Back Game (Daniel Murphy) vs. Holding Game (David Montgomery)
I don't think it's unsophisticated to regard the 1-5 game as a back
game. In fact I think it's useful to call it a back game -- the worst
of the back games!
If backgammon is primarily a race (and it is) then we can either try
to win the race going forward, or give up on the race, make a prime,
hang back, wait for a shot and hit it. If we choose (or are forced) to
hang way back, and wait a long time, then we're playing a back game.
Or at least we are, according to some of the older backgammon books.
Today theory affords a more sophisticated treatment of defensive
strategies, and we usually use the term "back game" in a more limited
sense.
Defensive structures often include one or more anchors. A single
anchor on an advanced point (5, 4 or 3) is called a holding game. A
single anchor on a deep point (1, 2 or 3) is called a deep anchor
game, or ace- or deuce- or 3-point game or
last-ditch-if-all-else-fails-we-still-have-the-ace point-game.
Forward or deep anchor games have corresponding winning strategies;
the 3 point (listed twice above) illustrates the difference. Early in
the game it acts like an advanced anchor, covering the outfield and
affording winning expectations by either hitting an outfield shot or
simply winning the race. Later in the game, usually behind a prime, it
is similar to the deeper points, with winning strategies reduced to
hitting a late shot in the bear-in or bear-off, or rolling several
very large doubles.
The defining characteristic of a back game is that the defensive
structure includes two or more anchors. The back game's corresponding
game plan is to hold both points as long as necessary, force opponent
to bear in or off awkwardly, hit a late shot and contain the blot
behind a prime. Typically, the back game anchors are deep and close
together (1-2, 1-3, 2-3, 2-4). Keeping them back delays the moment
when the (winning) shot comes, and allows time to prepare a prime to
contain the checker or checkers we hit.
If the defensive structure's two anchors are widely separated (1-4,
1-5, 2-5) or are both advanced (3-4, 3-5, 4-5) there's nothing wrong
with calling it a back game, but in practice such structures usually
don't turn out to favor the same strategy as the deep anchor back
games. If the anchors are both advanced, one anchor is usually lost
and the game proceeds as a single anchor holding game. If the anchors
are widely separated, one anchor is usually lost and the game proceeds
either as a holding game or a deep anchor game.
What is a "pseudo back game"? Perhaps that is what some people call
something like the 1-5 game: there's usually no reasonable possibility
of holding both points until opponent leaves a shot, and even if that
is possible, the structure isn't nearly as threatening to opponent as
a deep anchor back game. Consequently, we are usually faced with
deciding between (a) holding the 5 point, giving up the ace point and
losing the race, or (b) giving up the 5 point, allowing the ace point
to be primed and getting gammoned.
If the defensive structure includes 3 or more anchors, it's certainly
a back game and you can call it anything else you want, too.
Typically, such structures afford excellent, even "massive" winning
chances. But if our shot comes before we're ready, the result is often
a gammon or backgammon loss.
Can a back game be too "massive"? Can we have too many points, too
many checkers back? Sure. Not too long ago, backgammon books warned us
not to let the back game player get too many checkers back. More
recent theory is more sophisticated. It's wrong to focus on how many
checkers back is good or bad. That's an impossible question to answer.
Instead, we look at the entire board. Whether more or fewer checkers
back is bad or good depends on where they are, both players' forward
structures, and the delicate timing of preparing a prime to be ready
precisely when the awaited shot finally comes.
Daniel Murphy
The term isn't really well-defined. There are positions that everyone
would call a holding game, but there are also a lot of positions that
some would call holding games, while others would call them something
else. I call a lot of positions anchor games that others call holding
games.
The fundamental idea is maintaining contact in order to be able to
hit the opponent while they are coming home (bearing in or clearing
their last few outside points).
Usually you maintain this contact with a point, although often a blot
a ways behind the point provides additional contact, making it harder
for the opponent to play safely behind you.
The point(s) held usually include the 22, 21, 20, or 18 points.
However, you could also have a 15 point vs 15 point holding game,
and a midpoint holding the 18 point isn't that uncommon.
I tend to think of a position as a holding game only when there is
a credible chance of getting a shot while the leader is bearing home.
So I wouldn't call holding the 22 (or 21 or 20) point against a six
prime a holding game -- I would call it an anchor game. However, if I
held the 22 point against the 4, 5, 6, and 9 points, it looks more
like a holding game.
If your main holding point is an anchor, you may need a second point
in the outfield to have a good chance of a shot. Let's say your
opponent is bearing in and needs to clear the mid and 8 points.
Holding the 22 point alone, I would tend to think of this as an
anchor game. With the 22 point and the midpoint (or some other
outside point bearing on the opponent's mid) I would call it a
holding game.
Holding games are distinguished from backgames primarily by when you
intend to hit your opponent. In a backgame, often the plan is not
to hit until your opponent is bearing off. In a holding game, usually
you will hit as soon as possible, as long as your offense isn't a
shambles. (However, in advanced backgames, like a 54 or 53 backgame,
you usually do intend to hit while the opponent is bearing in.)
David Montgomery