I made a quick and rather annoying exit out of the Masters. What made itannoying was that it was partially caused by a cube blunder from a playerwho should know better, but I was unable to capitalize on the error.

I was behind 14-11 in a 17-point match. I had sent over an aggressivecube, which is generally the proper idea at this score provided thereare sufficient market-losers. The concept is that I am not reallygiving the cube to your opponent. In effect I am taking away hisability to use the cube, as there are many positions where he will bewilling to double from 1 to 2 but be unwilling to redouble from 2 to 4 whichwould give me the opportunity to send it back to 8 for the match. I missedthe key shot, and wound up with a decent bar point holding game. He wassqueezed off my midpoint, but again I missed. This left:

68 87

Phil Laak 14 17 point match Kit Woolsey 11

White is on roll. Cube action?

First of all, let's estimate my winning chances. He doesn't get by withnon-doubles totallying less than 7 pips. That includes 5-1, 4-1, 3-1, 2-1,4-2, and 3-2. In addition, 1-1, 2-2, 3-3, and 6-6 leave me a shot. Thatis 16 out of 36 rolls which don't get by. If he doesn't make it past meI will have somewhere from 11 shot numbers (if he rolls 3-2 or 4-1) to 17shot numbers (if he rolls 6-6) -- probably averaging around 12 or 13shot numbers. That means I will get a shot and hit it something like 1 timein 7. Of course hitting shot isn't necessrily gin, but it puts me invery good shape. In addition, I have some racing equity. Not much, butthe race is not a claim -- imagine how close things will be if he rolls2-1 and I roll boxes. The race should certainly add on at least 5% tomy winning chances, probably more. Thus, my overall winning chances aresomewhere in the 20% range.

How do things look from my point of view if I am doubled? I can pass andbe behind 16-11 (6 away, 1 away, Crawford), or I can take and send itback for the match. From behind 6 away, 1 away I have roughly 10%winning chances. Thus, if I am doubled I have a trivial take.

How do things look from his point of view? That is a bit more complicated.If we assume that this is a last roll situation (which it definitely is not),he has:

White doesn't double and wins: Ahead 16-11 (6 away, 1 away, Crawford), 90% equity.
White doubles and wins: Wins match, 100% equity.
White doesn't double and loses: Ahead 14-13 (3 away, 4 away), about 59% equity.
White doubles and loses: Loses the match, 0% equity.

Thus, by doubling White would be risking 59% in order to gain 10%, so he wouldbe giving almost 6 to 1 odds. If my 20% winning chance estimate is correct,he would be getting only 4 to 1 odds. Therefore, it is clearly a blunderfor him to double.

To make matters worse, suppose he rolls something like 4-1, and I rollsomething like 6-4. Now it is a straight race, with him probably somewherein the 90-95% winning chances range. He would then have an extremelyefficient recube. I likely would have to pass, but it would be close.This is the sort of position he should be aiming for.

Note the difference if I hadn't doubled initially and the cube were in thecenter. Then from my point of view it would look like:

Blue passes: Behind 15-11, 2 away, 6 away, 19% equity
Blue takes and wins: Behind 14-13, 3 away, 4 away, 41% equity
Blue takes and loses: Behind 16-11, 6 away, 1 away, 10% equity

I would be risking 28% in order to gain 10%. It wouldn't be quite thatbad since I would have big recube leverage, but in this sort of position thevalue of the recube isn't so much since it will probably be a one-shot dealif I win the game -- a hit wins, a miss loses. Thus, I would have to passan initial double, while he isn't close to having a redouble. This is a goodexample of what I was talking about when I said that by doubling I was reallytaking the cube away from him rather than giving it to him.

My opponent did, in fact, double, and of course I took. He left a shot andI sent it back to 8, but I missed the shot and there were no racing miraclesso I was gone.

My first match in the open was against Bob Glass, and there were plentyof fireworks. He was ahead 3-2 in a 15-point match, and had doubled to2 which I had taken. Things were starting to turn around, and we reachedthe following position:

115 113

Bob Glass 3 15 point match Kit Woolsey 2

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I find this sort of position very difficult to evaluate. The thing is thata two by me is just HUGE -- it might even make my position too good to double.However, if I don't roll that two in a couple of rolls, my position maydeteriorate. Meanwhile if Bob starts to enter I will pretty much be forcedto attack, and if I get hit back that will be very bad. My diversificationis excellent with threes and fours trained on the two point, and my outfieldchecker is far back, but time could run out fast. If there is any chancethat Bob will pass then doubling would be automatic, but I didn't seriouslyconsider that a possibility. Still, the market loss if I do roll that twois pretty large.

I chose to double. In retrospect, I don't this is correct. Yes, I canlose my market, but I can also become the underdog pretty quickly. Overall,I simply am not that much of a favorite. Also, cube possession is wortha ton in this sort of position.

I opened off with a 4-3, which I couldn't complain about. However itstarted going downhill from there, and we soon arrived at:

115 84

Bob Glass 3 15 point match Kit Woolsey 2

White on roll. Cube action?

His position hasn't changed any, but mine sure has -- and not for the better.Now what is going on?

It should be clear that he has a big redouble. If he enters and I amunable to spring a back checker, or if my board cracks any more, I amhistory.

What about the take? That is not so obvious. It could get ugly, but itcould go very well on a good shake or two. Also, even if things go badlyI could still sleaze out a win. He hasn't made his three point yet, anduntil he locks up that point funny things can happen. I do have a five-pointboard right now, and he does have two checkers on the bar. Also, thatone point lead he has in the match is starting to be relevant with thecube approaching the stratosphere. That means that he doesn't get quiteas much use from a 16-point win as I do, and that if the cube doeshead on back to 16 his take point will be a bit worse than it would beat an even score or if I were ahead in the match. I'm still not sureabout this one, but at the table I chose to give it a try.

Things didn't go well for me at first, but then I caught a lucky rollor two and got to this position:

113 70

Bob Glass 3 15 point match Kit Woolsey 2

Blue on roll. Cube action?

This position has a lot of similarities to the ones we have seen so far.My board is a bit more crunched, but I have sprung one of the backcheckers which is a huge improvement. What's going on?

When the cube gets into the stratosphere in a match and the trailerowns the cube, it is quite likely that the cube will reach the next leveland put things at double match point. This is very similar to what happensat a poker tournament when the pot is large compared to the amount ofchips a player has left. It is usually correct for him to shove therest of his chips in and pray for a lucky draw, since he will be insuch bad shape if he loses the hand anyway that he might as well go forbroke. The same is true in a backgammon match. If I lose 8 points I willbe behind 11-2 (not taking gammons into account), so I have good reason toplay for it all on any decent excuse. Of course, the same is true for Bobto a large extent. He wouldn't like being behind 10-3, so he will bequick to take. Thus, if things go my way at all, that cube is likely toreach the 16-level.

What is going on? It would be hard to imagine him passing the double.He has a good blockade, and all he has to do is enter the men on thebar point before I extricate my back man and he will be the favorite.On the other hand, if I do roll that two I am suddenly in extremelygood shape, particularly if he flunks. Due to the match score, I havemore to gain when I am right than I have to lose when I am wrong ifI double. Also, he will be sitting on a dead cube. That is veryimportant for this sort of position. If things go his way he willlikely reach a position where his men are in and all he has to do is contain my backchecker. If he had cube access upon reaching such a position he wouldbe able to weild a very nasty cube at the proper moment, but with thecube dead he will have to prove himself and complete his prime. A singleback checker can be very slippery.

I doubled, and he took. As it turned out, things went very much his way.I was unable to escape the back checker, and not only did my board crunchsome more but he picked up another checker. I managed to anchor on histhree point. He went all out to squeeze me off, even breaking his barpoint, but I resolutely rolled nothing higher than a three. When I wasfinally squeezed off he had only one checker in the outfield, and thatchecker was unable to hit my fleeing blot. He attacked inside, but Irolled a three back, and after he was unable to hit again I rolled boxesto put the match away.

I clawed my way through five more matches, including three more double matchpoints (though not as exciting as the first one), to reach the finals.My opponent was Ray Fogerlund, an excellent player. Here are somehighlights of the match:

In game 1, I found myself playing a 4-point holding game fairly closein the race. Ray waited patiently until he squeezed me off the anchor,and then:

74 70

Ray Fogerlund 0 17 point match Kit Woolsey 0

White on roll. Cube action?

I clearly have an easy take. I'm doing fine in the race -- about even onpips and while I have four checkers on my ace point Ray's structure in hisinner board isn't anything to write home about. Crossovers are equal. I havea five-point board, so Ray will be cautious about hitting loose. Ray hasonly three builders aimed at me, and if he doesn't roll perfectly it willbe almost an even game.

What about the double. It looks okay, since he does have a few good pointingnumbers.

Ray doubled, I took. He didn't point on me, but he did roll 4-4 and wenton to win the race by a roll.

In the next game I got the better of an early blot-hitting contest, and wason roll in the following position.

173 124

Ray Fogerlund 2 17 point match Kit Woolsey 0

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I'm a million pips ahead, but Ray's position looks quite solid. He has myfive point, he may get another anchor in my board, and all I have achievedis to make my ace point. I figure to have a lot of difficulty coming insafely, and Ray should have no problems building up his board and waitingfor his shot. Do I really have anything to get excited about?

In fact, I have a very strong double. What makes it so strong is thatRay's position is currently completely undeveloped. True he will be ableto develop in the future, but we are talking about the present. I canafford to play very loose, since if I am hit he won't be able to containthe hit blot and I will still have a big racing lead. In particular, I willtake advantage of my stronger inner board and attack his blots in my innerboard if the dice cooperate. If Ray had the same position with his fivepoint made, I wouldn't be close to a cube. Many players fail to recognizethe importance of the status of the defending side's board. They onlylook at what is going on where the action is. The point is that Ray isgoing to have to hit a shot to win, and after he hits that shot hewill need to contain the hit checker. Right now, he is not in positionto do so.

I doubled, and Ray took. His take is fine, by the way. He does have allthe good things about his position that I mentioned earlier. However,my position is much stronger than most players would think.

I rolled 3-1 and hit both his inner board blots. He rolled badly, I rolledwell, and I soon had two of his checkers on the bar against my five-pointboard. I easily rolled on home for a gammon.

In the next game Ray took the early advantage. When he escaped his lastback checker, the position was:

122 152

Ray Fogerlund 2 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

On the race alone I would have an easy pass, but I have more going for methan that. The four-point holding game gives me plenty of play, and myback checker is probably an asset right now with his three point open.Sixes figure to play awkwardly for him in the future. He might not evenget his outfield blot to safety. My board needs some work, but I don'thave any checkers out of play.

On the minus side for me, Ray has made his nine point, which is a goodblocking point as well as an important landing place. My midpoint is stripped,so large numbers will be awkward immediately. My board is ragged, andunless I roll the necessary small numbers I may not be able to make myfive point. My timing may seem okay, but the next few rolls are likelyto play more comfortably for him than for me.

So, how does this compare to a typical four-point holding game which isusually a close take. It looked to me like the minuses outweighed theplusses. Ray has a clear double even though the position isn't veryvolatile, since I am close to having a pass and may well have a passalready. He did properly double. My judgment was to let it go. Theposition seemed just a bit too awkward to play. I'm sure it is a closecall one way or the other.

In the next game I escaped both of my back checkers while Ray was notso fortunate. We arrived at this position:

139 132

Ray Fogerlund 3 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue on roll. Cube action?

There can be no doubt that I have a powerful double. I am ahead in everyaspect of the game, and if I make my five point or my bar point (whichI can probably do) and Ray doesn't escape immediately, I will have lost mymarket (if I haven't lost it already). It is the take which is the question.

The main arguments in favor of the take are that Ray isn't very far behindin the race and that I can't make both the bar point and the five pointat the same time. This means that Ray will probably have one immediateshot for glory. After that things could get grim, although since I haveonly two inner board points and he has just one checker back the gammondanger isn't too great. Is this sufficient to justify taking? It lookslike a close call. I probably would have passed. Ray did take, and Iremember that I didn't mind that one bit.

I rolled 4-4 and went after him. In the ensuing battle he did hit a checkerand was able to complete a five-prime. However, I closed his back man out,but I was unable to leap the prime. Eventually we arrived at:

109 55

Ray Fogerlund 3 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

It was suggested by some that Ray should put the pressure on and redouble.That is silly. There is no pressure. If I have cube access I will winwhenever I escape before Ray enters. That will happen on the next exchange16/36 X 11/36 or 176/1296 of the time -- almost 1/7 of the time. It couldalso happen down the road if we both fail at our first opportunities. Addin all my sleaze (he might enter with a non-hitter and I could roll animmediate six, or when he does Hit Loose I might hit back), and it is clearthat my winning chances are way above 25%. Until he completes his fullprime, I will always be one joker away from winning even if I am not atthe edge of his blockade. I am in virtually no gammon danger, but he couldget gammoned if things blow up in his face. He is the one who has to perform.It would be a serious error for him to release the cube, even though hehas the advantage and has some market-losing sequences.

Ray properly hung onto the cube, and rolled one of his best numbers -- 5-3 --which enters and hits loose. I responded with 1-1, illustrating how even ifRay rolls well he still is far from a claim. However, Ray now rolleda crushing 5-5, and when I was unable to find an equally good answerhe had a claim with the recube to take a 5-4 lead in the match.

In the next game my attempts to escape my back checker failed, and I foundmyself on the bar facing:

133 141

Ray Fogerlund 5 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Clearly Ray has a powerful double. The question is whether or not I canmuster up a take. This sort of position is much worse for me than itmight appear. The big problem is that I am on the bar, so it will takeme two rolls to get something going and I might not get those two rolls.If I were in, it would be an easy take, but the lost tempo from havingto enter is very serious. I had no problems letting this one go, andI'm pretty sure I was correct.

In the next game I faced an interesting play problem:

155 129

Ray Fogerlund 6 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 6-3

This was an interesting choice. The reflex play is 16/10*, 13/10, whichmakes the ten point but leaves me with a somewhat stripped position. Theten point may be a nice landing place, but it will be a point which has tobe cleared and my next play may be awkward if I am unable to clear themidpoint safely. Instead, I opted for 16/10*, 10/7, which gives me a nicespare on the bar point to work with and few immediate problems next roll.

So, which play is best? The surprising answer is: Neither of them! Thebest play is to avoid hitting and play 16/13, 13/7. I am far enough aheadin the race that I probably don't need to gain more racing ground. Hittingthe blot on the ten point gives White the potential to make an very annoyinganchor on my two point, or to enter on my ace point and leave me with nosafe places to land in my inner board. My proper plan should be to goafter Ray's back checker, force it to advance, and then I will have safeplaces to dump checkers behind Ray's anchor while waiting for a fortunateroll to clear the midpoint and claim. Quite frankly, avoiding the hitnever crossed my mind, either while I was playing or when going over thematch. It didn't occur to Snowie either -- Snowie had it ranked a distantthird on its 3-ply evaluation. It was only when I rolled out the hittingplays that it occurred to me to roll this one out also for completeness.The result that it was by far the best play stunned me for a minute, buton reflection that result looks quite logical and I'm inclined to believethe rollout results. I have learned a new theme.

Ray did enter deep in my board, and I was forced to leave a shot whichhe hit. I then proceeded to flunk four times in a row on his three-pointboard while he brought the wood around. After my last flunk, thingslooked like:

127 129

Ray Fogerlund 6 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Clearly Ray has a powerful cube. I am on the bar, and if he covers theblot on his four point and I flunk again I will have a big pass. In addition,it is possible that I have a pass now, or that I will pass. Ray properlydoubled.

Is it a take? It is scary, that's for sure. However, the race is abouteven, Ray still has two checkers back, and while he is a favorite to coverthe blot on his four point that isn't a done deal yet. It may well bea take, and I knew that at the time. However, I chose to pass. PerhapsI was overly discouraged by flunking four times in a row. Perhaps I didn'tlike the thought of Ray being able to carry out the blitz and blow thematch wide open with my having no say in the procedings. I doubted thatit could be a big take in any event, so I decided that discretion was thebetter part of valor. Did I dog it? Perhaps, but I'm not unhappy withmy decision even if rollouts show it to be a clear take.

The next game developed into a mutual holding game in which I made aseries of related errors which led to my demise. It is instructionalto see what I did wrong. The sequence started with:

141 149

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 3-1

I made the obvious safe move of 6/5, 6/3. This isn't the right idea.I should be avoiding going behind his anchor, and stripping my six pointis weak. He has an inner board blot, only a two-point board, and I havean anchor in his board, so getting hit in the outfieldisn't particularly costly. Better is the more flexible play of 13/10, 6/5.I really don't need the midpoint for anything. My main pressure is onhis back checkers, and I need to keep as fluid a position as possible.

Ray rolled 3-3 making his five point heavy, and now I had a 2-1 to playwith similar considerations:

129 145

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 2-1

No way I'm going to give up my midpoint and leave a shot, right? 7/6, 7/5looked flexible enough. Again this was the wrong theme. My mainstrength lies in my broken five prime, and I should be holding thatintact. 13/10 is fine. It isn't a disaster if Ray hits, and if Raydoesn't hit my next few rolls should play comfortable enough whilewe wait and see what is happening. Breaking the bar point gives Raymany more ways to escape. Worse, now look how my sixes play. Ugly.

A couple of rolls later I had to face the consequences of my previouschoices:

112 135

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 6-5

Now it is more dangerous to leave a shot, since Ray has no inner boardblot and has a four-point board. Despite this, I think I should play13/8, 13/7 instead of the safe 8/3, 8/2 which I chose. I won't like being hit, but it isn't necessarily fatal.If Ray misses, my checkers are comfortably placed to handle the nextcouple of rolls. My safe play gives up an important blocking point andleaves two dangerous blots in my inner board. I am behind in the race,so Ray may be bolting for it shortly. I must be ready to attack ifthis happens.

Ray rolled a nice 4-3 to make his two point, and I rolled an ugly 6-3.Boy I wish I had my bar point back so I could play sixes sensibly.Now what?

105 124

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue to play 6-3

I saw that this roll took a back checker to safety, so I grabbed one ofthem and played 22/13. What was I thinking? Didn't gammons count? Myplay left extreme gammon danger. Ray has a five-point board, and if heis able to hit loose on his four point I am in huge trouble. If I don'thit back he may close me out, and if I do hit back there is the matterof my two inner board blots. To make matters worse I am behind in therace, so even if I survive the attack I will be a long way from winning.If I am not hit, my back checker still has to find a home which won'tbe easy. I should have played 13/10, 13/7. This leaves only 11 shotnumbers as opposed to the several more my play leaves. If Ray does hitat least I have an anchor to enter on, and if I enter reasonably soon Ican probably scramble off the gammon and will always have winningchances from the three-point game. If Ray doesn't hit, my checkers arereasonably well-placed to fill in my inner board and attack as Raytries to clear his back anchor, while I can sit on his three pointand wait if plan A fails. This was probably the worst play I madethe whole match.

The position now looked like:

105 115

Ray Fogerlund 7 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Ray has a very sound double. He has a clear advantage, my position isin disarray, and he has huge threats involving hitting my blot on hisfour point. Ray properly doubled.

Now what? With that fat cube staring me in the face, the realization ofjust how dangerous my position is and how weak my last move was beganto sink in. Once again, I didn't relish the thought of making amarginal take, never rolling again, and having the match blown wideopen. Even if it might be a theoretical take it couldn't be by much,and I didn't want any part of it. Note that had I played my 6-3roll correctly Ray might not have even had a double, and if he haddoubled I would have had an easy take with the possibility of hemmingin his back checkers and the three-point game in reserve. A very pooreffort on my part.

In the next game, Ray rolled a joker to escape his last back checkerwith a hit, leaving me with the following five-point holding game:

106 126

Ray Fogerlund 8 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

White on roll. Cube action?

Ray definitely has a strong double. He is ahead in the race, hasescaped his back checkers. and he has plenty of juicy threats. It isthe take which is the question. Ray properly doubled.

I have that anchor on his five point, which is nice, and he has all thosestripped points in front of the anchor which he will have to clear. Onthe downside, I may never come up for air. Ray has a four-shot atmy outfield blot, and he hits on his three point with aces, threes,fives, and sixes. Another big drawback to my position is myinefficient board structure. While I have four inner board points,I have a wasted checker on my three point, and it will be difficult for meto close up my four point. This is very important. My main winningchances involve hitting a shot, and I won't be able to contain a hit checkerunless I am able to make my four point. Once again, maybe too often,I didn't want to risk getting blown out of the water in the match, soI let another close one slip away. This is not my usual style, but Ireally didn't think any of these potential takes were bargains.

In the next game things went my way with the help of a couple ofdouble fours, and I had an advanced anchor while Ray was stuck on myace point:

155 129

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 4

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I certainly have a very strong double, and I sent the cube over. Ray hasa close decision. There isn't anything organically wrong with his position.He has an anchor, and my bar point is open so he isn't completely hemmed in.He has good outfield control, and I have three checkers back. His positionis fluid and comfortable. His biggest liability is the blot on hisace point, but he can probably cover that soon enough and be ready topounce when I leave his four point. On the other hand, I am leading inall phases of the game, and it will be difficult for him to really getsomething going. Ray chose to pass, and I can't say that he is wrong.

In the next game, Ray made a conceptual error which probably cost himthe game.

138 151

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 5

White to play 5-2

In general, one should choose the move which looks better. Beauty is in theeye of the beholder, and what looks pretty to one person may look uglyto another. Ray chose 21/16, 13/11, liking the prettiness of the checkersspread out in his outer board to help make the bar point. In my view,those checkers are ugly blots. Ray should be concentrating on extricatinghis back checker, and he doesn't want other things to worry about. Thecompact 21/16, 8/6, which leaves no outfield blots and has spares on thesix point and the midpoint is my idea of the pretty play.

Ray was instantly punished, as I rolled 6-1, hitting, and he flunked. I mighthave cubed him immediately, but his take seemed too easy. He has thatstrong four-point board and the valuable 16 point, and while I have a goodoffense I don't have the ammunition in place to put him away. I chose towait. After several more rolls, on many of which I was bordering ona cube, we got to:

167 125

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 5

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I obviously have much the better of things. Even though the position isn'tvery volatile, it has to be right to turn the cube. Maybe Ray has a pass,or maybe he will think he has a pass. If I am wrong about doubling, I can'tbe far wrong, and this gives Ray a chance to make a mistake in a relativelyunfamiliar position.

Should Ray take? Offhand it may look like he has decent timing for a 4-2back game, with the possibility of going frontwards if things go wellsince his offense is already in place. The problem is that his immediateplays may be awkward. He enters, and then what? He just doesn't haveany checkers he can play. If he gives up his midpoint I can hit anddivide his army into two pieces, and if he doesn't give up his midpointsomething will have to go on one side of the board or the other. A spareon the midpoint would help his game tremendously. Also, the fact that hehas lost his six point will make things difficult for him until he canreclaim that point. He really isn't far enough behind in the race tohave timing for a back game, but it will be difficult for him to winfrontwards. Ray chose to pass, and my guess is that he made a gooddecision.

The following game I made an unusual-looking move which had some veryinteresting consequences:

135 138

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 6

Blue to play 5-1

I didn't like the thought of entering on the 24 point. That would give Raycomplete freedom to make whatever point his dice told him to make. Enteringon the 20 point looks risky, but if Ray rolls the right number he will makehis five point whether I am there or not. If Ray isn't able to point on me,he will have to either ignore the blot and risk my running away, or hitloose and risk getting into a blot-hitting contest.

Given that I am entering with the five, I could see no reason not to slotmy own five point. It may look like I am violating every principle ofbackgammon -- coming under the gun of four builders, and slotting whileI have a checker under fire on the other side of the board. A second lookwill show that my slotted checker is virtually immune for the next roll unlessRay rolls 1-1. 2-1, 3-1, and 5-1 he needs to make his own five point.He can hit the checker with 4-1 or 6-1, but this loses his anchor andgives me a chance to make my own anchor. My six point is heavy, andthat fifth checker on the six point belongs on the five point. I likemy play.

The position is now:

135 132

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 6

White on roll. Cube action?

My play paid an added bonus, as Ray shocked my by turning the cube. Thisis definitely premature. Sure he has some numbers which point on my head,but even if he rolls one of them I would have to roll very badly from thebar to not have a take. If Ray doesn't roll one of his good numbers, heis probably an underdog. The race is even, I have the stronger inner board,and I have one checker back to his two checkers. After Ray has given mecube ownership, it isn't even clear who is the favorite. Perhaps Ray gotcarried away by the fact that I had passed a bunch of possibly takabledoubles, and he thought I might panic and drop this one, or perhaps hejust plain overvalued his attacking potential. This was easily the worstcube blunder of the match.

It looked like Ray might have known something, as his first roll was2-2 making the five and four points. However I responded with 6-1 fromthe bar, hitting on the 18 point, and Ray failed to hit back. I coveredthe blot on the five point and got my outfield blot safe, so Ray was leftwith a reasonable four-point holding game with me owning the cube. I wasn'tvery far Ahead in the Race and I still had outfield points to clear, soI wasn't able to send the cube back. However, I rolled 6-6 to clean upeverything and get way ahead in the race, and I claimed with the recubeat my next turn.

In the next game, I got a few checkers hemmed in on his three point.

124 155

Ray Fogerlund 9 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

White on roll. Cube action?

The take is very easy. My men are well-positioned, and the anchor guardsagainst gammon danger. At worst I will have a three-point game which itselfisn't far from a take, and at best I could have a lot better. White mayhave difficulty clearing his back anchor. My offense is in place, andwinning this game frontwards isn't hard to imagine. In fact, several of hissixes produce immediate problems for him. The main drawbacksto my position are the third checker on his three point and the bloton my 11 point, but these aren't fatal and can be remedied if thingsgo well.

What about his double? I guess this depends on how much he loses hismarket if he hits my blot and I don't hit back. If you think thisproduces a large market loss then his double is okay, but if we areonly talking about a moderate or small market loss then it is probablybetter to hold off doubling. I will still have plenty of play even ifhe hits, so I'm inclined to believe he should wait, but doubling isn'tterrible.

Ray did double, and I took. His first roll was a very effective 5-5, andthere were no surprises after that. He coasted home without leavinga shot, and he had his two points back.

The next game found me in another precarious holding game.

130 172

Ray Fogerlund 11 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

White on roll. Cube action?

Ray clearly has a strong cube with his racing lead, three-point board, oneof my checkers on the bar, and a direct shot at two other checkers. Do Ihave a take? My position is solid, and the anchor is some gammon protection,but not enough. I could wind up with a lot of men on the bar. Hisdistribution is awkward, which is a plus for me, but he may have timeto remedy that problem while I have two or even three checkers on the bar.Perhaps this is a take in theory, but I didn't relish the thought ofthe very real gammon danger which would put me behind 15-8. I letit go, and would do so again.

The next game presented me with what I thought was my most interestingchecker play problem of the match:

142 157

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

Blue to play 3-3

So many good things to do, such as making his bar point, hitting hisoutfield blot, or making my five point and hitting loose on the threepoint. I finally decided on 24/12*. The big factor in my opinion wasthat I had cube access, so I didn't have to blow him out of the water.All I needed to do was to make sure that I retained a solid advantage,and I would be able to give him an effective double. If I didn't havecube access, I'm really not sure what I would have done.

Ray responded with 6-2, and stepped out to my bar point. That left us:

146 145

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 8

Blue on roll. Cube action?

This is the sort of position I was angling for with my previous play.I am poised to do a lot of damage with one good roll. My advantage maynot be great now, but it could be enormous after the next exchange.I think this is a very clear double. Ray may not like it, but hepretty much has to take it. I have only two inner board points, and whileI have several ways I can hit him I can't do everything at once. His offenseis in fine shape, and I still have one checker back. I doubled, and he took.

At this point I had a lucky oversight. I rolled 3-2, not exactly what Ihad in mind. I was intent upon hitting something, and the only decentthing I could see was 12/7*, so that's what I did. I never even sawthe more solid 12/9, 11/9, which is almost surely a superior play. However,my play worked very well when Ray danced! He succeed on anchoring on mythree point, but in the meantime I escaped my back checker, made my fivepoint, and brought the position home with no difficulty to close thegap to 12-10.

The next game was the pivotal one. An early 6-6 give me a solid advantage:

142 136

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 10

Blue on roll. Cube action?

I have a big advantage, no question about that. A good rule of thumb isthat an early boxes combined with one more improvement is double and passunless the other guy has made some serious headway of his own. I havethe best improvement -- my made five point. Ray has escaped a back checker,but that's about all -- his board is completely undeveloped. He is acontender in the race and his back checker is poised to escape, butmy attackers are closing in and he may never get a chance to escape. Thereally bad part about his position is that he has no defense against theblitz. He can't anchor, and his board is so weak that I won't be afraidto hit loose if need be. I think he has a clear pass, and I was ecstaticwhen he took the double. This is exactly the opportunity I am lookingfor to get back into the match.

My dice didn't fail me. 6-5, 6-2, and then a crushing 5-5 while he wasunable to move his back checker. I soon completed the closeout and rolledthe position on home for a gammon to take a 14-12 lead in the match.

The next game went my way also, when Ray picked a bad time to flunk againsta two-point board:

151 135

Ray Fogerlund 12 17 point match Kit Woolsey 14

Blue on roll. Cube action?

Doubling in contact positions when you are three away and your opponentis farther away is a very tricky proposition. Obviously you don't wantto make any marginal doubles, since he will have huge cube leverageon his recube -- he will be able to redouble on any excuse at all andhe will make sure that he doesn't lose his market. Equally, you don'twant to be doubling if a good chunk of your advantage is a gammonthreat. Either your opponent will take and send it back to 4 at anopportune moment since he has little to lose once he takes, or he willpass and you will lose your opportunity to win a gammon. Those sortof positions can be both too good and not good enough to double at thesame time. The problem is that you can't use all 4 points, so thereis serious overage involved.

All this does not mean that one should never turn the cube in a contactposition when 3 away. If you have a solid advantage which isn't likelyto go away quickly but not a huge gammon threat, it can well be correctto double. This position is a good example. I am ahead in the race,poised to escape my last back checker, Ray is on the bar, and my offenseis well-balanced. On the other hand I have only a two-point board, somy gammon threat isn't huge. My strucure is positionally great. I simplywill bring them around and win. This is a very solid double, and Idid so.

What about the take? Obviously this would be a big pass for money, withlow winning chances and some gammon danger. It will take quite a bit ofluck for Ray to snap back into the game. At the match score of course hecan be more liberal taking, since a gammon is somewhat of an overkill andhe can redouble to 4 at the first sign of a turnaround since he has littleto lose. Still, he needs to have a plan to win the game, and he doesn'treally have one. Almost anything I roll will either hit the second blot,escape my back checker, or make a new inside point, and about all he cando is hopefully make some anchor in my board and pray. I don't think thatis good enough, and I was pleased when he took the double even though thethreat of the recube would be hanging over my head.

All went according to schedule. He anchored on my three point, but I wasable to bring my men around comfortably and bear off without leaving a shotto get to the Crawford game, 16-12.

The final game was anti-climactic. I hit a couple of shots, escaped myback men, and successfully cleared my midpoint vs. his bar-point holdinggame.