用户名: 密码:
新用户注册
监管者: SueQ , coan.net 
 Backgammon

Backgammon and variants.

Backgammon Links


每页的消息:
讨论板列表
您未权限在该板张贴消息。只有最低脑兵级别的会员才允许张贴在该板。
状态: 所有人能发表
帖子搜索:  

4. 六月 2007, 18:27:09
alanback 
题目: The other problem with rated Triple
Having started a TG tournament, I remember the other reason I don't like rated play.  The games are treated for BKR purposes just like any other game, but the strategy is different.  Whereas a gammon makes no difference in a standard one-point game, the whole point of TG is to play for gammons.  Therefore, a player will be willing to lose two games out of three if he can get a gammon in the third.  This will cause his BKR to decline, if he plays the optimal TG strategy.

My unrated TG tourney is still open for entries, and now is a single section of 20 players ;-)

4. 六月 2007, 18:51:44
nabla 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
alanback: Ooops, you are darn right, for the rating system to take this type of tournament into account, a gammon should also multiply the rating won/loss by three !

Imho triple gammon is a different GAME than backgammon anyway, so it is probably recommended to make its tournaments unrated. Or create a different rating list for it...

All that is, if one really wants an accurate rating system for backgammon, as we have already seen that the current one isn't accurate anyway :-)

4. 六月 2007, 18:53:48
joshi tm 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
nabla: Don't panic. What actullay do twelve points of rating matter in one's life? It's Backgammon.

4. 六月 2007, 18:55:20
nabla 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
joshi tm: That was the point of my last sentence. Some points of rating matter even less when one knows that every rating must be taken with a grain of salt. Or maybe they don't matter at all :-)

4. 六月 2007, 19:27:59
alanback 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
joshi tm:  The question is not whether ratings are important; of course, they are not in any real sense.  However, the question here is, if there are to be ratings, should they operate logically and consistently, or illogically and capriciously?

4. 六月 2007, 19:43:37
Andersp 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
alanback: shouldnt be any ratings at all in the dice games

4. 六月 2007, 19:55:06
alanback 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
 Andersp:  I disagree.  As I stated earlier, backgammon is a skill game with a random component.  A rating system is appropriate in backgammon to measure the players' relative skill.  It just takes more games to establish a reliable indicator of skill because of the random factor.  There are rating systems that work very well on other sites, mostly based the granddaddy of them all, FIBS.  This is not to say the rating system here doesn't work, but it does have serious defects.  The problems pointed out by nabla and Abigailll are the most significant ones. 

4. 六月 2007, 19:58:13
Andersp 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
alanback: But if we didnt have any rating then you and other "very good players" could play in all tourneys without any worries and not be forced to only play each other, wouldnt that be nice? :)

4. 六月 2007, 20:22:44
alanback 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
Andersp:  Assuming that a rating system can be properly designed, why do dice games differ in that respect from pure strategy games?  I don't mind losing games per se, I just would like the risks and rewards to be in balance.

4. 六月 2007, 20:28:42
Hrqls 
alanback: i thought i would post the link to your tournament :)

Unrated Triple Gammon -- all players (up to 20)

4. 六月 2007, 20:30:13
joshi tm 
题目: Triple Gammon Trouble
Hrqls: The only problem I see is that players already lost giving points to their friends by resigning in a backgammon position, like in the European Song Contest.

4. 六月 2007, 20:32:50
Hrqls 
题目: Re: Triple Gammon Trouble
joshi tm: they already did so ? hmm :(
but the same could be done in any tournament

(although in triple gammon you can do something more sophisticated, and very unsportsmanlike!, with 3 people, each player losing a backgammon to another player, giving each player 5 points for 2 games ... but lets suppose most people are fair and sporsmanlike enough so that not 3 players would conspire ? and if they did it could be caught easily ?)

4. 六月 2007, 20:32:57
alanback 
Hrqls:  Thank you :-)

4. 六月 2007, 20:30:19
Andersp 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
alanback: I might be stupid but im not sure i understand your talk about unfair rating.  If you lose 12 points to a lower rated player its because he was lucky, but you have reached your BKR because of your skill, not luck?   am i correct?

4. 六月 2007, 20:33:33
Hrqls 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
Andersp: reaching 2100+ can be done by luck, and with little games .. the more games you play and the higher the bkr .. the more skill should be involved .. i think ?

4. 六月 2007, 20:38:12
Andersp 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
Hrqls:   So if i win agains someone who has 2200+  thats luck...and if he wins its skill? right?

4. 六月 2007, 20:40:21
Hrqls 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
Andersp: only if its against me .. ;)

4. 六月 2007, 21:26:07
nabla 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
Andersp: If you win against someone who is 2200 it means... well, not much, since the BK rating formula is inaccurate for backgammon anyway !

4. 六月 2007, 20:38:41
alanback 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
alanback修改(4. 六月 2007, 20:41:52)
Andersp:  I'm sure you are not stupid, just pretending to be ;-)

If I lose to a lower rated player, it may be that he or she played better than I on this occasion, or because the dice favored him or her.  Similarly, if I win a backgammon match, it may be because of the dice or because I played better.  In chess, it's almost always a matter of skill, though there can be occasions I am sure when a player with less overall chess playing ability outplays a better player. 

The point about backgammon is that the player is only partly in control, due to the random element.  Thus, a rating in backgammon is not so much a prediction about the outcome of a single match, as it is a prediction about the outcome of a large number of matches.  Given a sufficiently large sample, the luck factor will even out and the player with greater skill will win a majority of the games.

My BKR is the result of a mathematical formula being applied to the results of my games.  Some of those games were won or lost primarily on skill, others on luck.  I offer no conclusion as to the interpretation of the backgammon BKRs on this site.

I hope that clarifies it, in case you were not just pretending ;-)

10. 六月 2007, 01:48:32
Family Man 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
Andersp: I think you make a valid point.

If a 1900 bkr beats a 2200 bkr, then it is called luck. If a 2200 bkr beats a 1900 bkr it is called skill.

But the better point is that a person with a 2200 bkr probably got that by being lucky themselves anyway, so doesnt it all work out in the end? On this site, at least after a person has played a certain amount of games, the person with a higher bkr is probably a better player, yet having a high bkr doesnt mean that they won all their games by skill alone either!

4. 六月 2007, 18:56:43
AbigailII 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
nabla: Triple gammon is not more a different game than backgammon as cubed backgammon is. And we don't have a different rating for them either.

4. 六月 2007, 19:05:29
alanback 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
AbigailII:  Correct.  Of course, the fact that the system has one flaw is not a persuasive argument in favor of a different flaw. And yes, these are only significant to one who cares about having a rating system that works.  Those of us who do care are apparently in the minority, and not represented at all in the management of the site. 

4. 六月 2007, 21:23:39
nabla 
题目: Re: The other problem with rated Triple
nabla修改(4. 六月 2007, 21:24:22)
AbigailII: Your logic is unfaulty ! However, things can be seen for another point of view : cubed backgammon IS backgammon, and single games are the degenerated case of matches to one point.
I take "degenerated" for its mathematical meaning, it is not supposed to be insulting to one-pointer lovers :-)

But of course you are basically right, there isn't a bigger difference between Triple and Single than between Cubed and Single.

日期和时间
在线的朋友
最喜欢的讨论板
朋友群
每日提示
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, 版权所有
回顶端