Видео

One of the greatest recorded matches ever. Thank you for posting this! I have seen this match multiple times and I still learn so much. The players and commentators are world class. I am cracking up with Tenland, Simborg, Russell, Sax, and learning so much in the entertaining experience. These guys are all masters, and Frank and Victor are amazing players. Thank you, thank you for this show! I recommend it to anyone I know that is interested in backgammon.

Vraiment nul ce Victor il profite les joueurs photos est ce qu’il revoir les photos qu’il faisait à chaque fois pffff et très très lent pffffff😮

At 3:30:12 Volker makes an illegal move. He rolls 4/2 and plays a 6/2.

Are any of the matches available as a download?

I just transcribed the match to get a better estimate of the PR's since there are two errors in the video transcription. Without doing ++ analysis on every play, XG shows me the total match PR's are: Snellings: 2.19 Sax: 3.44

This is a true gem of a match. The players are titans: Sax and Snellings. The stakes are the highest they can be for tournament BG: Monte Carlo World Championship later rounds. The commentary is top notch: Phil Simborg, later joined by former world champion Joe Russell. There is a hiccup on the XG feed on game 1, but they fix it and do some great transcription for the rest of the match. When Joe gives Phil a great compliment at around1:04:00, Phil's response is total class, humor, and humility. This video is a gem. Thank you to all involved! 🙏

.....what a brutal 4 cubetake - shit happens :-(

🎲🧿👌👏❤️

How bad can it be, that a "result" site links to shitty facebook account?

Both the WBgF Team World Championship 2024 & 42nd Swedish Open are segregated events, yes?

4:03:30 Marc, the clock you tout so much (piece of wood, buggy software) failed to stop when Mario pressed the center as usual. More inferior design. This is not the first time I've seen the thing fail either....

Would you pls get the g.d. black rectangle out of the XG graphic?? Bad design is epidemic, new bugs spring up everywhere like maggots...

When is Olsen gonna learn to stop calling the opponent 'the enemy'. Really rude and grating.

The 'Quantum Board' sucks, actually: poor contrast between these checkers - at least for dichromats (10%+ of your viewing audience, guys).... Forcing tournament players to use this board might lead to lawsuits. (the XG skin is far better, but it's a pain having to look there).

3:48:00 Somewhat little-known fact: 4 away post-crawford is a bit more gammon-go for Frank than even 4 away 2 away (gammon value 1.05).

Victor's conservative with high-variance doubles and takes, preferring to use his skill edge in a prolonged match. Quite properly, to some extent; still, useful to know if you play against him.

3:26:24 Steve: 'At 4 away 2 away it's a double, I don't know about this score'. See following comment first (David's School of Dead-Recube Doubling, continued ;-). At 4 away 2 away, gammon value V is indeed a super-high 1.0, as is well known, and here it is only about 1/2 (as in a cash game - and less than many think), but it is still enough. Here the gammon-boosted win rate is 64% + .5 *16% = 72%, close enough to the gammonless cash point (77% at 6 away 2 away) to be a double-take.

3:23:18 You can calculate leader takes for all 2 away and post-Crawford scores if you estimate the trailer's wins (low 60s) and gammon wins (about 20%). You need to know Frank's gammon value after the cube ('V' - .57 - not all that high) and gammonless cash point ('c0' - 79% - a high value, and _typical_ of 2 away scores). These factors cause some 2-away positions to be takes more than you might think. V and c0 are functions of the score only, and can be memorized roughly. Compare w + V*g (gammon-boosted win rate: 75%) to c0 (79%). Not a cash yet - Victor still has a take. (I did get this one right before seeing XG).

3:17:00 Frank's tired and is starting to play the first thing he sees. The transcriber is also asleep on the job, and once again begins to neglect to showing critical analysis (grrr)....

If you spend all your time shaking your rocks you'll pay for it in the long run, Vic.... (In the end, as Sebastian said, 'He pulled it off'.) ;-)

Sebastian is another really fine commentator, sharing his advanced knowledge of the priorities of various situations clearly and in a way that can be retained and used.

Rogers is playing really dull and sloppy - last match too. He's better than this. I can believe the sleep deprivation comment.

2:53:00 Phil: 'the free drop is worth 2.4%.' Insisting on this sweeping categorical statement is ambiguous and misleading. Ask Phil: '2.4% of what?' -- not all percentages are the same. 2.4% is accurate in one sense only (and not at 9 away). It's just a number Phil memorized. It applies to 3 away only. And it is _not_ a difference in match-winning chance (although that too is expressed in percent). The (quite reasonable) argument Marc was making was that the gammon vs. single win MWC difference would best be considered 'what the free drop is worth' next game. From 3 away crawford, gammon is worth 1.2% of the match - only about half Phil's number. 2.4% is the trailer's _gammon value at 3 away Crawford_ (in fairness to Phil, he did finally mention that specifically). That is, gammon is worth 2.4% of _the value of the single game_ . That latter is worth about half the match, hence the factor of 2 difference. (Phil tried to conjure an account of that factor speciously from the 50% chance of winning the first roll, but that's not relevant here.). 2.4% does _not_ even apply to the current score (9-away crawford), where the gammon value is 6%, and continues to grow larger (over 10% by 25 away crawford). The MWC difference at 9 away crawford resulting from a gammon vs. single win is .65%, growing smaller at farther odd-away scores. If you're gonna talk math, and especially if you're going to jump into bets, please define your terms accurately, simply, and unambiguously.

Very enjoyable match, with good fun comments. Too bad these acepoint BGWC videos seem to be off youTube's suggestion radar.... They deserve a wider audience.

2:02:10 Marc: 'I know a couple rather good players who say it [alpha wave dice control] works.' Phil: 'So? I know a buncha Republicans.' Good one Phil. I take back all the bad things I've said about you....

1:56:00 Marc: 'Did anyone see the [doubling] analysis?' No, none of us did.... 'Maybe someone in the chat can...' Isn't that the _transcriber's_ job? He has the record for showing us the stupidest negative-equity doubles (at below -3.000), yet continually skips showing _critical doubling decisions_ . Learn your job, guy...

Justin and Marc are both really good commentators, though with somewhat different styles. Marc so often gives master's reasoning you can actually remember and use (Justin too, in a different way). Justin: 'Ya need a [doubling] checklist'.... Listen to your co-commentator, Justin; he is constantly using that very thing (and a really good one) from his book _Cube Like a Boss'_ . (Summary: must have market-losing threats and 2 out of 3 clear advantages in Prime, Blitz and Race (forget PRAT, use this). To take, you must have 1 of them, but you can also count a good Contact situation). I am very averse to spam, but could forgive you from plugging it here at least once since it's so relevant to the discussions you're having.... Don't be so modest, Marc.

1:54:20 In 2-away or post-crawford doubling, there are no recube efficiency considerations, which greatly simplifies the doubling decisions. The trailer should estimate both his win (w) and gammon win (g) chances. His _gammon value_ after doubling (V) is critical. He also needs his 'goal number' or gammonless cash point (c0). Tables of both V and c0 can be calculated easily from a match equity table*. For many-away 2-away, V is in the low 60s and c0 in the high 70s (useful to remember). In this particular case (11-away 2-away) V=.6, c0=78%. Calculate V*g + w. The result is 70% here, using XG's expert estimates of w and g. Double when you are within 8% of your goal number - that is usually around the opening of the market window. If you exceed your goal number you have lost your market. ---------------- *If t1, t2 and t4 are the trailer's match winning chance after winning 1, 2 and 4 points, resp., then V=(t4-t2)/t2 c0=1 - (t2-t1)/t2 Post-Crawford | Leader 2-away trailer | away V c0 | V c0 2 0 50 | 0. 67.7 3 1. 97.6 | .48 74 4 1.05 66 | 1. 80 5 .55 96 | .69 82.5 6 .57 61 | .51 77 7 .70 95 | .57 79 8 .71 64 | .65 79

Once again the transcriber can't be bothered to show analysis until he's finished his cappuccino....

1:38:00 5-away is the post-crawford score where you must take the most. Gammon value is only .55. Doubler's win chance plus .55 of his gammon win chance must be >= 96.1% to drop. You have to take some truly horrible positions; Dagfinn can't lose his market here. The first thing to look at in trick-doubling positions is _gammon wins_. And you must know the gammon value, which is very different at 3-away (1.00), 5-away (.55) and 7-away (.7). The gammonless take points are all below 5%, but you must add to that the gammon value times the gammon win chance to get the true take point. Look for market losers that leave significant gammons. If there are none, trick on....

1:29:22 'What's gonna lose the market, that's the question, y'know?'... Correct, Justin. At this score, the answer is any sequence which leaves Dagfinn's win chance plus .7 of his gammon win chance above 95.3% Even 1-1 followed by 1-5 wouldn't do it.

The lapses in showing the analysis is really irritating, especially when there's plenty of time. It's as if the transcriber just can't be bothered to do his job....

1:12:22 Correct, Michel, on both counts. John's gammonless take point is 4.7%, but gammons do matter (a lot); gammon value here is .7. if Alain's gammon winning chance is g, John's take point is 4.7% + .7*g (neglecting backgammons). Alain can indeed hold off doubling as long as he cannot lose this very tenacious market.

59:00 In situations like this (doubled loss loses match), your take point is your drop 'equity' (MWC) divided by take-and-win equity, in this case 6.75%/.3313 = 21.5%, so a slim drop here.

what is this stupid XG mode with all the question marks?? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? Bring in a competent transcriber, please....

we love backgammon!! Come on Mochi :)

Rookie transcriber, apparently... neglecting to show a lot of analysis. But I'll just also mention that the XG folks could/should design transcriber modes so hints don't constantly have to be requested manually. Good live bg transcription is _hard_ - please make it as easy as possible..

I was surprised during that 2nd match. I like the strategy against Art Alex certainly has his own style.

move

Ace Point Backgammon, I liked this video because it's awesome!

The commentary was too chatty and not focused on the match and the plays being made.

..Moochy 🥊🥊🔥🔥🔥

Great commentating guys! I missed the live stream but glad I found this excellent match!

What a match! For those that haven't watched this yet you all are in for quite a treat!

Great commentary and an unexpectedly exciting finish! (however, I can't stand how the red checkers disappear on the identically colored wedges - almost as much as I hate the writing on the checkers. But other than that, I suppose the board is okay...😉)

how is that asian guy allowed to complete a move and then go back and change it FOUR times !?!?!?

Wow wonderful match

Sehr schöne Berichterstattung. Und Glückwunsch an Mario Kuhl.

I watch all the streams here and love them! I am making every attempt to like every stream HOWEVER, I am noticing a lot of blurriness on this one. The dice are hard to read. Only reffering to the Victor Ashkenazi / Steve Blanchard match. The earlier one was fine.

I enjoy these top level videos tremendously and save many of them for furthrr study BUT I feel that it's getting a little blinkered. It would also be beneficial to see some lower ability players facing each other as we can also learn from having their errors pointed out