grenv: I wouldn't say there is one set of universally accepted rules; indeed, there are many local variations. I have a friend from Persia, which might claim to be the birthplace of backgammon, who has educated me on the rules used in that country. However, there does appear to be only one set of rules used in international tournaments.

So far as I know there is no set of local rules that allows a player to use only one die if there is a move available for both, or to use only the smaller die when there is a move available for the larger; but it would not surprise me if such a set of rules existed. Nevertheless, I think Fencer's intention was to apply the rule set applicable to international tournaments.

It's clearly a matter of individual conscience whether to follow those rules, when the server allows moves that violate them. In the past, I've waffled on this point, sometimes taking the position that my following the international rules strictly gave an unfair advantage to unscrupulous opponents. Lately, I've chosen to do what makes me most comfortable, which is to follow the international rules and forgo opportunities to take advantage of what I see as a glitch rather than a "house rule".

I think the conversation would die if people would stop arguing in favor of the rule being wrong!!

Who cares about Baseball? This is backgammon, and there are not competing organizations that disagree on the rules. There is ONE set of universally accepted rules (as in chess - but NOT dark chess). Period.

<breath>whew</breath>

Many who play backgammon may not know of the glitch. Some unfamiliar with the game rules may not even think about it.

The thing to note, IMO, is that it's not against site rules and therefore the play (even though it's a glitch) should be allowed.

What people should concentrate on is a couple of facts:

the occurances are few and far between

it will be fixed one day

until then.......breath ;)

Lots of games and sports have more than one set of official rules. Major League Baseball is a well known example. How about football? Chess has plenty of organizations with rules that are mostly the same. The differences involve things besides the movement of the pieces, which are the same for everywhere. Backgammon can be played in lots of ways. Remember, some rules of Backgammon were made up in the last fifty years. Dark Chess doesn't have any organized rule making body that I know of and I've seen four different ways that it is played. I haven't played enough Backgammon to know if the "forced to use the dice rule" is the best way to play the game, but those are the common rules. I wouldn't mind a version that allowed me to control how I use the dice more than the official rules, but that's not what we have here. We have a game pretending to be official Backgammon and yet it doesn't play like official Backgammon. This is more like the arguments concerning Pente with board size and whether or not the opening moves are restricted or not.

I think this site should have the game played as is commonly played around the world. For some reason it doesn't. The rules should clearly spell out that you may play the dice as you see fit, instead of the customary way of having to play both if able or the larger of the two if only one but not the other will play. You can say what you want AbigailII, but I find the rules misleading on this point or at least not as straight forward that I would know just from a casual perusal of said rules. Perhaps you could write a clearer version and send it to Fencer? You know how translating game rules from one language to another can make for hard to read writing? I'm thinking that's part of the problem here.

Now, as for playing over the board in person, what happens if I make an "illegal" move? It's up to my opponent to do something about it, right? He has the choice of letting my move stand or making me take it back. It'd be nice to have an internet Backgammon set up so this would be how it would be played. Then it would be like playing it over the board with someone instead of having the machine enforce perfect play and remove some of the thinking involved. Even experts can miss forced moves and they should get penalized like everyone else.

Wil: Aye, to follow the rule doesn't require Sharon's input at all. If fairness is your priority then taking advantage of the bug certain would. Respect to you, as I know that move loses you the last wee chance in that tourney. Good luck in the next one. :-)


Abigail: 1) It's funny that you brought up the dice swapping thing:
... click on "Swap dice" .. [except when] ..
    a) Both dice show the same value.
    b) The player could not make a legal move with the second die..
That's because I almost included it as a point in my own argument (too much effort at the time). ;-)

When can you not swap dice? One time is when one number cannot be used (eg. when trapped by a prime, 1-6 is rolled and there's room to move up with the one, or with two men on the bar and one's re-entry is blocked) but this is not a case of an illegal move, this is an impossible move - it's a separate class from the two mentioned in the rules (and shouldn't have been omitted).

The only other cases that I can think of are those that are the subject of this discussion - the illegal ones. Fencer has included them in the rules, albeit in a generalised way, for what does The player could not make a legal move with the second die. mean? It means that the BrainKing rules acknowledge the existence of illegal moves. They aren't described explicitly, nor is the maximise-dice-usage rule stated, but the mention of legal moves implies illegal moves, so what moves are they? Can you describe a class of illegal moves that is different to what we're discussing?

The rule is implied rather than explicit, but it is there, at least as I interpret it. The fact that the implementation doesn't detect this class of move and act according to the rules is a bug. It's not a permission to make the move.

2) You said you've not played backgammon on a physical board. Let me echo your words to Hrqls: Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? ;-)

3) It still stands with me that if someone knows the standard rules of a game yet prefers to use a site's E&O (Errors and Omissions) as loopholes then they are showing a poor attitude.

Personally I think this bug should be fixed immediately. It is a clear problem, and has a simple solution.

Until then serious backgammon players will not take advantage. Those not so serious are merely evening up the disparity in skill by a very small amount, which isn't so bad.

AbigailII: ah sorry ... i was responding to If it were illegal, you wouldn't be able to swap the dice

its possible on this site .. so if your opponent doesnt have a problem with it .. you can make the move .. if you want to play according to the 'standard' backgammon rules .. then you play both dice

when i started to play here i had never played backgammon and it took a couple of months before i learned about that rule because my opponent told me about it when i made a move which wasnt according to that rule .. before i would probably have made more of such moves but my opponents never noticed/complained/told me about it

in the rules of this site nothing is said about this issue .. and i cant see the point you were trying to make with the combination of rules as the swapping wouldnt be illegal in other cases .. i read it as if you meant to say that the mere existence of the 'swap dice' link tells us that it is allowed to move just one die when both dice can be used .. i am not sure if you meant exactly that though :)

Hmm. I get the feeling that people thinks that it would be right thing to do according to the standard rules, but they also think that as long as the site allows the other possibility they cannot require me to do so, because it wouldn't be fare (my opponent might have done the non-standard move)...
I agree.. And we should change the vote to the question "should Fencer change the site behaviour according to the official rules?"
I'll do the standard rule and let it be a "yes" vote to the previous question..
I could also ask Sharon, but as this move is better for her, I guess she won't resist.

Chessmaster1000: Imagine a Chess bug that allows Castle when King is threatened.

Would that be a "bug" where the rules say you cannot move a king through chess, or with rules that allow it?

Currently, in Backgammon, the game acts according to the rules. (With the rules the ones found on this site).

Hrqls: Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? I think we're all aware of the reasons why dice can be swapped. My point is that the rules say that if moving first with the second die is illegal, the game prevents you from swapping the dice. Ergo, if you can swap the dice, moving with the second die first isn't illegal. Note that if you roll 4 + 3, and you cannot move the 3, for instance you're on the bar and the 3-point is occupied, you cannot swap the dice.

Wil: to thy own self be true

AbigailII: I don't care about any other argument i'll see, i just say that anyone who wants to play Backgammon on this site should use both dice-numbers when he can or the higher when he can use only 1 of the 2.
Every other behaviour will result to a game that is not Backgammon........
I will accept the "illegal" move, if my opponent does it, but the game then will not be Backgammon. I don't care if the Brainking rules are wrong(they are), i just would play Backgammon without care if my opponent does not......

The point: Since Brainking allows you to choose according to your personal advantage, the players who don't care if they are playing Backgammon they should do it. The players that want to play Backgammon they should not............!

Imagine a Chess bug that allows Castle when King is threatened. Then if someone would make this castle and convert the position to a good one for him, in contrast of what would happen if he wouldn't castle, then a decent Chess player would feel completely disgusted by this.........
The fact that Brainking rules are wrong and refering to a well-known game, should not mean that we should follow them forgeting what we know about this well-known game.........

AbigailII: swapping of the dice is still legal even if you have to move both dice and the highest dice when you can only make a move with 1 die ...

for example you are 3 steps away from a piece of me .. i roll 4+3 ... do i have to move the 4 first and thereby miss you ? no i am allowed to move 3, sending you to the bar, and then 4 with the same piece

so also on sites where the rule is applied you are still allowed to swap your dice

playBunny: It would be different if the web page were to explicitly state that either or both dice may be used

Well, it does. At the bottom of the rules pages, under the heading Other important rules:

• If a player wants to use the second die first, he/she must click on "Swap dice" link below the game board. There are several situations when the link is not shown:
  • Both dice show the same value.
  • The player could not make a legal move with the second die.

And further up the page, when discussing movement of the pieces: If two different numbers are rolled, the player can make two moves at this turn. He/she takes the first (left-most) die value and moves one piece the same number of spaces. Then he/she does the same for the second die.

To me, there's no question about it. Moving off any die first, even if that blocks movement off the second die is allowed. If it were illegal, you wouldn't be able to swap the dice.

As Wil says, if he were playing on a physical board he would do the right thing.

I've never played backgammon on a physical board. Of all the games that you can play here, I've only played a few on a physical board, and backgammon isn't one of them. (Chess, Anti-Chess, Checkers, Halma, Line4, Reversi, Battleboats, Battleboats Plus, that's about it).

Wil: you should ask sharon about it and how she feels ... if she doesnt even know about the rule .. then do whatever you like :) .. if she does know and has played according to that rule in your game .. then play both dice

Wil: I abstain from this vote. It's yours and Sharon's game; it should be your decision. (Is she aware of this debate?)

If this were a vote for us all to play according to the standard rule then of course I would vote for the rule. As Wil says, if he were playing on a physical board he would do the right thing. To me a player who needs a web page to tell them that ... pah!

It would be different if the web page were to explicitly state that either or both dice may be used (though I expect there'd be much concern among the players), but someone who uses an omission as a loophole is skimming close to cheating as far as I'm concerned.

Well, there are points that supports both moves:

1) The game is named 'backgammon'. According to 'official' bg rules, they wouldn't allow me to make the better move for me. So I should move both dice. If I was playing on the 'real' board, I would move both dice without asking.
2. This site rules doesn't deny me moving only one piece. See http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=23 The rules are the same for both players.

Since game rules are allways an agreement of a community, I'll do the move players here agrees. Let's make a vote. Give your vote here ('move both' or 'do what you can') and I'll make the vote winning move. You have one day to vote. I'll make the move ~24 hours from this moment. My or Sharon's vote doesn't count.

Pedro Martínez: It's the International BOXING Federation in their less combative moods...

AbigailII: International Backgammon Federation?

AbigailII: That's fine. Remind me not to play you until the bug's fixed. ;-p

ps. "Pro backgammon" is on its way. The doubling cube has been mentioned. Presumably it includes gammons and backgammons. Hopefully it includes this bug.

playBunny: I use the following logic: if I do a move that is allowed by the rules, it's not an illegal move. The rules allow you to use the die in any order, without restrictions. That's good enough for me. Sure, it's different from the rules from the international backgammon federation, but there's no doubling cube here either.

AbigailII: I use the following logic: It's acknowledged as a bug. If it were within the rules then it wouldn't be a bug. Therefore it's illegal.

playBunny: It's against the rules

It's not against the rules as presented on the rules page.

Wil: It's against the rules and not being forced to move using both dice values is a known bug. Until implemented properly it's either a question for your own conscience and sportingmindedness (to play by the rule), or it's a decision that both players should agree to (to take advantage of the bug). both of those are fair ways to deal with it. I know it's a tourney loser but I'd make the correct move 24/20/15 (but then, I was on the wrong side of this same situation and wasn't pleased that the guy took the illegal route without hesitation. He's just been banned for cheating - multiple nicks and rate fixing - but that's a different story, lol).

You could put the question to Sharon - ask her is she's willing to take the gamble. Your chance of winning would be about 1/40. ;-)

If you want to see what thoughts there were last time, stick bug into the search box on this page. It's the same rule but in hypergammon.

Wil: That's how it plays on this site. There's been an ongoing debate about it too. You either make whatever move you decide or you make the move as allowed by the rules that you and your opponent agree to play by. Since you called it an illegal move, I'll assume that you're used to playing that if only one die can be used the higher must be used, and that you also play that if both dice can be used then you must use them both and a player isn't allowed to play one die in such a way that the other die cannot be played if it is possible to play both dice by making a different move.

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=913674
Move number 19. This site allows me to do an illegal move. Black can move 4 at home and leave 5 unmoved. Is it fare play to do that? I'll wait a couple of days before continuing...

WhiteTower: I move to win ;)

ArtfulDodger: and the explanation is... ?

playBunny: yah, me. ;)

Is there anyone who knows hypergammon well enough to explain why they choose their moves and would enjoy doing so?

tournament games are less likely to be between nicks .. so the check could be applied to normal games alone ..

i am not sure if someone would have a 2 paying nicks .. so maybe the check could be done on pawn games most of the time ?

Pedro: Thanks. :-)

AbigailII: While this site has a small clientele the overlap of IP addresses is reasonably unlikely to occur (eg. 600 UK registrations, a mere 70 for Italy). Agreed, when we have hordes of people all from the same source then IP address distinctiveness becomes more tenuous.

IP address as an indicator of personality? Lol. I usually use behaviour for that ... sometimes foot size ... maybe house number . . . but never IP address. ;-p

AbigailII: Yes it can help.

playBunny: Aye, the IP address can be used to help in these matters.

No, it can't. An IP address is not a good indicator for personality. There are large ISPs out there with millions of customers (like AOL) that funnel most of the outgoing HTTP traffic through a relatively low number of proxies. And since it's the proxy that makes the connection to Brainking, it's the proxy's IP address that shows up. And if it's not web proxies, it can be NAT boxes. Ever used a laptop with a wireless connection? Chances are, you're behind a NAT box which means that anyone on the same wireless network will show up with the same IP for the outside world.

Andre Faria: That's not a good method. There's a new guy at #2 - el diabolique, rating 2587 - who's got there by winning his first 4 games. This was in a tournament against 4 different opponents so fair play is to be assumed. There are three other players in the top 20 who have had early and legitimate success. Such gains are to be expected from any expert player who joins BrainKing.

grenv: ........

Andre Faria: Many people have high rantings very early on. It's the ratings I'm worried about

And you can suspect of those guys who just got very high rantings too quickly...

Of course its not. In fact we only play against each other if we get paired in tournements, i never invite her to a game at all lol.

If your games against your mother, would consist of many early resignations or with really stupid moves that would be away from common logic, then this would be cheating.......But i'm sure this is not the case with you of cource........

Me and my mum both play from the same computer, although it'd be silly to say we cheat as we play pretty much opposite games form each other lol

Chessmaster1000: yep, you can compare IP´s with the games between those players with the same IP...

Andre Faria: I didn't said that users who will be identified using the same computer would be immediately declared as cheaters, but that this would be just an indication and that these user's games should be observed to find any clues........

Chessmaster1000: Aye, the IP address can be used to help in these matters. At one forum site that I enjoyed for a while there was a self-appointed "IP Police" who took it upon herself to detect multiple nicks by collecting posters' IP addresses. It's fine when the user has a static IP address but there are many ISPs which assign a new IP address at the start of each session. (Very common with dialup and is still pretty common with broadband.) Even so, there will be a commonality. For instance my IP address is never the same but does always start with the same two numbers.

Chessmaster1000: That´s is not entirely true. Sometimes I share the computer with my family (weekends, hollidays). It means that Nuno Miguel, ramones, David and I can sometimes have the same IP. And if I can remember it was I who created one of my cousin´s subscription in my PC, if I remember well.

Most of the times I use one or two PC´s at my office. I have 2 friends there who also plays in brainking.

One of my cousin´s plays at work, and he have somefriends from his office who plays on BK.

Some other portuguese players from the site also share the computer with their family (Aissi-Aissi´s brother, El Cid-PauloAguia, Ferjo-Alfer). Most of these guys came from the same university and they may use the same PC.

By these examples you can see how hard is to detect the real from the false ID´s...

I think the better way to detect these cases is to analyse games between players...

playBunny: It's a serious bug, but until it's fixed I think many players concider it a "house rule".

ArtfulDodger: The maximise-dice-usage rule hasn't been implemented (but this is acknowledged to be a bug).

In our game wayney was able to move a single man with a single dice value which allowed him to stack all three men safely on one point. Further movement off the stack, using the other dice value, was blocked by my men. He should have been required to use both dice values which would have meant splitting the two that were already stacked, leaving me a spread of blots to hit. Subsequent dice rolls showed that I would have hit two of those blots but as a result of his illegal move he was able to make a game winning block on his ace point.

The rule is also part of standard backgammon and is probably needs to be addressed there as well. I expect that it's on Fencer's plate as he says on the Features requests board that "Pro backgammon (with doubling cube)" is in development.

Hmmm, yes this is a way too, but i was thinking about detecting the internet connection of a player....
Detecting different users that have "something" in their connection with Brainking the same, such thing that they should not have the same, then this would be an indication of multiple ID's....
Only an indication because of cource members of a family could use a computer and this is perfectly normal. But then, games of these users will easily show if they are actually cheaters or different persons........

Chessmaster1000: The simple pattern seems to be a pair who play together with a very unbalanced win/lose ratio brought about by a suspicious amount of resigning and with one or both having high ratings. As more nicks are brought into the scam, detection would become increasingly difficult but a significant level of resignations would still be a good indicator. It would ease the server burden if checking were restricted to the top X% of players.

playBunny: yes, Wayney. They were clearly cheating and the rules say you can get banned for that. They were banned. So your games with them will time out.

What is the bug in hyper that allows for an illegal move?