User Name: Password:
New User Registration
Moderator: SueQ , coan.net 
 Backgammon

Backgammon and variants.

Backgammon Links


Messages per page:
List of discussion boards
You are not allowed to post messages to this board. Minimum level of membership required for posting on this board is Brain Pawn.
Mode: Everyone can post
Search in posts:  

<< <   1 2   > >>
10. December 2005, 09:02:03
WhiteTower 
... or even anti-backgammon :)

10. December 2005, 09:01:42
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Congratulations, Jason
alanback: "sponsoring anti-backgammon tournaments"... sounds like sponsoring terrorism to people who hate anti-backgammob :)

8. December 2005, 06:11:15
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: %ages
grenv: Then someone like Ed Trice will come along and patent a new version of Backgammon where memorizing equity tables (as per chess openings) will be impossible or impractical ... hence my dislike of cube games :)

7. December 2005, 13:16:19
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: game question
playBunny: This case seems like a good "exercise" for cube newbies (cewbies?) or judgement evaluations ;)

18. November 2005, 18:47:34
WhiteTower 
Subject: Game group ratings
Has anyone ever thought of suggesting to Fencer to introduce game GROUP ratings? For example, one rating system for Chess games, another for Backgammons, another for Lines games etc. I mean, we already differentiate between them when creating them, so this means they are essentially different entities and should not have a unified rating system - who can disagree with that? (Fencer - too much work involved?)

Remember, some game groups may still share the same rating system (until the frequent players there start complaining about it etc.!)

15. November 2005, 18:41:06
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Men behind
grenv: Then let me make it a lot more simple. I never played (nor will ever play) cubed bachgammon - I'm a Greek, after all :) For me, every game is life or death - win or loss. There are no backgammons and gammons to consider. Only whether I can stop the SOB who's started taking men off while I have an anchor at their home. Should I "raise" the anchor, leaving one man, or should I leave them both, assuming at the same time I am at either position 1, 2 or 3 (4 or further isn't worth it probably) and that a nasty block is awaiting the unlucky man to be hit by me?

15. November 2005, 12:22:05
WhiteTower 
Subject: Men behind
Say one has 2 men together in opponent's home, where men have already started being born off. What is the best practice then?

- Take one man out and see if dice for the opponent is bad enough for a forced hit, allowing one to hit back given more nice dice?
- Leave the men together, hoping for some dice for the opponent to force an open man etc.

Does any of these two scenarios have any distinct advantage, even under conditions?

8. November 2005, 03:47:31
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Seeing red...
alanback: More appropriately, gives up half of the offered side of the doubling cube - if this is the first double, then the loss is 1 point, if the cube is offered from 2 to 4, it's 2 points etc.

6. November 2005, 21:57:37
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Seeing red...
grenv: Me too. Still... ignorance is NOT bliss in these cases! Let's just accept that basic fun for some people is to move the pieces around, without the cube adding too much complexity. Maybe such people NEED to lose a match or two this way to notice the small print... Or maybe too much time without a cube has softened them ;)

6. November 2005, 21:51:25
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Seeing red...
grenv: Then again, some people will not think like that - hence the need for compromise. It would be ideal if we all thought this way, but you know how it is - many people play here just for fun and ignore simple things like that...

6. November 2005, 21:43:49
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Seeing red...
grenv: All the people who lost matches this way were by no means fools per se, but I have to agree with Mr. T's paraphrasing:

"I pity the fool that ain't seen the warnin'!" :)

Making the warning more visible is probably the compromise that will separate the true fools from the simply careless.

6. November 2005, 21:02:34
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Seeing red...
playBunny: Stop showing off and chew your carrot :) (or the mods will step in ... ooooh!)

6. November 2005, 20:49:32
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Resignation warning...
playBunny & Pedro Martinez: Let's just make sure the "stupid turkeys" reference is just a coincidence with Tayfun's country of origin ;) And who, of all people, points that out? A Greek!!! Anyway :)

28. October 2005, 15:52:10
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Randomness
playBunny: That they don't go out of business in the short term ;)

28. October 2005, 11:22:22
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Randomness
playBunny: Since randomness can also make the payouts too much too often, the slot machine operators need to make SURE ;)

28. October 2005, 09:14:45
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Randomness
playBunny: Take one guess where DailyGammon get their dice from ;)

15. October 2005, 21:33:02
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Multi game type tournaments?
WhiteTower: and I mean "introduced" in general for money games, not just here in Brainking for money games :)

15. October 2005, 21:31:55
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Multi game type tournaments?
rod03801: No, please, the cube was introduced as a feature for money games in Backgammon :) No need to make other games go that way...

15. October 2005, 18:59:59
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: The devil and the dice...
playBunny: Until it happens to you, it's impossible, right? ;)

15. October 2005, 18:46:27
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: The devil and the dice...
playBunny: If your opponent thinks like the hare in the well-known Aesop tale, the 1s covering your man could be removed with one or more 1-1 throws, and one or more 6-6 on the turtle's dice could make things pretty uncomfortable for the hare ;) So it's just theoretical - obviously, never happens between even half-competent players!

15. October 2005, 18:31:38
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Pythagoras: Indeed, I always thought this rule could be made optional. I believe Plakoto is played that way to stop wasting time on a lost game - even though devil can make the dice so bad for the "winner" that the game can be still saved by the "loser" :)

15. October 2005, 11:24:23
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Fencer: Indeed, 15 + 15 new images to be exact. Mind you, the 14 or 15 on top of 1 will happen once in a few billion years :) BTW I hope it will be detected in Plakoto that, if both sides have a single man covered in each other's starting points at home, the game is an automatic draw, as there is no way to finish the game.

15. October 2005, 11:06:22
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Fencer: (I want to add more of them later)

Does this include Greek Backgammon, as per a certain perennial request? ;)

5. October 2005, 22:38:59
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
alanback: He sure is - who knows ONE perfect programmer who doesn't introduce a new bug fixing a old one? ;)

5. October 2005, 20:38:11
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Looks like the fix introduced a new bug
alanback: I mean, he obviously worked in the shadows while we were all jeering at him, and now his surprise has come out slightly faulty :) SURELY his pride will not allow this issue to remain alive for much longer ;)

5. October 2005, 20:15:20
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Looks like the fix introduced a new bug
UzzyLady: I believe Fencer will fix this relatively trivial bug [pointing and shaking index finger at Fencer!] as soon as he is made aware of it :)

21. September 2005, 22:11:32
WhiteTower 
Subject: MDU rule
Wouldn't the rish of accidentally violating the rule be minimized by placing the highest of the two dice first in order? That way, it would take a dice swap to violate the rule, and that would be deliberate.

19. September 2005, 16:41:07
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Tempest in a teapot
alanback: I suspect that people who take the effort to argue about this issue do it because that relaxation would evaporate the moment a deviation from the established rules occurs - those rules are what make the game relaxing as well, if I am not mistaken.

19. September 2005, 16:18:40
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: This "temporary" bug
playBunny: Yet Fencer regards the "manual" dice throw as important enough to deny auto-rolling - go figure!!!

19. September 2005, 15:57:54
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: It's cheating, if deliberate and unrepentant
playBunny: One way to resolve this would be to check if the offended player's next dice throw would have a direct impact, i.e. hit the offending player's men - if not, maybe there was no harm done anyway...

17. September 2005, 07:07:17
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
furbster: It's the windfall of dice, isn't it? :)

15. September 2005, 06:33:43
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Narde
playBunny: That's Russian Backgammon, with slight modifications to the rules of Fevga (or was Fevga like Narde with slight modifications...?) Anyway, watch those URLs, buddy! :)

14. September 2005, 23:48:06
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Pythagoras: Let's say it plays quite well for its size :) But yes, it wouldn't win any World Championships...

14. September 2005, 23:43:00
WhiteTower 
Subject: Check these variants out
A Greek student maintains the following page with a nice Java applet which you can use to play against his implementation of an average playing strength AI opponnent:

http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~ea99509/tavli.html

14. September 2005, 23:32:07
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Pythagoras: Probably due to the diametrical start and the no-hitting feature.

14. September 2005, 23:28:19
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Pythagoras: The truth is in the playing, as everyone who plays it for the first time knows all too well :)

14. September 2005, 23:22:03
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Greek Backgammon (Tavli) implementation
Walter Montego:

Here.

14. September 2005, 23:06:31
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Pythagoras:

Fevga: Exactly.

Plakoto: Also quite strategic, although not at the level of Fevga.

14. September 2005, 21:38:47
WhiteTower 
Subject: Greek Backgammon (Tavli) implementation
So, Fencer, are there any news on the possible introduction of the "Greek three-game series" that some people know as Tavli? For the record, Greeks refer to the whole genre as Tavli, and have three separate names for the variants, which they play in the following order up to 3-, 5- or, most frequently, 7-point matches:

- Portes (=Doors, no-doubling Backgammon)
- Plakoto (=Slab-covered)
- Fevga (=Go Away, similar to Russian Backgammon)

4. September 2005, 00:40:04
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: George is AWOL
playBunny: Ummm your link redirects to my Main page :(

3. September 2005, 21:17:19
WhiteTower 
Subject: "Fast" players
So there is this tournament, declared specifically for fast players. What happens is that one player now holds up the whole tournament for days using the automatic vacation feature without telling (me at least) anything about the absence. Now, I know that according to the rules this user is fully entitled to this, but isn't there some kind of etiquette regarding these cases?...

Sorry if it sounds a bit like a whine...

1. September 2005, 23:27:25
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Games with unrated players
Walter Montego: Well put.

[points microphone to Fencer]

Any comments, Mr Rachunek?

:)

1. September 2005, 23:18:44
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Games with unrated players
grenv: Not very nice... I will be more careful.

1. September 2005, 23:10:33
WhiteTower 
Subject: Games with unrated players
Your expected BKR change: win: 2168 (0), draw: 2160 (-8), loss: 2152 (-16)

Ummm, so I have to win in order to avoid losing points... anyone else thinks this doesn't make sense?... Or doesn't it have to do with the unrated status?

1. September 2005, 21:07:23
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Dice
playBunny: OK, lemme make it more specific: at DailyGammon, they have a long FAQ entry devoted to how the dice is calculated, INCLUDING the Perl script that does the hard work. Here, nuffink! I mean, it's not like a trade secret or summin', is it?

28. August 2005, 20:23:27
WhiteTower 
Subject: Dice
Has the exact calculation of dice in backgammon games been ever discussed? Methods and randomization used etc.?

23. July 2005, 22:34:46
WhiteTower 
We still haven't seen anything by Fencer on the issue - if he doesn't care, all we write here is pointless anyway :) If he does, keep going...

23. July 2005, 19:34:10
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Backgammon Ratings
alanback: Exactly - as long as we even consider more improvements, and can't even agree how to start off, it's dead in the water... I partly agree with what you say, but an inconclusive ratings system is worse than a win/loss record...

23. July 2005, 17:14:24
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re: Backgammon Ratings
grenv: Whatever the answer is, the morale stays the same: ratings aren't good enough however you calculate them. Win/loss/draw ratios are the real thing in the end...

22. July 2005, 21:39:18
WhiteTower 
Subject: Re:
Please, guys, what you are debating is useless - rolling 5-5 all the time is a typical trivial case, especially as it leads to a hugely non-standard result (infinitely long game) - therefore let's concentrate on finite games...

<< <   1 2   > >>
Date and time
Friends online
Favourite boards
Fellowships
Tip of the day
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved.
Back to the top