons if I hit than if I don’t. And I’m not dead if Black hits me from the bar, so I’m not giving up too many wins.

I was clearly influenced by earlier events in this game. I hit loose in nearly the safest possible situation earlier and almost lost the game. I thought something along the lines of, “I can play safe this turn. I win a few gammons if I close him out later.” But I won’t close him out later unless I roll a number that points on his head (if I was going to hit loose, I would have done it now), and in the meantime, Brown is bringing his checkers home and reducing the percentage of gammons I can win.

I made many mistakes in this match. Some were due to an oversight. Some were due to my misunderstanding of a position. This particular mistake was a choke.

Brown rolls 4-3, 13/9, 8/5.


One roll later and it is already wrong to hit loose here. The moment has passed.

Brown rolls 5-4, 9/4, 8/4.  White rolls 6-4, 7/3, 7/1.


Brown has almost all of his checkers home. He can afford to stay and wait for a shot. There is minuscule gammon danger now. This play just gives up.

White rolls 1-1, 3/2, 1/off(3).  Brown rolls 6-5, 18/7.

White rolls 5-4, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 5-2, 8/3, 7/5.

White rolls 3-1, 5/4, 3/off.  Brown rolls 3-1, 7/4, 1/off.



Brown rolls 6-4, takes 2 off.  White rolls 6-2, takes 2 off.

Brown rolls 6-6, takes 4 off.  White rolls 3-3, takes 3 off.

Brown rolls 5-1, takes 2 off, White rolls 6-4, takes 2 off.


White rolls 3-1, 5/1.  Brown rolls 3-1,  resigns a single game – 2 points.

Game 11 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 8, Tak Morioka (Brown): 9

White rolls 5-3, 8/3, 6/3.


Splitting with the 51 is right after your opponent has made the three point.


After hitting, the 5 is 13/8. This unstacks the heavy midpoint and leaves the 20-point slotted so I can make it later.


Bar/23 24/20 looks scary, but it gives the best chance to get an advanced anchor. I have some sympathy for Tak’s play though. My front structure is looking very “blitzy.” I have nine checkers in the zone already, and some spare checkers that would love to attack blots.


Emotionally, I hate lifting with aces. Backgammon is supposed to be pretty. We slot the points we want, our opponent obliges us by not hitting, we cover, and our opponent graciously slips into a losing position.

But I didn’t like any of my other aces, and getting hit here takes a lot of air out of the attack in a situation where I might be one good exchange away from a cube. The bots have convinced me to lift in situations like this, and it looks like it might be right.


Tak duplicates my threes and unstacks his 6-point.

White rolls 2-1, 24/21*.  Brown rolls 6-6, fanning.


Even if you were not sure whether this was a double, you simply have to double in this spot. Your opponent has four men back, no board, and has just fanned against a two-point board. You’re going to get some passes.

But it is a big take. Although I’ve technically got 9 in the zone, that dilly builder on the 3-point is of questionable value. Brown has an anchor, and if he wins the fight for the 20-point, or makes any other anchor, he will be in fine shape. White has a lot of work to do, and Brown is no longer so far ahead that he should drop cubes that have some gammon threat attached.

At this stage, having tied the match at 9 after being down 9-1, I really thought I was going to win. Tak had other ideas.

CSI Final with Commentary by Gerry Tansey – Part I

Final of the  2015 Central States Invitational


Tak Morioka and Gerry Tansey

13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 0, Tak Morioka (Brown): 0


Most top players prefer to slot the 5-point with an opening 21. It has a greater upside when it works than splitting, and it leads to more complex positions.


Hitting is far better than making the 5-point with this 31, as it leads to a concrete advantage, namely a large lead in the race. If White makes the 5-point, then Brown usually makes his own 5-point, and the game is even.

Interestingly, with a roll of 1-1, the bots slightly prefer making the 5 and bar points to hitting with the whole roll.



After hitting, moving 20/14 with the 6 is clear to minimize return shots. A good rule of thumb in the early going is to not leave your opponent a good 6 from the bar.


Coming in with the 3 is clear, since Brown does not want to have 3 checkers on the 24 point. Brown has several choices with the ace, but since Brown’s back checkers are already pretty well placed for making an advanced anchor, I like Tak’s play of slotting the 5-point. Since Brown already has 4 checkers back and White has a 1-point board, Brown is not too concerned about having another checker sent back. He can afford to play “purely,” placing his checkers where they belong without concern for their safety.


Hitting two here is right by a mile. White’s most direct path to victory is to prevent Brown from making a second anchor.

Tak entered with a 6-3.  Bar/22*.


White just keeps hitting here. Before you become too concerned about fighting against your opponent’s backgame, you should make certain that your opponent is actually forced to play a backgame.


Tak now has two deep anchors and a checker on the bar. Do you think he’s committed to a backgame yet? Read on.


I chose to partially escape my back checkers by making the 16-point. Another idea is to realize that the point 6 pips away from Black’s front anchor, the 9-point, might be a good point to have. Slotting the 9-point with 13/9 and playing 20/14 is attractive and perhaps worth the shots from the bar, which are not too damaging in any case.


The 5 comes in, and after that Tak breaks the back anchor. Tak is not committed to playing a deep backgame, and the added flexibility of splitting the back men allows him to fight for a more advanced anchor or hit any blots White might leave in the outfield. Even if I point on Tak’s head with 31, he can usually remake the second deep anchor later if he needs to.


Mainly, I thought the 11-point was important here to pressure my 5-point. Tak’s 2’s and 4’s are duplicated to make the 20-point and to hit. If Tak does make my 5-point, I have builders to make more points in my outside blockade. If he fails to make my 5-point, I might be able to attack and make my 5-point myself. Even if Tak hits one or both of my blots, it is not the end of the world.

I felt that the one-blot plays were tough to follow up, even if I got away with them. I would be left with an awkward structure on my 13- and 14- points, which would be tough to deal with in the face of Tak’s likely 2-anchor structure.


Brown rolls a great number, but doesn’t quite get the most out of it. Tak’s mistake is understandable though. He’s well down in the race even after this roll, so he wants to take care of his defensive position first. But making the offensive 5-point is so good with this roll that it cries out to be made. The anchors can be improved later.


I thought balancing out the spares in the outfield with Bar/24 14/11 outweighed the potential benefits of creeping closer to safety with Bar/22 14/13. I was also concerned about playing 6s if I made the latter play and Tak then made his 9-point.



Now we really do want to try to get out with the 2.


An excellent roll for Tak played 13/9, making my 6s awkward again.


Hey! I made an inner board point. This is much better than making the 9-point, which doesn’t really block much and just strips my outfield points of spares.


Tak’s structure is good. There’s nothing to do here but move the remaining checker 23/18.


A big mistake for me. With a big lead in the race, my biggest problem is escaping the back checker. The ace simply has to be 22/21. Many times 22/18 is right in positions like these. It isn’t here because it gives Black good 6s when he otherwise doesn’t have them. Just 11/8 with the 3 is fine.


Slotting the bar point is right by a mile. Pointing on my head would be very wrong here. Tak is still well down in the race and does not have the ammunition in place to blitz me. If he can make the 5-prime, Tak will have a very strong position.


Stepping up to the edge of the “almost 5-prime” is still right, even though it comes at a cost of breaking my 4-point with 4/3. I was concerned that busting my board would leave Tak freer to attack me, but not being at the edge of Tak’s 5-prime is pretty disconcerting too.


Brown rolls 2-2 played 13/11, 13/7.


Stepping up with the ace is huge.


Tak rolls 2-1 played 11/8.


My outfield points are stripped, and Tak is very likely to at hit my straggler loose next turn. If I then roll a number like 61 from the bar, I’ll have to leave another blot. It is also not great to leave a blot in one’s home board if one is anticipating an exchange of hits. Finally, it is very likely one of my outfield points will be forced to break in a turn or two. This 21 lets me do it in the most constructive way possible, putting spares on the most valuable points in front of Brown’s anchors. I should have cleared the 10 point.


As promised, Tak hits loose, breaking his 5-prime to do so. Other plays are blunders, but do notice that the second and third best plays also hit. Tak cannot afford to give me the opportunity to roll a 6 to escape. If Tak were to play 8/3, even if I failed to escape, his follow-up would usually be difficult. When you have a lot of checkers back, it is important to use the checkers you have up front efficiently. Tak really needs to make the points in order, and the next point in line is the 4-point.

White rolls 3-1 playing bar/21*.


This is how you want to roll from the roof in the finals! Remember when it looked like Black was going to play a backgame?

White rolls 6-3.  Bar/22.



Another great roll. The cube is almost certainly coming next.

White rolls 4-4 fanning.


Since I have two on the roof against the best 4-point board, Tak clearly has at least a double. (Often times this is too good, but Tak has quite a bit of work to do in extricating his back checkers).

I need a lot of positional compensation to take this cube – more than I’ve actually got. XG 4-ply actually does think it’s a take, but the rollout reveals the horrible truth. The trouble is that Brown doesn’t really have many bad numbers. His 4s, 5s and 6s all move his back checkers constructively. Only 33 is a truly bad number here. The best I can really hope for is to make a deep anchor. By the time that happens, Tak will have probably done most of the work of escaping, and maybe added another point to his board or his prime. This is a big pass, and I should have let this one go.

Having said that, some blunderful passes are worse than others. Tak will have all of the decisions for a while, so he might give back some of the equity I frittered away…

Brown rolls 3-1 played 8/4.

White rolls 6-3, fanning.


Tak’s hardest checker to extricate is the one on the 22-point. He should have liberated it here. Instead, Tak tried to attain outfield control by breaking the bar point. Perhaps he wanted to build his own bar point quickly and form a 5-prime. Maybe he thought the defensive bar point could be a problematic point to clear later. But the defensive bar point is serving as an important bridge in the process of releasing the back checkers, and I still have two on the bar. Extrication has to be the priority now.

White rolls 6-6.


No escaping can be done with this number, so Tak slots his bar point. He might make the bar point later, or use this checker to build his two point.

White rolls 3-2, bar/23.


Brown can make the five-prime with this roll, or he can hit loose. Which should he do?

I know it doesn’t look like White is threatening much in this position, but he actually is. White’s biggest threat is making the 23-point anchor. If he does that, all of a sudden Brown has three checkers disconnected from the rest of his forces and almost no time to escape them before his front position starts breaking down.

If you are just starting to learn the game, this is an important lesson: Good backgammon players are not fearless; rather, they fear the right things. When you are in an attacking position, you should not be afraid to hit loose, and then get hit back. You should be afraid of your opponent *making an anchor.*


Even though I have to leave two outside blots, I’m thrilled with making this anchor. I’m over 40 percent to win now. We have a game again.


Remember when Tak had no bad escaping numbers? When he broke the defensive bar, 5s became useless for escaping. This is a horrific number that forces Tak to break his 6-point. It’s probably a little better to just clear the 6-point entirely, but it is not horrible to maintain a 4-point board while tempting me to hit the blot.

White rolls 6-1, 13/6.


A pretty good roll for Brown, escaping the toughest checker, while threatening to remake the 6-point.


This is how you roll in the finals! The first two 4s are clearly used to hit and make the 19-point. Then we make a third point in our board with the other two checkers while eyeing Brown’s outfield blot.

My plan was to redouble if Tak rolled one of his 9 fanning numbers. His 20-point anchor and good standing in the race would give him a comfortable take, of course. I didn’t even notice at the time that if Brown rolls 63, that is much worse than fanning. Tak would have to pass a redouble if that happened.


Tak keeps the blot count at 1 and prepares to escape by playing Bar/20.

Even though I’m a favorite here and shooting at a blot, I don’t have a proper redouble. I am down 11 pips in the race, and Tak is anchored, so I’ll feel rather silly if I give away the cube and roll a dud next turn. My thought was, “Let’s hit that blot and then see how we feel.”

White rolls 3-1, 12/8.


A good roll for Black, safetying his checker and springing one of his back men.

White rolls 3-1, 8/4.


The question of when to stay or go is always difficult. I’m sympathetic to Tak’s play here. He’s up in the race, so he’s running out of time. He has me outboarded, so I have to be careful about hitting him loose. If he were to play 14/7, I could seize the outfield by leaping out with my two back checkers. The desire to run and force me to deal with his straggler now is completely understandable.

But leaving the anchor is just too dangerous. 55, 44, 33, 54, 53, and 43 point on Brown’s head and usually lose the game immediately. Brown certainly would not like to see 11, and even pick-and-pass numbers can quickly become problematic. There is too much immediate death for Brown to leave the anchor now.


Hitting is clear. Since it is possible to lift the blot, White lifts it in this case. White must respect Brown’s 4-point board. Note that White would still hit loose with a 52 in this position, even though it is not possible to lift the blot in that case.

Brown rolls 4-1, bar/20.


I have to hit loose here. I continued with 5/3 to put Tak’s checker on a tougher point to escape from if he does hit. Also, if my blot survives, I can use an ace from the 4-point stack constructively.

Brown rolls 1-1.  Bar/24, 14/13(2), 4/3.


Now that the home boards are of equal strength, it becomes even more clear to hit loose with the 3. Note that there is no truly “safe” 3 anyway. 9/6 leaves two very hittable outfield blots.

Incidentally, if Brown fans here, I have a big redouble, and Tak has a big take.

Brown rolls 5-4, bar/20, 7/3.


This is a critical moment. There is no safe play here, so hitting with the 4 is clear. I played 8/3 to diversify covering numbers/return shots.

On Brown’s 16 fans, the correct cube action is redouble/pass. White is not always dead when Black hits. However…


It’s the finals, baby! Tak finds his very best roll (good for him). He is a favorite to win a gammon now.

White rolls 5-2, bar/23.


Remember what I said about fearing your opponent making an anchor? Tak correctly hits two. His play wins more games and more gammons than any other. It isn’t close.

White fans with 4-3.  Brown rolls 5-2, 13/10, 7/2.

White rolls 6-2, bar/24.  Brown rolls 3-2, 16/14, 10/7.

White fans,  Brown rolls 4-1, 13/8.

White rolls 6-5, bar/19.  Brown rolls 6-3, 14/5.

White fans.


XG slightly prefers risking an immediate hit with 61 from the bar to Tak’s play. I can’t say I would have found this. I suppose XG’s play leaves very few later blotting possibilities if Brown gets away with it, while there may be future problems clearing the bar or leaving an awkward bearoff distribution with Tak’s play.

But still, 2 immediate shots is a lot to leave. I don’t know if many humans would make the bot play in this instance.

White fans.  Brown rolls 2-2, 7/5(2), 4/off.

White fans.  Brown rolls 5-2, takes 2 off.

White fans.  Brown rolls 6-5, takes 2 off.

White fans.  Brown rolls 5-5 takes 4 off.

White rolls 4-3, bar/18.  Brown rolls 5-1, takes 2 off.Picture47

White rolls 6-2, 19/17, 19/13.  Brown rolls 2-1 takes 2 off.

Brown resigns a gammon – 4 points.

Game 2 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 0, Tak Morioka (Brown): 4

Brown rolls 5-3, 8/3, 6/3.  White rolls 6-2, 24/18, 13/11.


Coming down with the 3 both wins and loses more gammons than splitting. Since Tak has the lead, and splitting also wins slightly more plain games, he should split here.


I would definitely anchor here for money. My hitting play is very likely to lead to a blot hitting contest in which I am outboarded and outgunned. The upside to hitting is that I gain a lot of pips in the race. However, anchoring shuts down Tak’s offense and lets me concentrate on playing against Tak’s back checkers.


The punishment comes quickly. This 11 roll allows Tak to enter, hit, and make the 5-point.

White rolls 6-5 fanning.  Fanning is not what you want to do here.


Certainly Brown has the advantage in a gammonish position. Is it enough to double?

First, let’s convince ourselves that White has a super-easy take. Consider the following position: White opens with a 52, splitting with the 2 and coming down from the midpoint with the 5. Brown rolls 33, making the 5 and 3 points. White dances. This is a well known reference position. For money, Brown has a big double and White has a big take. It is a blunder for either player to deviate from these actions.

Now, how is this position different? Brown has an additional builder on the 10-point (plus) but a third man back on the 24-point (minus). The movement of the builder from the 6-point to the 7-point has little effect. Now, I would judge that the 3rd checker on the 24-point carries a bit more weight than the additional builder on the 10 point. Brown’s attack will run out of steam faster if he gets a fourth man sent back, so I think Brown stands slightly worse than in the reference position.

White’s only change is that the fourth man on the 8-point is now a blot on the 11-point. In these early blitz positions, this tends to be a wash. Sure, the blot is a target (though Brown will not hit if he rolls an immediate 64), but if White anchors, this checker becomes a valuable builder).

Thus, compared with the reference position, Brown stands a bit worse, and White is roughly the same. Thus we would expect that for money, this is a small double for Brown and a trivial take for White.

Leading 4-0 in a match to 13, Brown can still offer gammonish initial doubles correctly. He still needs to score points. He does have to be careful about taking and offering 4 cubes. However, marginal initial doubles for money turn into no doubles at the score. As a result, this is technically a bit shy of a correct initial double leading 4-0/13.

Practically, the cube is not quite as bad as that if Brown is playing an unknown quantity. People pass “scary” cubes all the time. But you should not expect to bluff out a good player with this double, since a good player will go through the same thought process I outlined and scoop up this cube.


I think this is a tough play. The 6 is easy. But I think we’ve all heard the adage, “Three on the ace point is death,” so even before the dice landed, most players would be mentally moving a spare off the ace point (if they didn’t roll something that made the 4-point).

But the bot likes making the broken 6-prime with the deuce. This recalls another adage: “Offense, offense. Defense, defense.” When it seems like you are on offense, make offensive plays.

White rolls 5-1, bar/24, 13/8.


I wonder how many players would have the guts to break the bar and make the 4-point here. If White doesn’t roll something great, he is toast after that play. Notice that the race is close, and making the 4-point gives Brown a 4-to-1 advantage in home board points. Even if White hits, the position is fraught with gammon danger for some time.

White rolls 4-2 making the 4-point.


I think most players would miss this play. The 10-point is 6 pips away from the open 4-point, the most crucial point for Brown to make in this position. Further, the cost of leaving a blot on the midpoint is lessened, since many of White’s hitting aces could also be used to make the bar or 5-points. In fact, I should not hit with 61 or 31, and I should make the 5-point instead.

White rolls 6-1 making the 5-point.  Suddenly, I’ve got a bit of structure.


A tough choice here. The impulse to split is understandable, particularly when not splitting forces a direct shot. However, this does lead to a poorly placed spare on the 3-point. XG seems to like trying to make the 4-point instead, either by bringing down builders or by slotting it directly.


A little fast for my taste, but putting a checker in the air against a 4.5-point board is pretty good.

Brown rolls 5-1, a great shot hitting and getting out.


Here I fell victim to what I’ve heard Mary Hickey refer to as “Fancy Play Syndrome.” Coming in with the 4 is clear. White would like to make that point and see daylight. But then I saw that if I played the natural deuce 8/6, then Brown’s numbers would be very diversified. I thought there would be very few bad rolls. If I played the “banana split” play, he would at least have 9 dancing numbers.

But really, the banana split play is most appropriate when certain death comes if drastic steps are not taken. Here, I’ve got quite a strong structure, and Brown can’t usually do everything. I was most afraid of Brown attacking me on the 4-point, but that is not a risk-free proposition for him if he doesn’t roll a perfecta. My play misplaces a checker on the ace point and opens me up to some nasty double hits. I should just trust my structure and let the position come to me.


I think Tak’s first impulse was to hit on the 22-point. In a position where your opponent has a lot of checkers back already, it is often right not to hit a blot on the ace-point, since that checker is already so poorly placed.

I think Tak believed he didn’t have a good ace after hitting on the 22-point. But he really did! Slotting the two with the dilly builder is the right play. That ugly checker is such a liability that he should put it to work right away. Brown would rather not be hit, but it really is no tragedy if that checker is recirculated. White is not in any position to go for a quick knockout, and having that additional checker hit might help Brown’s timing.

Admittedly, this best play is hard to find. However, if Brown is going to hit on the 24-point, the best 3 is to also hit loose on the 4-point. This play puts immense pressure on White to roll a 4 immediately. If he doesn’t, Brown is usually just crushed like a bug, pinned in a hopeless ace-point game. There is some obvious risk involved. White definitely is in danger of losing if Brown does hit with a 4, but understand that if White can roll a 4 and make the 21-point anchor, that is pretty good for White anyway.


I made the advanced anchor, and then had an awkward 6 to play. I think I should have played 13/7. Even though this breaks the midpoint and leaves a ton of shots, I think it is the play that fights more. Brown will not be able to escape without hitting me with this play, which allows me to keep my structure longer. The 1296-trial rollout says that these plays are too close to call, with my play losing fewer gammons, but the other play winning more games.


An inexperienced player might not realize it, but this was a tremendous roll for Tak. He escapes his back checker without hitting and leaves no blots. It will be nearly impossible for me to keep both my back structure and my front position unless Brown rolls some big doubles now.

White rolls 4-2, 8/2.


Which point should Tak break? I don’t know. A blot on the 13-point gets hit by aces and nines, for 15 shots (though those nines are decidedly double-edged, since they break the anchor). A blot on the 15-point gets hit by threes, elevens, and 21, for 14 shots. However, White is very likely to have to break the midpoint next turn, so holding on to the 15-point might provide more contact should White be forced to leave a blot in the outfield. It’s a tough call.


I decided that getting hit hurts me more than helps me, so I left with both checkers from the midpoint to minimize shots. Busting the board is not an option.



Even though 9/3 makes a neat 5-point board, it is mandatory to come out with the 6. I have a lot of numbers that don’t jump the 4-prime (which could become a 5-prime) next turn, and that would force my board to crack, which would be a disaster. The board must stay intact at all costs.


This is a very tough judgment to make. If Tak hits me, he clearly wins more gammons, but that hit might give me just enough additional timing to hold everything together, which leads to more wins for White.


I really don’t want to be hit now, but I decide to “make the board and be annoying.” Black leaves a potentially game-losing shot on 64, 65, and 66.


Now Tak really should hit, since I have some really bad entering numbers. Look at how 61 and 62 play for starters. Then note that several other numbers will force me to break my board.

White rolls 3-1, 15/11.  Brown rolls 4-2, 12/6.



Note that running from the anchor is not that bad here, and actually wins more games than 11/4. I will likely have to run next time, if I roll something that jumps. Otherwise I have to break.

Brown rolls 3-2, 12/7.


Basically, I have to give up most of my remaining winning chances here. I would like to stay back with somebody on the 24-point, but doing that would force me to destroy my board too much. Even if I were to get a shot, could I then win the game? Probably not. I would definitely lose a lot more gammons back on the 24-point.


It is normally right to clear from the rear like Tak did here, but keeping the 4-prime for one shake has more merit than usual here. If I can’t jump this roll, I have to break up my board more, leading to a more secure win for Tak.

White rolls 6-5, 21/16, 21/15.  Brown rolls 6-1, 7/1, 6/5.

White rolls 4-4, 16/4, 15/11.  Brown rolls 3/1, 5/1.

White rolls 5-1, 11/5.  Brown rolls 4-2, 7/5, 7/3.


Brown rolls 4-1, 6/2, 1/off.  White rolls 6-4, 15/5.

Brown rolls 4-2, 5/1, 2/off.  White rolls 4-3, 21/14.

Brown rolls 6-1 takes 2 off.  White rolls 5-4, 14/5.


Brown rolls 5-1, takes 2 off.  White rolls 6-1 takes 2 off.

Brown rolls 3-2, takes 2 off.  White rolls 5-3 takes 2 off.

Brown rolls 1-1, 3/2, 3/off.  Brown rolls 4-4, takes 3 off.


Brown rolls 3-3, takes 2 off.  White rolls 5-3, takes 2 off.

Brown rolls 6-2, takes 2 off.  White rolls 4-2, 5/3, 4/off.

Brown rolls 6-1, 5/off, 3/2.  White resigns a single game and 2 points.

Game 3 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 0, Tak Morioka (Brown): 6

White rolls 6-2, 24/18, 13/10.  Brown rolls 5-1, 13/7*.

White rolls 6-6 fanning.  Brown rolls 6/3, 24/15*.

White rolls 6-2, bar/23.


For money, Brown might consider giving a marginal double here. It probably isn’t right to double, but he certainly should pause.

At the score, Brown should not even pause (he didn’t, and neither should you). Just roll.


A good roll, which I severely botched. I was afraid of coming “under the gun” with 24/20, but I’m really putting Brown under some pressure with that play. Many of the rolls that point on my head in that case also leave return shots from the bar.

13/9(2) makes a new point rather than just swapping the 8-point for the 4-point. That’s a better play.


Tak’s play is the one most players would make. It does leave a big stack on the 6-point, however. The “run and hope you get away with it” play comes out very strongly here. The loss of the 8-point by my misplay of 44 has to be a major reason for this.


Although I’d like to hit, the 20-point anchor is crying out to be made here.

Brown rolls 6-2, 23/17, 13/11.


I missed, so I get to work on my board.

Brown rolls 3-1, 17/13.  White rolls 1-1, 6/5, 6/3.

Brown rolls 5-4, 11/7, 11/6.  White rolls 4-1, 13/9, 4/3.

Brown rolls 5/4, 7/2*, 6/2.


4-ply wanted to play 13/7 with the 6. I really didn’t understand this. 9/3 does put a checker deeper than we’d like, but I can’t stomach leaving a shot for Tak to hit.

Brown rolls 4-3, 13/6.


Now I can see why we might leave a blot on the midpoint. There are some immediate shot leaving numbers for Brown, namely 62, 63, 52, 54, 43, and 32. If Brown rolls one of these, I want a strong front position in case I hit his blot. 13/7 6/2 creates a five-prime with just one blot in the board. My play makes a four-prime with two blots in the board.

The right play does worse when Brown rolls an ace, but the upside on the remaining rolls outweighs this.

Brown rolls 3-1, 6/2.  White rolls 6-1, 13/7, 2/1.


Tak must have been afraid of creating more contact, so he failed to hit. But he shouldn’t be afraid of this. Putting me on the bar gives him a golden opportunity to clear the midpoint without much risk, as only 44 hits from the roof. I don’t have much time to keep my checkers in his board without busting up front anyway. The right play wins more games and more gammons.

White rolls 5-3, 13/5.  Brown rolls 6-6, 13/1(2)*.

White rolls 3-1, bar/22, 5/4.


These are the sorts of high-win percentage, low-gammon loss percentage positions that a player with a big lead (but still with some need to score points) should feel comfortable doubling. Brown will lose his market if he points on White’s head, makes the 4-point with 32 or 22, or picks and passes with White entering high (or not at all). White should not take this cube for money, so Brown should feel safe doubling here.

Having said that, it is easy to see how Brown might lose this game. He is likely to leave a shot at some point. Likely, but not guaranteed. And even if Brown leaves a shot, White only hits it about a third of the time. Brown is a large enough favorite with enough good things happening next roll that he has to cube now. Who knows? I might have passed. It is hard to take a cube like this. White is dead in the race and can only hope to win by hitting a shot that might not ever come.

White rolls 4-1, 7/2.


Brown rolled a good number. Brown’s winning and gammon percentages shot up. As advertised, White has an easy pass.

Game 4 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 0, Tak Morioka (Brown): 7

White rolls 4-2, 8/4, 6/4.  Brown rolls 6-1, 13/7, 8/7.

White rolls 6-1, 13/7, 8/7.  Brown rolls 6/1, 24/17*.

White rolls 5-1, bar/24, 13/8*.


Tak wants an advanced anchor, so after entering, he puts the other checker on the point he wants to make. Even the worst happens and I point on one of these checkers, he can still make an anchor with a decent number from the bar.


This is the sort of play where, when I make it, beginning players look at me like I have three heads. But an experienced player won’t even see another play here. I do not want Tak to make an anchor. I have him outboarded two to one. I’m already down in the race. And if I get away with this play, I have excellent chances to make a strong board quickly. In fact, if Tak doesn’t hit me here, I’m cubing at the score.

A passive play here has no upside at all. Especially in the early-going, we should make plays that give us something nice if they work.


Tak hits with one checker, fans with the other. Seems like a fair deal.


As much as I would have liked to have stayed on the 20-point, five blots seemed a little loose, even for me.


Tak anchored. I’ve got some scrambling to do.


Three on the ace point is death. So I moved the deuce from the 24-point and cleaned up a blot.


Tak can’t play this safely. I actually like his play of slotting the 9-point, but XG likes hitting. The hitting play makes it more difficult for me to make an advanced anchor. The hitting play duplicates 3s to hit and cover. It also gives me some truly awful sixes, namely 61, 62, and of course, 66.

Still, that checker looks to my eye like it belongs on the 9-point rather than the 3-point. This is one of the things that makes backgammon so difficult. How do we compare two plays when one play is better positionally, and the other is better tactically?



After anchoring with the 2, I chose to make the 8-point, trying to keep my checkers in front of his anchor.


It’s impossible to play this safely, so Tak plays 9/8, then hits on the ace point with the 5. This leaves only 11 shots, and if I miss, I will have to come in high. This will leave Tak with the ability to play behind my anchor if he can’t make the 5 and 4 points.

White rolls 4-3, bar/21, 6/3.


Once you’ve put one checker on the ace point, it is usually best to make it when you can. Old school players have conniptions when you make the ace point, but old school players thought you could only win a game of backgammon by building a prime or playing a backgame. Yes, the ace point is bad in those types of games. But in mutual holding games? Not so much.



I tried to improve my anchor because I read somewhere that the 22-point anchor is terrible. It’s actually not that bad if your opponent has made his ace point (Cue old school guy: “See, I told you whippersnappers not to make the ace!”). I was concerned about Tak making the 5 or 4 points, after which I felt I would regret not making a higher anchor.

Brown rolls 6-2, 13/11, 13/7.  White rolls 4-4, 13/9(2), 8/4, 6/2.

Brown rolls 4-1, 11/6.


Getting that spare checker out was big for me. I was able to keep my blocking points and gain a little bit of outfield coverage.


It can be scary to break your anchor and hit, but Tak simply must take advantage of this opportunity and do it now. Perhaps we should look at this as a pay-now-or-pay-later problem. Tak is up in this race by 17 pips after this roll (more if he hits). His front position rates to deteriorate, while I have some rolls that might seize control of the outfield. He needs to find a way to convert this position into a race, where he holds a sizable advantage. Now Brown can wait to roll doubles, but it is better to try to make a run for it now while he can put me on the bar. Even if I hit him back, he will have at least one blot to shoot at from the roof (rest assured, I will hit him loose on the five point and leave two blots if I have to).

We’re going to see an example of me screwing up a similar play later in the match. That’ll be fun.

White rolls 5-3, 16/8.  Brown rolls 2-1, 7/5, 6/5.

Brown rolls 6-1, 8/2, 4/3.


As much as I’d like to keep the outfield block, I couldn’t stomach wrecking my board to do it.


This is a great play by Tak. He can play safely for one roll, but then I might roll something that leaps into the outfield and seizes control. This is a great chance for Brown to seize outfield control at relatively low risk. He only really regrets this play if I roll an ace (33 and 66 also hit, but these were good rolls for me anyway).


That’s backgammon. Sometimes we are punished for our good plays.

Brown rolls 3-3, fanning.


Although it is possible for me to roll a dud, get hit from the roof, and lose, I really need to take a shake here. 21, 31, 32 and 11 make the best five point board. 51, 61, 42, 62, 22, 66, 63, 64, and 65 hit. 33 is awesome. 52 makes a 5-point board. There are so many good numbers, and not many bad ones, and the bad ones aren’t always followed by a good number from Tak. Psychologically, I wanted to get on the scoreboard, but I should have gone for more. That additional point might become very important.

Game 5 of 13 point match

Score is Gerry Tansey (White): 1, Tak Morioka (Brown): 7

White rolls 5-1, 24/23, 13/8.  Brown rolls 3-2, 24/21, 13/11.

White rolls 6-1, 13/7, 8/7.  Brown rolls 6-521/10.


I never considered the tempo hit in this spot. I thought Brown’s back checker was right where I wanted it. Brown does have quite a few numbers that do something constructive up front, so I guess I should do something about that. But I don’t really understand myself why slotting the 5-point is so bad here.

Brown rolls 6-2, 10/4, 6/4.  White rolls 6-6, 8/2(2), 7/1*(2).


After hitting, Tak picks up the outfield blot. This might be the right play at the score, but 13/10 is a serious contender. Only 55 and 65 hit one of the outfield blots. White will hit loose if he can otherwise, but if Black plays 13/10 and is not on the bar next turn, he has a lot of numbers that make the 5-point, which might be enough to lock up the game, given how stripped White’s outfield points are.


I opted to deny Tak good sixes, but I also stayed on the point he most wants to make. It is a close choice.


Oof. I had better not fan here. Tak should play on for a gammon if I do.


A great shot for me. This game is far from over.


Tak stays back. I have stripped outfield points and a blot in my board. He’d like to keep contact for this turn to see if I cough up a target for him to hit.

White rolls 4-2, 8/6, 8/4.



This is a tough choice between staying back and coming out. If Tak stays back, most of my sixes will leave a blot. But Tak won’t like it if I hit loose and he fans (or if I roll 11 or 44). Staying back is the more gammonish play for both sides, but gammons work a little better for me at the score, since I will cube after any hit/fan sequence.


Hitting is big. If Tak rolls poorly, he will get the cube.

Brown rolls 5-1, bar/20, 13/12.


This is the type of cube you have to give when you are trailing big in a match. I’m down a little in the race, but my threats are enough to make me a small favorite to win the game, with significant gammon chances if things go well. 65, 61, 51, and 11 make the 5-point on Brown’s head. These 7 numbers are huge market losers if Brown doesn’t enter right away. 43 and 52 are 4 more numbers which lose the market if Brown fans. I have several more numbers that hit loose. These are double-edged, but certainly I’ll be glad I cubed if Brown dances.

For money, this is probably a little thin for a double, since I will very much hate sequences where my attack fizzles and Brown has the cube to use against me. But at the score, I can really use a doubled gammon, and Brown will not be so eager to redouble to 4, so I have more incentive to cube. Brown has an easy take, as I still have a lot of work to do before I can claim victory.


Not a bad shake. A lot depends on this next roll…


Tak anchors and becomes an immediate favorite to win the game.

White rolls 5-1, 13/8, 11/10.


Tak is up in the race, so he is going to move 20/16(2) to disengage. It is tough for me to tell whether 20/12(2) or 13/9(2) is better for the remainder of the play.

White rolls 3-2, 10/5.  Brown rolls 4-2, 12/6.


I’m down one pip after the play. I thought I wanted to maximize contact with Tak’s midpoint and his 12-point blot, but this may be a situation where I’m not down in the race enough to be able to afford having 36 pips sunk in two checkers on the 18-point. The race may be close enough that disengaging a tad more than I’d like is my best chance.


Again with the immediate punishment. What a swing!


This is a dilemma. If I stay, I have to bury a checker on the 2-point, which is bad for the race. But there is not a ton of shot equity here anyway. There are, in fact, no numbers that leave a shot next turn for Brown. I decided it was best to take my chances in the race, dismal as those chances are.

It’s time to talk a little bit about the leader’s recube. For money, a racing lead of this size gives Brown a redouble, and White has a take. With a big lead, the leader usually should not offer any 4-cubes that the trailer can take for money. In fact, it is nearly a double whopper for the leader to redouble here.

Brown rolls 6-5, 9/4, 8/2.  White rolls 5-1, 12/6.


One sequence can change a lot in terms of racing cubes. First, the race got shorter. This favors the player leading the race. Second, Tak rolled more pips than I did. This is an enormous pass for money, so Tak should think hard about cubing here.

First, what is my take point on a 4-cube? If I pass, I will win the match about 12 percent of the time from 12-away/4-away. If I take and lose, I will win the match only 4.75 percent of the time from 12-away/2-away. So I’m risking 7.25 percent match winning chances. If I take and win 4 points, I will win the match about 38 percent of the time from 8-away/6-away. Thus I could gain 26 percent match winning chances. So my “dead cube take point” is (risk)/(risk + gain), or 7.25/(7.25 + 26) = 21.8 percent.

However, this is not the full story. My ownership of a 4-cube has some value. I might be able to cash a game with the cube that I would otherwise lose. More likely, I will “double in” Tak, so many of my wins will be worth 8 points. How do we take into account the value of cube ownership?

Here is where I get lazy, partly because there are too many terms to define, and partly because I don’t fully understand it myself. Just know that in a medium to long race, your true take point will be somewhat lower than your dead cube take point as long as you can give a decent recube when things go your way.

In this particular position, Tak has a big redouble, and I have a close pass. This is a situation that backgammon players don’t face too frequently these days when we play shorter matches. Normally, when one player has a big lead, he is also very close to winning, and thus shouldn’t ever think about recubing since he doesn’t need the extra points. But here Tak can use the 4 points from a recube (and has only 2 points of overage on any 8-cube that comes back), so there is a nontrivial window for that recube to 4.

Brown rolls 1-1, 8/5, 6/5.  White rolls 3-2, 8/6, 8/5.


Notice that I rolled one more pip than Tak did in that exchange, but Tak became a bigger favorite to win. The clock is ticking as the race gets shorter, and I have fewer and fewer opportunities to roll the big doubles I need to win.

Brown rolls 2-2, 9/5, 4/off.  White rolls 4-2, 15/9.

Brown rolls 4-1, takes 2 off.  White rolls 3-1, 9/6, 1/off.

Brown rolls 5-4, takes 2 off.  White rolls 4-3, 6/3, 4/off.


White rolls 5-2, takes 2 off.  Brown rolls 2-2, takes 2 off.

White rolls 5-1, takes 2 off.

Brown redoubles, White passes.


Sly vs. Kurzet Part II

Joe: Brown on roll. Cube action?


Audience: He doubles.

Joe: Absolutely.

Kit: This is a big rewhip!

Joe: Big rewhip! In fact, I guess it’s pretty clear what White should take, but…

Kit: Just to give you an idea how good a rewhip this is, suppose Brown makes the 4-point. Brown is probably the underdog here. But suppose he makes the 4-point and White rolls the double 4’s again. Not so happy now if you’re White.

Joe: One reason why Brown has to redouble here is there are so many market losing sequences. He makes his 4-point which he’s gonna do 28 times. And what if White rolls like any 6 besides deuce-6 or 3-6 – then he starts to crush. He’s under immediate pressure and Brown is perfectly placed to expand his prime.

Kit: This is a must redouble at this score, not even close.

Joe: OK, so Brown redoubled and he took.

Kit: I mean he has to take, he’s still the favorite, but he shouldn’t be liking what is happening.

Brown to play 5-3.


Joe: OK, Brown rolls 5-3. The 3 is pretty clear – 7/4.

Kit: Start the next point or bring the checker down?

Audience: Slot the 3-point.

Kit: That’s me!

Joe: You’re all experts. Going good so far.

Kit: Going right for the prime.

Joe: Yes, you must go for it. I mean for one thing Brown doesn’t have the flexibility. Two checkers back versus 1 checker back dictates that you put the checkers where you want them. If you bring this other checker down 13/8, you can imagine in this position rolling any 6 on your next roll. You’re going too far and you need to be pure so slotting seems pretty clear.

Kit: And so if you get hit you get another checker back. You fan, get better time, maybe. Anything can happen.

Joe: Maybe you will end-up with an ace point game. You get plenty of chances from there. Your checkers are pure. That’s one reason why if you go back to that 6-ace, why it’s so important not to slash down deep. You just have to keep your checkers in play. Purity counts.

White to play 5-2.


Kit: Pretty easy, I think. You could consider making the 3-point but that’s not right.

Joe: White’s objective here is to escape. Hitting takes Brown’s checker out of play and moves to the edge of the prime so it seems pretty natural. So we can reject making the 3-point. So there’s the deuce 24/22* and the 5 seems pretty easy 9/4.

Kit: Look how good the builders are for White’s 3-point.

Brown to play 2-1.


Joe: Okay, there’s a debate coming up here. Brown rolls 2-1.

Audience: Makes the 23-point. No, move to the 22-point.

Kit: I know what my play is here and I have a feeling Joe did the same thing.

Joe: OK, first of all I want you to look at it for a while. All in favor of moving up to the 22-point?

Audience: (About half raise their hands.)

Joe: All in favor of making 23-point?

Audience: (The other half raise their hands.)

Joe: Even split. Once again you have to get back to what your objectives are in this position. First of all, coming up to the edge of the prime is not the number 1 priority. If White rolls a 6 he pops out, if he rolls anything else he points on you. It sort of negates the whole play the whole roll. Also, an important thing to realize – and this is good because it will shoot us off into a short tangent. If the game goes awry here for Brown – as it’s starting to already – what’s likely to happen is that White points on Brown on the 23-point and Brown comes back in, then White escapes and Brown ends up with an ace point game of questionable timing.

Kit: Very questionable timing.

Joe: In decisions of questionable timing, you are better off with the deuce point. I’m glad I’m lecturing with Kit now. If Kit and I share a view on anything…

Kit: That would be…

Joe: That the 23-point in questionably timed positions is better than the 24-point. The 2-point game is better than the ace point game.

And this is one of the first projects I did when I started out playing backgammon about 10 years ago. I always thank Fleet Underwood and give him credit ‘cause he’s the one that prompted me into this game. He came over and said, “Well let’s look at this thing.” He had this little simulator. What we did is put the 2-point against the prime and the ace point game against the prime, and we rolled the prime in to see when it left shots, etc. And as we expected the ace point game yielded about 90% shots. And the deuce point game yielded about 75% shots. The only difference, the major difference though, is that the deuce point game was it was getting shots earlier. It was getting shots when, let’s assume Brown has the deuce point game here.

Brown was getting shots when White was getting 5-6-7 checkers off, and the shots were quality shots. The ace point game was getting 90% shots but a lot of that extra 15% was hitting the 15th checker. They were not quality hits by any means.

So we started to assign a figure for this. When a shot came, we assumed it got hit 30% of the time, and we assigned a value. And when we multiplied it out, we discovered in a non-gammon situation, the ace point game yielded about 22.4%, the deuce point game yielded about 25.2%. In terms of victories, the deuce point game actually outplayed the ace point game.

If I could continue for another second. One of the keys to the whole thing is that you have to bear off correctly against each of the games. The general strategy when you bear off against an ace point game is to clear points minimizing the shot values – clear the points quickly.

When you’re bearing off against the deuce point game, you should be peeling checkers off aggressively. That means taking a little bit of extra chances. Maybe leaving yourself somewhat uneven.

What generally happens is that people will bear off against the deuce point the same as the ace point game. To keep an even configuration on the outside, they take one checker off and start moving the other one to the ace point instead of peeling it off.

What generally happens is the ace point starts to apply suction. So much so that a shot with a deuce point game, is a lot of times a winner cause there’s only 9 checkers off or so. White may only be a 40-60 dog, ‘cause there’s a suction applied on the ace point.

Whereas the last ditch shot for the ace point, well that’s with 14 checkers off. That’s like saving a gammon if he hits. He’s only about 7% to win.

Kit: And also, another big consideration in making the deuce point is what does White want to do? He wants to escape his checker, but assuming he can’t do that, basically he wants to roll his prime in. Suppose White rolls something like a 4-3. With the deuce point open, he can just make the deuce point and smoothly roll it in. But now let’s put the deuce point in White’s face, now White can’t do anything. And another point, you might think, “Gee, I want to come up to that 22-point so I can escape.” But is that Brown’s game plan – to get into a racing game? No, he’s way behind. Do you want to play a 3-point game? No, because a 3-point game isn’t going to get nearly as many shots as a 2-point game. So for every reason you can look at, the 2-point is better.

Audience: One of the reasons that I want to come to the 22-point is not to make it, but Brown’s game deteriorates quite a bit if White rolls a 6 next time. I want to have a checker putting some pressure on the guy who’s on the backside of his prime. I don’t want him to be able to use the 6 freely to come out.

Kit: Let’s say he does. White rolls a 6 and moves in from the dark side of the prime…

Joe: He gets 4 shots, so what?.

Audience: Well at least you get “a” shot as opposed to other variations you get “no” shots.

Joe: You have a debatable argument there. My personal feeling is that it’s more important to establish some sort of foothold that I want to have. And the major swing for me in this position is, as Kit said, most of the 4’s for White play awkwardly and are going to go behind me. This strips his prime. The other thing is, if he rolls a 6 I don’t think it’s terrible for him to point on me if that’s a consideration with 6-1, 6-2, 6-3.

Audience: But if he does that, he’s still stuck, he still needs another 6 to get his last checker out.

Joe: He probably has the time to do it. I really don’t know whether he should make the point or come out. I really haven’t looked at that.

Kit: We’re both very strong on making the deuce point.

Joe: OK, we’ll move on.

Joe: White rolls 4-2.


Kit: Unlucky.

Joe: Any thoughts?

Kit: You know maybe we should make that 2-point.

Joe: OK

Kit: This rolls itself really indicates, really shows just how…

Joe: This is probably his root number here.

Kit: It’s pretty scary.

Audience: I hit him on the ace and 9/7. Just punt!

Joe: That’s what he did. I think it’s right. I don’t think you can justify leaving 20 numbers which not only hit but move up to the edge of the prime.

Kit: You can’t do anything. He’s allowed to play 9/5 and 6/4, though it would pretty ugly.

Joe: It’s a lot of ugly! Let’s look at what Kit’s saying here for a moment not leaving any shots at all. Imagine any scenario where Brown rolls a 3. And now White comes in ace-4, ace-5, ace-6…


Showing the position if White had played 9/5, 6/4.


Kit: If he doesn’t roll a 3 and White doesn’t roll a 6. Scary.


Audience: Still looks bad.

Joe: So he can’t afford to strip out his position, ‘cause that position leads to a gammon and costs him as much as 59% extra in match equity.

Kit: A slot here is scary ‘cause it makes every number for Brown good. He gets hit on the 3-point with 1’s and 2’s, and hit on the 22-point with 3’s, 4’s, and 5’s. That’s giving Brown a lot.

Brown to play 5-2.


Joe: OK, next big decision. Brown rolls 5-2.

Audience: Smack him. Hit.

Joe: OK, what’s your reasoning those of you who say “smack him”?

Audience: (Various answers.) Well, you don’t want to give him a free roll here …Yeah, you don’t want him to get away… If you let him come down, you let him get 11 rolls that are absolute crushers…If he hits you back, you can go into some kind of back game… This makes him make more decisions…You’re going to crash anyway-need to get out here.

Joe: How about 13/8?

Kit: That’s my play.

Audience: I like this one.

Joe: This was mulled over by 6 experts when we looked at this afterwards, and they went 4-2 in favor 13/8. I, however, am a hitting fan. I don’t want to give him the free roll to get out. I want to maintain the double edge sword. I feel that if I get hit here, I can fall into a backgame. If I don’t get hit here, if he fans, I don’t mind. I felt as though I had 3’s, 5’s and aces to play if he danced. And if he came in, he might come back in on the ace point. Now he’s no longer up to the edge of the prime. Now I really have some potential at crushing his position.

Audience: How come you don’t bring those guys out of the back?

Kit: What Joe’s hoping for is that they get stuck back here which would give Joe considerably more time. Which is a reasonable argument, but I would still try and break it. White’s one roll away from really screwing up his position. Next 5 or 4 stinks. For that reason I would just assume he’s not gonna roll a 6.

Audience: Did we help his timing? Did we help White’s timing from here?

Kit: Maybe, maybe not.

Joe: He comes here with the ace and deuce, if he comes in on an ace, I’ve gained immensely. If he comes in on a deuce, I might be able to make the 8-point with the 5 instead of the 3-point, in which case it’s almost the same effect as if he’d come in on an ace. I’ve pushed him back so he needs an ace and a 6 instead of just an ace which he needs now. If he hits me with a 3, I feel I have something to fall back on. So it’s a relatively close debate.

Joe: Lo and behold! White rolls ace-4.


Kit: Oh what a cheese!

Audience: Nice play Joe, I will say!

Kit: He doesn’t have any choice with the 4 obviously. He had to come in with the ace.

Joe: Wait, wait, wait. No, no, no. He did not roll ace-4.

Audience: Laughs

Kit: What he really rolled…?

Joe: He rolled 3-1.


Kit: 3-1!

Kit: He played 6/5 I assume?

Joe: Yes he played 6/5.

Brown to play 3-1.


Joe: Now, Brown’s really got a lot of decisions to make. He’s starting to feel a little tense.

Audience and Kit: Oh yeah. Well! (Laughter)

Kit: The question is now do you want to win this now or later?

Joe: Why don’t you leave all your options open?

Audience: I like making the 3-point.

Kit: Your 2 options are to make the 22 or hit twice. The real question is what’s gonna happen to his timing if he hits twice. Can he survive it?

Joe: Do you really have the timing for a deuce-3 game here?

Audience: No…Yes…No

Kit: Do you really have timing to survive your worst plays?

Audience: You hit on his ace and on your 3…

Joe: And I pray that he fans…absolutely!

Audience: And does he fan?

Joe: You have to remember, I get such a huge premium. I go from 41% to 100% if I get the gammon. Look what will happen if I hit twice and he fans. I’ve got 5’s and some 4’s to cover, aces and deuces to come up, 3’s and 6’s I can handle from the 13-point. With this flexibility 55% of my numbers come up 20 aces and deuces. That’s a lot of flexibility actually. It’s a tremendous difference with this guy on the deuce point.

Kit: And guess what Joe, I would make the 22-point.

Joe: You make the 22. Well once again, there was pretty heavy debate about this play. But I say this, everyone who hit on the 24-point also hit on the 3-point. So at least there’s a consistent theme going on here.

White to play 4-1.


Joe: Now he rolls ace and 4. OK, so this is good. I’ve got him right where I want him. And in fact, if I could pick something here, I would have ace-4, ace-5, and ace-6. More so than him dancing with both. And far more so than if he’d come in with ace-deuce or something like that. I want him with a checker there so when I make a prime he’ll have numbers like ace-five and deuce-five. You can see what that will do to his position if I make the 8-point.

Kit: After coming in with the ace, Joe’s not much of a dog in this position.

Brown to play 4-1.


Joe: Ah, so we’ve had some tough plays for Brown so far, and so Brown keeps it up by rolling 4-1.

Kit: Oh 4-1, This does something.

Audience: OOH! (Laughs)

Joe: We had a couple of options on each of the last plays, now look at the options here. We can just cover the 3-point and make our 5 prime. We can cover with a 4 and slid up to the 23-point so we have that 6 to escape. Or we can make the 8-point, leave the block here, so not only ace-5, deuce-5, but 3-5 is a disaster. Not only did we get hit but we have 2 blots over here. Build our prime and maintain our flexibility. Now there’s 3 solid options.

Kit: I’ve got the play.

Audience: It’s easy, yeah easy. You cover and then you come up.

Joe: I felt as though getting hit on the 3-point with anything other than 3-5 was going to be a huge detriment. I really don’t have the flexibility, now I’m a big favorite to come in and crack. Now my prime would crack.

Kit: The problem with playing 13/8, which might not be immediately obvious, is you lose a man to play with, now he must be part of your prime.

Joe: Exactly.

Kit: White comes in and hits, and you’re in, and oops it goes away. Whereas if you play 8/3, now you’ve got your prime advanced a little bit. Still blocking him, and now you’ve got the checker on the 13-point to play with.

Audience: So what about the other options?

Joe: We discarded 13/8. The option would be 7/3, 23/22. Now this still leaves a man with ace-5 but that’s really about it. I’m giving him 8 numbers off the top. Six numbers to hit me on the 8-point.

Kit: It’s worse than that, ‘cause if he comes in and slashes on the 22-point, now suddenly your 5 prime is not together, big difference.

Joe: The whole gist of my game is that I’ve gotten the cube on 4, I need to gammon him. I need to loosen some checkers, I need to create some sort of gammon material. This is not it. I can’t possibly hope for him to come in and grab with this ace-5. Two numbers is not enough to root for. The other problem with position is let’s say I do get away with this. Let’s say he comes in with ace-X and does not slash me or fans, which is a huge cross-section of the games. Now I’ve duplicated my aces and 6’s. I need aces and 6’s to make the bar, I need aces and 6’s to come up and then come out. What if I roll 3’s, 4’s, and 5’s?

Kit: Brown’s main problem is he’s got 4 checkers back which means he’s only got 11 checkers to work with. When you’re short on checkers, they’ve all got to go to the right place. You just don’t have any spares to juggle things around. Where’s the right place? The 3- through the 7-points. These are the 5 points you want.

Joe: So you make the 3-point from the 8?

Kit: Consider it done.

Joe: Something Kit says is very important. Very thematic to every thought you should have in backgammon, and it parallels with the purest thought. You put the checkers where you want them. That includes slotting. That includes making points. In this particular instance, I have 10 checkers to work with. Where would I ideally want them? I want on the 3- through the 7-points. I already discounted points 4 through 8 because I didn’t have anybody extra to play with. So that’s where I want my checkers.

On the previous play, when we had ace-3., someone said, “Well you got 3-1, isn’t this where you want 2 checkers?” And my answer to him was NO. I want 2 of his checkers on the BAR! I want them in the air because I want to force him back. When you think sometimes – when you’re stuck on a problem, one of the things you can say to yourself is, “Where do I want my checkers?” AND PUT THEM THEREI THEY BELONG THERE! If they get hit, if the penalties are too great, you’ve got something to fall back on. If they don’t get hit, you’ve accomplished your goal.

Kit: The point is this. When Joe made his 3-1 play, of hitting 2 rather than making the 22-point, his plan was to win going forward. He’s going to build a bigger prime and make the other guy break. He gave up on the backgame when he made that play. If he wanted to steer toward the backgame, (which would have been my choice, but his choice is reasonable), he would have made the 22-point. He’s not trying to make the backgame.

Audience: How are going to win forward?

Kit: We’re going to get out by him coming in and having his board to go to hell. See, the whole key to this position is the checker on the 13-point. This guy is 12 pips of movability. White doesn’t have that.

Joe: Ok, let’s continue. White rolls 6-5 and fans.

Brown to play 3-1.


Joe: Brown rolls 3-1. I played 13/10, 23/22.

Joe: OK White fans with 4-3.

Brown to play 6-2.


Audience: That’s what you call talent.

Joe: All right 2-6 is nice but basically any 6 is a good number.

Kit: All he needs is one more man to get out there…

Joe: One more to get out here, I have flexibility. White rolls 6-5 again.

Brown to play 5-2.


Joe: That seems pretty easy right? 16/11, 10/8.

Kit: By the way this slot is correct. You don’t worry about the 2-6. He’s not going to roll it.

Joe: 2-6 is a great number for him anyway.

Kit: Another example of putting the man where you want him. Don’t worry about the nightmare.

Joe: Exactly! White rolls 5-5.

Brown to play 1-1.


Joe: Brown has another problem. Brown rolls double 1’s.

Audience: That’s a problem?

Joe: It’s a NICE problem, but it’s a problem. Three of them are clear 23/22 and 11/9. The problem is being down 3 to 8 in a 11-point match.

Kit: The question is – Is the last checker better moved by making the prime, or does he bring the 3rd checker up?

Joe: All in favor of the prime say raise your hand.

Audience: (A few hands were raised.)

Joe: All of you in favor of coming up?

Audience: (A few more raised hands.)

Audience: (Laughs) If you’re going get the gammon, what would be the most likely move?

Joe: I came up with both guys to the 22-point. And I left a guy on 11-point and plopped him in here 8/6.

Kit: I STRONGLY disagree with this play by the way.

Joe: Now, I give myself a 6 to spring without having to leave blots on the 22 and 23-points. I felt if I make this the 8-point, I was saying, “Hey I can roll a 6 on my next roll. I got a 6 prime, I’m just going to end up in this position anyway.”

Kit: You’re going to roll a 6 up here anyway? I think you really miss the boat, cause if you roll the 6, you’re gin.

Joe: I don’t feel I’m gin.

White to play 5-1.


Joe: Ok, and sure enough 5-ace.

Kit: Oh my!

Joe: Well, as you can see Kit’s play would have worked much better, ‘cause the 5 would be forced to slash and we would have somebody to shoot it. But Nooooooooo. Not me. He moved bar/24 and 7/2.

Brown to play 4-1.


Joe: I played 11/7, 6/5.

Audience: Well if we want to get that extra man from there, why don’t we slot on the 2-point.

Kit: We do not want to get hit here. Slotting is not right. If he comes up, we need every gun we can to blow him out of the water.

Joe: And if we slot, this checker on the 11-point and nobody to hit with.

Audience: But at this point you don’t have any time. He has time.

Kit: He’s on roll. He’s in BIG trouble. We’re at the edge of his prime, where is he?

Joe: His prime’s coming down.

Kit: But also, some numbers he can’t even play. Brown can play 5 pips here from the 7-point, 3 pips here from the 5-point. White can play no pips anyplace.

Joe: I can handle any number.

White rolls 4-1.


From the editor:

And so, backgammon fans, here’s where the transcript ended…

Just when it was getting exciting too!

So here’s your assignment – should you choose to accept it – I challenge you all to play it out from here on a board or on the computer, and see what happens. Try to get a feel for how to play this really interesting prime vs. prime game.  Some tricky questions will come up.

In the meantime, the editor is attempting to see if a continuation of the transcript or record of the moves exists, and if it does, we’ll get it up as soon as possible.