The yearly tournament at Zandvoort-aan-zee is held in a spacious pavilion situated on a broad beach.  On beautiful days the sea breeze can waft through the pavilion and on chillier days, the pavilion can be closed off with canvas.  In short, a great location.  Moreover, a super buffet is set up for dinner and the staff is exceptionally friendly.  In short, I regret not having competed there this year, but will certainly do so at the 5th edition in 2016.

Only Bert Van Kerckhove (Ghent BC) made the 3-hour trip (I hopped in later in the day) and found himself in a worthy field of Dutch and German players.    Bert succeeded in winning three 13-pointers in a row, which brought him to the final.  There he was beaten by Paul Van Koningshoven, who sent some speculative cubes Bert’s way, but was rewarded with good dice.

An encourageing result for Bert, who is also steadily climbing up the BGFed-ranking.  It looks like Bert has his eyes on the number 3 spot…

M

 

 

The word blunder is conventionally used in backgammon to indicate a checker play or cube action mistake which costs 0,100 or more in equity.  What does this mean?

Equity

Those of us who use eXtremeGammon as a learning tool are familiar with the numbers used in computer analysis.  People not familiar with computer analysis, however,  probably have no idea what  these numbers are about.  Still, it may be useful to have at least an idea of what the numbers reflect.

At the beginning of a game, the equity of both players is zero, which means that  none of the players has even the slightest advantage over the other.  If you win the game your equity has become +1.  The loser of the game then has an equity of – 1.  During the game the player who is favourite to win the game will have a positive equity of something between 0 and 1, whereas the underdog will have the same equity, but negative.

Let us have a look at an example.  Mind you : we are playing a 1-point match here, so gammons do not count and are not taken into the mix.

Once again, it should be clear to every reader that at the beginning of this 1-point match, the probability of winning the match for either player is 50% or fifty-fifty (if both players are of equal playing strength).  The equity of both players is 0 ( = zero).

1.  8/5 6/5 eq:+0,100
Player: 55,00%

We see that by winning the opening roll and finding the strongest possible opening roll, 31, Black is suddenly favourite to win the game.  He has 55% winning chances (it is actually slightly more, but I have rounded down a bit).  His equity has gone up from zero to +0,100.

Where does that + 0,100 come from?  Well, it reflects the difference between the winning percentage of the favourite (55%) and the winning percentage of the underdog (45%), which is 10%.  10% of 1 = 0,100.

If, however, you misplay your 31 and play the second best move, 13/10 6/5, you have gained no advantage.  Your winning chances are still 50% (actually it is a bit lower) and your equity is still zero (because your opponent is now on roll).

2. 13/10 6/5 eq: 0
Player: 50%

The bot tells us that playing 13/10 6/5 costs 0,100 in equity (the difference between 55% and 50%) :

2. 13/10 6/5 eq: 0 (-0,100)
Player: 50%

We have made a blunder.

Since not all blunders cost exactly 0,100 in equity, they are quantified in millipoints (one millipoint  of course being one thousandth of a point).  Here we would say that the player made a 100 millipoint blunder.

In the bag.

To help get a feel for the magnitude of this blunder, let us visualize a bag with 500 black and 500 red casino chips.  The black ones are yours and they have a value of + 1€.  The red ones have a value of -1€.

It is clear that with 500 black and 500 red chips in the bag, the value of the bag (i.e. your equity) is zero.  If you replace all the red chips by black chips, there will be 1,000 black chips in the bag and no red chips, so the value of the bag becomes 1,000€ (i.e. your equity is + 1,000).

If you replace 50 red chips by 50 black chips, there will be 550  black chips in the bag and 450 red chips.  The value of the bag has become : + 550 – 450 = 100€.  Your equity is no longer zero, but + 100.

Look at it this way : if your life depended on drawing a black chip from the bag, would you grab a chip from the bag with 500 black chips and 500 red chips, or would you feel slightly more comfortable drawing one from the bag with 550 black chips and 450 red chips?

If you think this difference is negligible, then I suggest you quit playing backgammon and start gardening.

The difference is substantial.  It is the difference between 55% chance of survival and 50% chance of survival.  This is huge. So, in backgammon terms,  picking a chip from the bag with only 500 black chips would be a  blunder, namely the difference in equity between 0 and 100.

Exercises.

1) After 10 moves in your backgammon game, your winning chances have gone up to 65%.  What is your equity?

O + 0,150

O + 0,300

0 + 0, 650

2) You have a choice between two moves.  One move gives you 80% winning chances and the other gives you only 70% winning chances.  How big is the blunder if you make the wrong move?

O 200 millipoints or -0,200

O 100 millipoints or – 0,100

0 400 millipoints or – 0,400

3) The game is not going your way.  The probability of you winning the game has gone down to 30%.  What is your equity?

O – 0,200

O – 0,400

O – 0,300

4) What is Black’s equity here if he is on roll?

 

O +0,250

O +0,750

O +0,500

5) Your equity in a DMP-game is +0,340.  How much wc do you have? Or, in other words, what is your winning%?

O 66%

O 34%

O 67%

Answers

1) With 650 black chips in the bag and 350 red chips, the value of the bag would be +650 – 350 = 300€.  Therefore your equity is +0,300.

2) With 80% wc (= winning chances) your equity would be + 0,600 (800-200).  With 70% wc your equity would be : 700 – 300 = 400, so : 0,400.  Your blunder is a double whopper, costing 200 millipoints or 0,200.

3) If you have 30% wc, your opponent has 70% wc.  The difference is 40%.  So your equity is – 0,400.

4) Every intermediate player should know that Black wins this game unless he rolls one of 9 rolls out of 36.  These rolls are : 11, 21, 31, 41 and 32.  So he has 75% wc.  His equity therefore is +0,500.

5) Easy : 340 divided by 2 is 170.  If you add that to 50 you have your wc.  Answer : 67%.  Once again, your equity is the difference between the winning% of the favourite and the winning% of the underdog : 67 – 33 = 34.  In millipoints this becomes 0,340.

M

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

With emphatic wins over Nardy Pillards, Ed Baars, Michel Lamote and Paul Van Koningshoven, Belgium’s up-and-coming Geert VdS took the Rotterdam Open trophy.

Michel Lamote won the consolation after beating Rogier Van Gemert in the semi’s.

More Belgians made their presence felt.  Toon Van Herreweghen and Patrick De Wilde (Leuven) took some scalps, but could not make it to the final rounds.

Gent’s Bert Van Kerckhove could not overcome unfriendly dice and was soon eliminated.

M

 

Selection procedure.

The Selection Committee (SC) has established a selection procedure to choose the 6 (or 7) players who will make up the Belgium Backgammon Team.

1. Three players have been selected : Michel Lamote, Walter Meuwis and Geert Van der Stricht.  The three other players will be selected by means of a Selection Tournament (ST).

This ST will be held on Saturday and Sunday 20-21 June 2015.

A 7th player will join the team in case the Captaincy goes to a player who did not qualify (see 4. below).

2. Maximum 8 players will be allowed to enter the ST.  Candidates need to be member of BGFed and 2015 BIC participant.  They should have at least Advanced/Expert level.

Registration is possible till 25 May 2015.  Mail to : guy.van.middelem@telenet.be.

3. The SC will carefully consider the merits and skill levels of the candidate players.

The list of players selected to compete in the ST will be made public on 1 June 2015.

4. When the results of the ST are known and the 6-player team is assembled, the SC will choose a Team Captain (TC) in concord with the team.

The TC will represent the intrests of the team, starting from the moment he is appointed.  He will be responsible for administrative duties and make sure the team players can fully focus on their game.

During the Championship in Budapest, the TC will have the prerogative to decide who plays in which encounter.  It should be his policy to field the strongest team possible, as long as Belgium has a chance of securing a place among the last 4.  Once prospects of success have vanished, the TC is no longer bound by this restrictive directive and it becomes his full discretion to decide who plays and who does not.  However, his decisions should always be made with the general intrest of the team in mind.

Selection Tournament : 20-21 June 2015.

1. Format.

Complete round robin.  All matches with clock.

If 6 players : 5 rounds of 15-point matches (30 minutes + 12 seconds increment).

If 7/8 players : 6/7 rounds of 11-point matches (22 minutes + 12 seconds increment).

To ensure the integrity of the outcome, all players must play all rounds, even if they cannot qualify anymore.  Penalties may be considered in case of non-compliance.

Standings will be based on number of victories.  In case of a tie, mutual results will be considered.

If necessary, a tie-breaking round will be played.

The winner of the ST will at least play 3 matches in Budapest.  Runner-up and 3rd placed will at least play 2 matches.

The 4th/5th ranked players will be nominated 1st/2nd Substitute.  They will be first in line to complete the team should one of the team players drop out.

2. Venue and schedule.

The ST will be held at Longchamp, Brussels.

Saturday 20 June, 11 am : start Round 1.  Clocks started.

If 5 rounds : Saturday 11.00, 15.00, 19.00 + Sunday 11.00 and 15.00.

If 6 rounds : Saturday 11.00, 14.00, 17.00, 20.00 + Sunday 11.00 and 15.00.

If 7 rounds : Saturday 11.00, 14.00, 17.00, 20.00 + Sunday 11.00, 15.00 and 18.00

3. Entry fee.

The entry fee is set at 100€.

For the 3 players who qualify for the team, this sum will be deducted from their proportionate part of the total Entry and Registration Fee in Budapest.  This ERF is 1100€. This ERF will be paid in 6 (or 7) equal shares by the 6 (or 7) team members.

First/Second Substitute will get a 50€ refund.

Should the Belgium Backgammon Team win money prizes in Budapest, then the money will be equally divided among the team members, regardless of the number of matches played.

Entry fees from the eliminated players will be used as contribution to the ERF.

4. ST Director.

Michel Lamote will act as TD.

The 2015 Budapest Open.

This individual tournament is organised in conjunction with the 2nd EBTC.  It starts on Thursday 17 September 2015.  Players can compete in two divisions : Intermediate and Champions.

Players scheduled to play for Belgium on Friday are advised  not to participate in this individual event.

Players who joined the team through the ST, however, are encouraged to compete in this event.

More info.

Details about accommodation, flights, etc. can be obtained via guy.van.middelem@telenet.be.

M.

 

 

 

 

After two wins, Zsolt faced Maurits in the 3rd round of the 1st Brugge Backgammon Day.  The match turned out to be an interesting encounter with a shockingly spectacular Crawford game.  You can download the annotated match (*.xg).

With the score tied at 1-1, both players found themselves in an opening skirmish.  In such games it is mostly correct to keep hitting – Thou shallt hit in the beginning – but at a certain moment it becomes correct to anchor up and cut your losses.  When that moment has come is not easy to assess.  Here is how the game went :

Game 3

Zsolt Tasnadi (Black) needs 6                              Maurits Pino (White) needs 6

1.     32 : 24/21 13/11                                               32 : 13/10 6/4*

2.     43 : bar/21*  24/21                                         64 : bar/21 24/18

3.     53 : 8/3 6/3                                                      31 : ?

3.     —–                                                                     31 : 18/14*

Hitting catches up in the race of course.  White is only down 4 pips after the hit.  The alternative would be to anchor up  on the 18-point and play 10/9 with a less volatile position as a result.  This turns out to be a serious error here :

1. XG Roller+ 18/14* eq:-0,31
Player: 44,87% (G:9,61% B:0,37%)
Opponent: 55,13% (G:19,20% B:1,22%)

2. XG Roller+ 21/18 10/9 eq:-0,376 (-0,067)
Player: 42,62% (G:8,46% B:0,28%)
Opponent: 57,38% (G:18,47% B:0,62%)

So, the fact that Black has made the 3-point should not deter you from hitting, even though the hit leaves 4 blots.

4.     65 : bar/20 21/15*                                              32 : ?

Maurits sees himself faced with the same problem : he can keep hitting and leave 5 (!) blots against a stronger board, or he can anchor up. What would you do?

4. —–                                                                             32 : bar/23 13/10*

Hitting is still correct, but by a much smaller margin :

1. XG Roller++ Bar/23 13/10* eq:-0,434
Player: 42,65% (G:9,33% B:0,36%)
Opponent: 57,35% (G:22,47% B:1,84%)

2. XG Roller++ Bar/23 24/21 eq:-0,457 (-0,024)
Player: 40,63% (G:8,45% B:0,29%)
Opponent: 59,37% (G:18,95% B:0,78%)

Just to show how subtle changes can make hitting wrong, have a look at this variation :

The extra spare on the 8-point and the fact that you can make the golden anchor are sufficient to make hitting an error :

1. XG Roller++ Bar/23 24/20 eq:-0,395
Player: 41,59% (G:8,69% B:0,27%)
Opponent: 58,41% (G:17,48% B:0,65%)

2. XG Roller++ Bar/23 14/10* eq:-0,422 (-0,027)
Player: 42,47% (G:8,82% B:0,30%)
Opponent: 57,53% (G:20,55% B:1,39%)

5.      62 : bar/23 21/15*                                                    51 : ?

5.     —–                                                                                51 : bar/20 21/20

Maurits intuitively knows that enough is enough.  Time to wave the white flag and fight a defensive war :

1. XG Roller++ Bar/20 21/20 eq:-0,364
Player: 43,28% (G:9,44% B:0,33%)
Opponent: 56,72% (G:20,13% B:0,88%)

2. XG Roller++ Bar/20 6/5* eq:-0,429 (-0,065)
Player: 44,12% (G:9,64% B:0,39%)
Opponent: 55,88% (G:25,82% B:2,75%)

Still,  circumstances may occur where hitting here may be a tactical option worth considering.  A world-class player might keep hitting  to complicate matters.  And, should this position come up towards the end of a match, the trailer might rightfully hit here if his oppenent is in time trouble.

6.     32 : 23/20 13/11*                                                           31 : bar/24 13/10*

7.     52 : ?

Now it is Zsolt’s turn to ponder whether he should hit or not.  This position is fundamentally different, however.  Here, Black has a significant edge (58% winning chances), whereas in the previous positions, White was always a clear underdog (40-45% winning chances) no matter what he did.  This points to a consolidating play : Black should come in on the 20-point and make his 11-point.  It is not so difficult to see that the 11-point is very strong against the 20-point anchor. Moreover, White already has 5 men back, so hitting a 6th checker might lead to a complex triple-anchor backgame where each checker play might pose challenging problems.  Also, hitting gives up the golden anchor, a decision one should not take lightly.

Not hitting here yields a simple holding game with a 41-pip race advantage, low volatility and easy checker play coming up.  The fact that Zsolt made the wrong choice here is indicative of how the intuitive hit may lead one astray in certain positions.

Still, the error is far from monstrous.  Forward mobility and flexibility are important in positions where O (= opponent) has established multiple anchors.

1. XG Roller++ Bar/20 13/11 eq:+0,397
Player: 57,73% (G:18,75% B:0,91%)
Opponent: 42,27% (G:8,37% B:0,27%)

2. XG Roller++ Bar/20 11/9 eq:+0,341 (-0,056)
Player: 56,38% (G:18,28% B:0,88%)
Opponent: 43,62% (G:8,55% B:0,28%)

3. XG Roller++ Bar/23 20/15* eq:+0,331 (-0,066)
Player: 54,68% (G:22,44% B:1,72%)
Opponent: 45,32% (G:9,85% B:0,41%)

7.     —–                                                                                          43 : bar/21 24/21

8.     62 : 15/9 11/9                                                                        63 : ?

Having established a 5-4 backgame structure, it seems natural to just eject one of the back men into the outfield.  This is probably what I would have done.  Maurits, however, decides to go for Black’s barpoint by simultaneously slotting it and hitting on his 5-point.  An ingenious tactical find in a complex position!

1. XG Roller++ 24/18 8/5* eq:-0,281
Player: 46,58% (G:10,32% B:0,43%)
Opponent: 53,42% (G:23,40% B:0,84%)

2. XG Roller++ 24/15 eq:-0,304 (-0,023)
Player: 45,03% (G:9,65% B:0,37%)
Opponent: 54,97% (G:20,59% B:0,62%)

3. XG Roller++ 23/14 eq:-0,309 (-0,028)
Player: 45,10% (G:9,65% B:0,38%)
Opponent: 54,90% (G:21,01% B:0,70%)

The reader can follow the rest of this exciting game via the link provided above.  Both players held their own amid all that complexity : Zsolt scored a 4,36 PR (World Class), but was still outplayed by Maurits who even outplayed the computer : – 0,68 PR (Wow!).  Nicely done.

M

For the 10th time, Bert Van Kerckhove organized the Gent Open.  As always, the location was the Koninklijke Club Union Sandeman  in Gent.  This year, 24 players showed up to play 7 rounds of 7-point matches.  All matches were played with clock.

After 6 rounds, Michel was the only player left with 6 victories.  However, in the last match of the day, Belgian-born Nardy Pillards managed to beat Michel to draw even.  The tense match culminated in a thrilling DMP game where Nardy skillfully blitzed Michel off the board after a 52 (24/22 13/8) 55 (6/1* 6/1* 8/3* 8/3*) opening sequence.

This left both players with 6 wins, but the trophy went to Michel because his opponents had collected more wins (Buchholz-system).

The Intermediate Division was won by Manolitto from Amsterdam.  He was one of 6 players from the Netherlands who had travelled a couple of hours to compete in Gent.  One of his opponents, Peter Allemeersch, was baffled by the fastness of Manolitto’s decision-making : “He played incredibly fast,” said Peter, “and ended the match with 11 minutes and 24 seconds left on the clock!”  Truly, an amazing feat.

In the picture, Manolitto poses with the colourful trophy.  All three trophies were handcrafted by Gent club member Robin Bilderbeek.

The Beginner’s flight was won by Kristoffer De Weert.  In addition to the trophy, he received Bill Robertie’s bestseller Backgammon for Serious Players as study material.

This anniversary edition of the Gent Open was a success.  There was constant action and the playing conditions were excellent.  Congrats to organizer Bert for a job well done.

An extra word of thanks to the Dutch players who made the trip.  They gave the tournament an international flair and blended in perfectly with the predominantly Flemish crowd.

M

 

 

In backgammon, certain types of positions occur time and time again.  One of the most common types are holding games.  In a holding game, one player has made an advanced anchor (4-point or higher) and the opponent has escaped his men to the midpoint.  Now it is time for the favorite to assess all features of the position and decide on his cube action.

In their match, Zsolt and Liliane each got doubled in a 4-point holding game and struggled with the cube decision.  Here, for instance, is the position in Game 1 :

First thing to consider is – as always –  the RACE.  Zsolt is only up 11 pips.  Typically, against a 4-point anchor you would need about 20 pips race advantage to have a correct double.  Of course, with his barpoint already made,  Zsolt has a broken 5-prime which compensates for the fact that he has not yet fully safetied his last checker to the midpoint.  Also, Liliane’s own forward position is far from perfect : she has not yet made a extra point in her board, but she should have no problems building a strong board soon.  Moreover, in such kinds of positions the volatility is generally low.  This means that only rolls like 66, 55 and 44 would lose Zsolt’s  market.  Therefore it is very improbable that Zsolt would make a big error by waiting one roll before cubing.

Player Winning Chances: 73,72% (G:2,76% B:0,05%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 26,28% (G:1,24% B:0,01%)

No double: +0,799 (-0,009)
Double/Take: +0,807
Double/Pass: +1,000 (+0,193)

Best Cube action: Double / Take

As eXtreme Gammon shows, this is a borderline Double, but an easy Take for the defender.  Liliane does not take a big risk in taking this.  She can only lose one extra point by taking, since the chance that she will get gammoned is less than 3%.  However, players who are not familiar with these positions might easily get spooked and give away a point.  This is what happened in the match.  Liliane passed, making a big mistake in doing so.

Knowing your opponent’s tendencies can help with the cube action here.  Maybe Zsolt estimated that there was a significant chance that Liliane would pass.  In that case, his double becomes a strong bluff double.  If he did not consider Liliane’s weakness, his double could be called premature.

In Game 2, the roles were reversed.  This time Zsolt is the one defending from the 4-point anchor :

Here, Liliane is up 26 pips in the RACE.  She could have turned the cube 2 rolls earlier, but decided to wait.  This turned out well for her, because Zsolt, probably thinking the open 5-point was a significant weakness in Red’s position, took the cube without thinking too long about it.  This also turns out to be a big mistake :

Player Winning Chances: 81,58% (G:2,79% B:0,02%)
Opponent Winning Chances: 18,42% (G:0,90% B:0,04%)

No double: +0,988 (-0,012)
Double/Take: +1,202 (+0,202)
Double/Pass: +1,000

Best Cube action: Double / Pass

The Americans have come up with the term double whopper for errors of this magnitude.  By accepting this cube, Zsolt sacrificed 0,202 mps in equity.

Something to consider when you get doubled is whether the opponent will be prone to making checker play mistakes in the game continuation.  In the position above, Red has a relatively easy task bringing the checkers home.  Still, she might not dare leave an indirect shot in clearing the 11-point or misplace her checkers in some other way.  Still, these errors are unlikely to be big mistakes, so they would not compensate for the 0,202 in sacrificed equity.

However, this is what happened 2 rolls later :

The reader can have no doubt as to what is the correct move : making the 5-point is hugely correct.  I am sure Liliane will play this correctly 90% of the times, but due to the tension of the big occasion, she nervously played 8/6 8/2.  Her underlying thought may have been that a point cleared, is a point not to be feared, and there are situations where this would definitely be the right play.  Here, however, this useful tenet does not apply.

1. XG Roller++ 11/5 7/5 eq:+0,661
Player: 84,29% (G:2,56% B:0,04%)
Opponent: 15,71% (G:0,61% B:0,01%)

2. XG Roller++ 8/6 8/2 eq:+0,484 (-0,177)
Player: 76,71% (G:2,59% B:0,05%)
Opponent: 23,29% (G:1,30% B:0,02%)

 

To make matters worse for Liliane, Zsolt ended up escaping with a 66 and reached this position some rolls later :

This is a classic bear-off cube decision.  If Zsolt rolls an ace, he loses, in all other cases he wins.  This is typically something that distinguishes Intermediate players from Beginners : the ability to calculate probabilities.  What are the chances Zsolt rolls an ace? Well, it is 11/36 or 30%.  That means he is 70% favorite here and should redouble.  Liliane, who has 30% winning chances, should take.  It must be said that it might be scary for the better player to give this cube, because rolling an ace swings the score to 1-4 down in a match to 7.  However, the error in not cubing is so big (0,415 – !), that the skill difference between both players would have to be between 12 and 15 PR ( = difference in Performance Rating as calculated by eXtree Gammon) for not doubling to be correct.  This means that a world class player, who averages about 4 PR, would make an error cubing this against Liliane.  Zsolt, who played this match at Advanced level, had to bite the bullet and ship the cube.  He took a long time fretting over it, but eventually redoubled to 4.  Liliane, to her credit, accepted, which as a matter of fact is very well played.  Many players, even strong ones, get overwhelmed by superstitions and end up passing this.  Gutsy cube action by both players!

Zsolt did not roll a 1, took a 5-0 (7) lead, and ended up beating Liliane 7-0.

Hopefully, these remarks will motivate players of all levels to spend some time studying the game.  Improving your game gives greater long-term satisfaction than winning the occasional match by chance.

See you soon.

M

 

Last Saturday, 14 March 2015, a 49-point match was played at the Royal Sandeman Club in Ghent.  Only a few spectators witnessed the match, among them Ghent player Johan Vervust, who could not believe his ears when I told him about the lenght of the match.

I have had this idea for a couple of months and eventually found Dutch player Paul Van Dijke, never shy of a real challenge, prepared to take up the gauntlet.  Play started at 1:30pm and finished just before 8:30pm, when Paul got gammoned in the last game of the match, which ultimately finished 50-33 in my favour.

The match was clocked, each player starting with 1 hour and 38 minutes in the time bank, with a 12 seconds increment each move.  Only 7 or 8 small 2-minute breaks were taken, in order to be sure we could finish the match that same day before the Sandeman closed its doors.

In the match we saw two 16-cubes, which both had to be passed (either player won one).  The match was fully recorded and the full transcription in Extreme Gammon will follow in about a week.  For the moment, only the score sheet is available (see picture above).

Geert Van der Stricht

 

When Line, Peter, and I made the first steps towards organising a small-scale tournament in Brugge, we had no idea what to expect.  Would it work? Would the backgammon community show up en masse or would we be completely ignored? These were some of the anxieties we struggled with as our plans became more and more concrete.

Now that the event is history, we are delighted by the enthusiastic response we received.  Due to the limitations of our playing room, only 26 players could be admitted, so, with that number, we achieved maximum attendance.

Moreover, notwithstanding the required adherence to rules and schedule, all players effortlessly contributed to the success of the tournament.  Thier punctuality, sportsmanship, and placidity under duress were the key ingredients of a memorable backgammon day.

Also, with this low-threshold tournament, Brugge BC has tried to put some of the aims and aspirations of the recently founded BGFED (Belgian backgammon federation) into practice :

• by making the tournament accessible to players of all levels, we hope to have encouraged active participation
• by adopting a different, fun-oriented approach (wedstrijdleider Geert, player presentation, …) we hope to have increased enjoyment
• by putting a playing table in the café, we have aimed at stirring curiosity and generating some public awareness of our beloved mindgame
• a fourth pillar of BGFed’s mission is education.   As announced, the matches filmed at the feature table will be used to put certain elementary aspects of the game in the spotlight.  In that way, we hope to enhance players’ insights and performance levels.

Hope to see you soon.

M

At BBD1 next Saturday in Brugge, a decorative canister with Brugse Zot beer will go to every player of the club which wins most matches. Can anybody but the Brugge team win this challenge?  We asked celebrated backgammon writer John Squeeze for his opinion :

– “With 12 players the home club is of course well represented.  True, half of their players are recreational players or at least players who cannot claim to have reached a playing level beyond Beginner.  Still, they should be good for an occasional win and will probably collect at least 6 points for the team.  Add to that the presence of the complete Four Cubes team plus an experienced veteran like Mark Steyvers, and it is already starting to look like mission impossible for the other clubs.  If you throw an extra handful of Intermediates in the mix (Peter, Line, Nigel) it is truly starting to look bleak for the other clubs”

– “Is Leuven BC the only challenger?”

– “At least with 7 delegates, they represent a good chunk of equity. If it had not been for the absence of Toon, who is, as you know, currently ranked number two on the national ranking, I would have given them a 40% chance to grab the trophy.  As it is, their best players will really have to come up with their A-game to stand a chance”.

– “What about the other clubs?”

– “Brussels of course has a strong, but small team.  Their Four Cubes team is present, which on a good day could be good for 9 wins, but I do not see them play a significant role in the contest.  Ghent has top player Bert in their ranks, but their chances are of course seriously crippled by the absence of 2013 BIC winner Geert, who acts as wedstrijdleider.  They cannot have more than 5% chance to grab the Brugse Zotten”

Thank you, John, for this lucid preview to the 6 Brugse Zotten Challenge.

M