Hrqls: By the way, have a look at BrainKing in Turkish, backgammon is translated to tavla and I am sure there are more languages which don't keep the English name.

whirlybabe: "Tric-Trac" and "tournoi" are French, but we would say "Tournoi de tric-trac", not "Tric Trac Tournoi". I never heard of remotely similar rules in the old game of tric-trac, but I am no specialist of game history.

nabla: That's much better.

Fencer: In my version, "Triple gammon" sounds like a straightforward and self-explaining name.

Fencer: Tric Trac isn't actually an English name. *4* If it were me I'd change "Tourno" to the nearest equivalent in the target language but keep the "Tric Trac" that Mike gave it.

AlliumCepa: Don't scare me again.

AlliumCepa: You are right, it is completely compatible with cubed matches. Indeed, it should be implemented a scoring system, not a tournament system.
Now as Thad pointed out, the half point for a loss is not very natural and it would look better and be completely equivalent to have loss = 0, single = 1, gammon = 3, backgammon = 5. But I propose even better : single = 1, gammon and backgammon = 3. Simpler, closer to normal backgammon, and counting backgammons has always been quite irrelevant anyway, it occurs so rarely that it count for virtually nothing in the equity calculations, except in the 2-3 last moves of some games.
As a scoring system and not a tournament system, I support it.

Hrqls: But I don't like it. And I don't want to work on something I don't like.

Fencer: you dont change the name of backgammon either though .. so it might be correct to call it TTT as its probably based on tric trac ?

playBunny: TTT might be handy in English but not in other languages. What if I say that it would be implemented only with our own name or I don't see a reason to do it?
Unlike some other site owners, I always think multilingual.

AlliumCepa: the TTT i refer to exists of single game matches without cube .. its nice for its aggresive play and the gammon training

a tournament with another scoring system as you describe would be fun as well :)

nabla: That's sounds like of someone who's afraid of pure checker play! You shouldn't hide behind the cube! lol

joshi tm: yes ... would be nice somehow to add to the bkr the difference with which a game was won (nice for froglet :))

this Grand Gammon Tournament has that .. but the main purpose is to let the players focus on gaining gammons .. its a nice training :)

(at least it helped for me :))

Fencer: It's "Tric Trac Tourno". TTT is just a handy abbreviation, not the name of the format. As a purposely designed format, I think it would be appropriate to honour the name that the inventor gave it and unseemly to change it.

Hrqls: Should be possible for all points games too, the difference in points is added to the winner's total.

Sounds really cool. Then we can see who's best at Cheversi. (of course double games)

nabla: the doubling cube isnt there .. but gammons and backgammons are still counted

its all single game matches though

(the luck factor is still bigger than in a tournament with a doubling cube though)

Hrqls: I would welcome new tournament formats, but as for backgammon they should include the doubling cube to be of interest for me. So this one doesn't appeal to me.

Fencer: New tournament forms are always cool, now just add the Champions League tournament (first the group phase of n players in the 8 groups, first 2 go through (for a total of 16) then Double elimination with random setup)insert for n any number.

Hrqls: I think "gammon tournament" would be good enough.

Hrqls: Sounds pretty cool! Well, except for the name game, but how about man-to-man tournament?

Also, a loss should cost 0.5 points instead or give nothing...

Could something also be done for points games like Froglet, Go or Cheversi? Winning better (higher difference) causes more points.

AbigailII: it encourages people to take more risks .. it encourages them to play for a gammon (instead of being content with a single win)

you need to win at least a few gammons to make a chance to win the tournament

Hrqls: What is the point of scoring 0.5 for a loss?

Fencer: ok boss! ;) hmm .. does anyone have a fitting name for such a tournament ? (it encourages playing for gammon more than in normal tournaments)

GPT ? (gammon play tournament)

Hrqls: I don't like "TTT". Find a better name.

Thad: not sure if its the same as the ratio is different .. but when i tried to make an example proving you wrong i couldnt find any quickly :)

i already talked about it with fencer and i think he likes it and its not that hard to implement.

would anyone like this type of tournament ?

Hrqls: If everyone scores at least half of a point for each game win or lose, then why not score it 0 for a loss, .5 for a win, 1.5 for a gammon and 2.5 for a backgammon (or 0, 1, 3, 5 if you want to use whole numbers). Same, thing, yes?

Also, sadly, the tournament system here is not set up for the type of tournament you describe.

people who also play on dailygammon probably already know the TTT tournaments.
I am not sure if other players are familiar with it ?

summarized its a tournament in which every plays 1 match (of 1 game) against all other players (so if there are 20 players in a tournament each players plays 19 matches, giving a total of 190 matches)
you gain points for every match you play :
1 point for a single win
2 points for a gammon win
3 points for a backgammon win
0.5 points for a loss (single, gammon, or backgammon)

the player with the most points when all matches are finished is the winner of the tournament

this leads to some nice gammon play, players will take more risks to gain a gammon as they will still win 0.5 points if they lose (0.5+2)/2 > 1

what do you all think ? should we have it on here as well ?
(erik from dailygammon is ok if we have it on here as well)

joshi tm: Cloning backgammon isn't my thing.. and I probably won't play it once my games of it are finished, (please don't be insulted!, it's just not my cup of tea!) BUT I was just recently thinking to myself that Cloning Hyper Backgammon might be pretty interesting.

nabla: Should be tried somehow. But, if the game's strategy is changed fundamentally, why not make it a new game? Long games CAN also be charming sometimes.

I also wanted to try an eight checkers variant for countering the opening strategy of blocking the player's home full with checkers. But then the are other questions come up:
- Where to put those eight?
- Is the strategy changed?

Or, try cloning BG rules in Hyper Backgammon, where capturing can save lives. Should be intersting enough to give a try.

Cloning Backgammon is a nice variant, but it seems to suffer from the fact that the reborn checkers often lead to very long games, especially when the end result is obvious. I propose to start the game with only 13 checkers, one less on each of the two 5-stacks, like in Nackgammon but without the extra back checkers.

Not only would it reduce a little the probability of a very long game, but the lack of front ammunition would probably also make for more interesting decisions in the opening. In the current state, I have a feeling that in the opening one should pretty much do everything for building one's own board as fast as possible. With less checkers, such a strategy is less likely to be successful.

A possible drawback is that it would give even more importance to hitting checkers early in the game, because 13 checkers are not really enough to play with when trying to prime the opponent. I say drawback because hitting a blot is a matter of chance, but of course the game is to take this chance into account.

playBunny & joshi tm: ok thanks .. i reported it in the bug tracker :)

Hrqls: That is a bug or unwanted feature.

Hrqls: Bug. I suspect that the program was thinking of 5/4*/off, which maximises the dice usage. That code probably hasn't been tweaked for Cloning backgammon and doesn't takes new clones on the bar into account.

in this game i am only allowed to move from 5 to 4 (sending his piece to the bar) . after that i cant make another move as i will have a piece on the bar as well (cloning gammon)

in this case i think it should be allowed for me to move a piece from 3 to 2 as well .. that way i cant move my 4-die .. but if i make the move which is allowed right now, then i cant move my 4-die either

is this a bug ? or is this supposed to be this way ?

AlliumCepa: Thank you.

I have an opponent from Turkey who is asking about auto pass. I only speak English. Can someone point me to a page in Turkish that explains what auto pass is and how to turn it on?

Thanks.

I'm at that point where I'm not starting any new games, and I've finished all the games I have with players who move at a reasonable pace ... all I have left is those players who move every couple of days.  I'm turning on email alerts and signing off. 

Start date is may 1st. IT is a 3 point Hyper Tournament. IT has been a popular tournament that takes a good player to win. Will you take on the challenge? Sign up and find out if you have what it takes to win it all.

Blazin's 5th 3-point Hyper Backgammon Tournament

I love it, if it comes to autopasses just "move and stay here"

Nackgammon ("Snoopy" vs. Somelaughs2)
uses auto pass i didnt agree to it or have things changed now
is it used in tournaments even if both sides dont agree

Does anyone know why I can't roll the dice in this game?

Backgammon (grenv vs. fisher)

Family Man: Looks like a bug...

on the other hand you can win the match with a gammon...

Backgammon (WellyWales vs. Family Man)

Now I have just done a test, and made a move, and the game has not auto passed back to me??? Seems like a bug to me!

alanback: Yes, sorry i have just had a look at the game

Oceans Apart:  According to the display, black has the cube