In a backgame, I refer to the player who is playing the backgame as
the "backgamer" and the other player as the "backgamee." This
terminology seems logical to me, though I don't know if anyone else
uses it. Similarly, I use the terms "holder" and "holdee" when it's
a holding game.

XGID=-bCbBCCAAAA------bacb-ba--:1:-1:1:31:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O O | | O O O O | +---+
| O | | O O O | | 2 |
| | | O | +---+
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X X X |
| | | X X X O X O |
| X X X X | | X X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 81 O: 151 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 31

---
Tim Chow

On Tuesday, January 2, 2024 at 10:36:38 PM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
> In a backgame, I refer to the player who is playing the backgame as
> the "backgamer" and the other player as the "backgamee." This
> terminology seems logical to me, though I don't know if anyone else
> uses it. Similarly, I use the terms "holder" and "holdee" when it's
> a holding game.
>
> XGID=-bCbBCCAAAA------bacb-ba--:1:-1:1:31:0:0:0:0:10
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | O O | | O O O O | +---+
> | O | | O O O | | 2 |
> | | | O | +---+
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | X X X |
> | | | X X X O X O |
> | X X X X | | X X X O X O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 81 O: 151 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, O own cube
> X to play 31
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

When the terms are so similar I don't think we get much mileage out of using them. Instead I prefer saying it the long way such as "I was playing a backgame" or "I was playing against a backgame".

Stick

On 1/3/2024 5:48 PM, Stick Rice wrote:
> When the terms are so similar I don't think we get much mileage out of using them. Instead I prefer saying it the long way such as "I was playing a backgame" or "I was playing against a backgame".

I use them when categorizing decisions as "backgamer cubes" versus
"backgamee cubes" or "backgamer checker plays" versus "backgamee
checker plays." It's also convenient if one wants to say something
like, "A common backgamee tactic is to banana split, to force the
backgamer to hit and recirculate the backgamee's checkers."

---
Tim Chow

XGID=-bCbBCCAAAA------bacb-ba--:1:-1:1:31:0:0:0:0:10

Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
+13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
| O O | | O O O O | +---+
| O | | O O O | | 2 |
| | | O | +---+
| | | |
| | | |
| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | X X X |
| | | X X X O X O |
| X X X X | | X X X O X O |
+12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
Pip count X: 81 O: 151 X-O: 0-0
Cube: 2, O own cube
X to play 31

Prime or clear? The conventional wisdom is that the backgamee should
strive to prime the backgamer, but this advice does not necessarily
apply late in the game, especially if the backgamee is losing the
timing battle. X can prime with 10/7 9/8, but he can't expect to hold
the prime long enough to force O to crunch, so X is well advised not
to create points that he may have difficulty clearing safely.

1. Rollout¹ 9/8 7/4 eq:+0.510
Player: 66.61% (G:29.60% B:3.55%)
Opponent: 33.39% (G:1.61% B:0.05%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.502..+0.519) - [100.0%]

2. Rollout¹ 9/6 8/7 eq:+0.426 (-0.084)
Player: 65.06% (G:25.37% B:2.44%)
Opponent: 34.94% (G:1.49% B:0.04%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.417..+0.435) - [0.0%]

3. Rollout¹ 10/7 8/7 eq:+0.422 (-0.088)
Player: 65.37% (G:24.57% B:2.55%)
Opponent: 34.63% (G:2.20% B:0.07%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.414..+0.431) - [0.0%]

4. Rollout¹ 10/7 9/8 eq:+0.373 (-0.137)
Player: 63.62% (G:24.62% B:2.15%)
Opponent: 36.38% (G:2.53% B:0.09%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.364..+0.382) - [0.0%]

5. Rollout¹ 10/9 7/4 eq:+0.359 (-0.151)
Player: 62.18% (G:27.02% B:3.36%)
Opponent: 37.82% (G:2.90% B:0.10%)
Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.350..+0.368) - [0.0%]

¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
Dice Seed: 271828
Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller

eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release

---
Tim Chow

On Thursday, January 4, 2024 at 9:26:04 AM UTC-5, Timothy Chow wrote:
> XGID=-bCbBCCAAAA------bacb-ba--:1:-1:1:31:0:0:0:0:10
>
> Score is X:0 O:0. Unlimited Game
> +13-14-15-16-17-18------19-20-21-22-23-24-+
> | O O | | O O O O | +---+
> | O | | O O O | | 2 |
> | | | O | +---+
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | X X X |
> | | | X X X O X O |
> | X X X X | | X X X O X O |
> +12-11-10--9--8--7-------6--5--4--3--2--1-+
> Pip count X: 81 O: 151 X-O: 0-0
> Cube: 2, O own cube
> X to play 31
> Prime or clear? The conventional wisdom is that the backgamee should
> strive to prime the backgamer, but this advice does not necessarily
> apply late in the game, especially if the backgamee is losing the
> timing battle. X can prime with 10/7 9/8, but he can't expect to hold
> the prime long enough to force O to crunch, so X is well advised not
> to create points that he may have difficulty clearing safely.
>
> 1. Rollout¹ 9/8 7/4 eq:+0.510
> Player: 66.61% (G:29.60% B:3.55%)
> Opponent: 33.39% (G:1.61% B:0.05%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.502..+0.519) - [100.0%]
>
> 2. Rollout¹ 9/6 8/7 eq:+0.426 (-0.084)
> Player: 65.06% (G:25.37% B:2.44%)
> Opponent: 34.94% (G:1.49% B:0.04%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.417..+0.435) - [0.0%]
>
> 3. Rollout¹ 10/7 8/7 eq:+0.422 (-0.088)
> Player: 65.37% (G:24.57% B:2.55%)
> Opponent: 34.63% (G:2.20% B:0.07%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.414..+0.431) - [0.0%]
>
> 4. Rollout¹ 10/7 9/8 eq:+0.373 (-0.137)
> Player: 63.62% (G:24.62% B:2.15%)
> Opponent: 36.38% (G:2.53% B:0.09%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.364..+0.382) - [0.0%]
>
> 5. Rollout¹ 10/9 7/4 eq:+0.359 (-0.151)
> Player: 62.18% (G:27.02% B:3.36%)
> Opponent: 37.82% (G:2.90% B:0.10%)
> Confidence: ±0.009 (+0.350..+0.368) - [0.0%]
>
> ¹ 1296 Games rolled with Variance Reduction.
> Dice Seed: 271828
> Moves: 3-ply, cube decisions: XG Roller
>
> eXtreme Gammon Version: 2.19.211.pre-release
>
> ---
> Tim Chow

Maybe it's just me because I'm not that bright but probably for others too but when I read backgamee or backgamer for eg I have to stop and think about what you mean. I wouldn't think it helps readers out. For personal use it's understandable if that's what you want. For the public I don't see it ever catching on and it comes off as more of a hindrance than an aide. Just my half cent.

Stick

On 1/5/2024 4:52 AM, Stick Rice wrote:
> Maybe it's just me because I'm not that bright but probably for others too but when I read backgamee or backgamer for eg I have to stop and think about what you mean. I wouldn't think it helps readers out. For personal use it's understandable if that's what you want. For the public I don't see it ever catching on and it comes off as more of a hindrance than an aide. Just my half cent.

All terminology seems unfamiliar at first. Think about Nactation.

Whether it catches on has less to do with the terminology itself
and more to do with who is using the terminology. Of course if a
nobody like myself uses it, it won't catch on. If a 'celebrity'
in the backgammon world starts using it, then it will definitely
catch on no matter how bad the terminology is. As I recall, you
hate Michy's use of "double tiger." But because Michy is using it,
it's catching on.

---
Tim Chow