Thad: exactly. Everyone needs to prioritize their work. This seems like something that is a low priority since it doesn't actually affect the game in any meaningful way.

rod03801: I've read that too. In fact, I used that method in some programs back in my coding days.

Another vote for revealing the rolled dice. Do we really have any for not revealing them (other than folks who think Fencer shouldn't implement it because he should use that time to work on something else instead)?

Thad: I don't remember which website it was, (Could have been here, could have been one of the others I play at), but I think one way they make them "random" is by determining the roll by the exact fraction of a second that the player clicks on the game to play it, thus somehow determining the roll. (Which I guess, technically, isn't random at all)

Or maybe I dreamt it.. LOL ...

As has been discussed before, I think most people only "remember" those times that they don't seem very random.

There are times that I, too, would like to see what my opponent's roll is going to be.. (Though, honestly, I don't care that much) I think it is because on a turn based site, it can be SO long before you see the game again, that it's nice to see what your opponent may do with his/her next move, and make a judgment on the move you just made. (Whereas if you have to wait until it gets back to you, your own move isn't very "fresh" in your mind)

playBunny: Some people want it - some people don't. (and some don't care either way) - is there another point of discussion? But whatever, lets keep "discussing it".

Again, sorry if you took it as a "shut up" type of post.

Czuch: I highly doubt that the dice are unfair. To make them so would require a lot of code. Plus Fencer probably has better ways to repercuss those he does not favor!

However, I would surmise that the dice are not random! After all, it's pretty hard to get a computer, which is designed to do the same thing exactly the same way every single time, to do something repeatedly and get a different result.

But I would guess that they are pretty close. ;-)

I'm sure they are close enough that it would take some serious statistical analysis to prove otherwise.

And even if there is an advantage or disadvantage to the dice, either players is probably just as likely to receive whatever benefit there is, so I believe the game here is fair.

playBunny:  I think we're not supposed to wake the sleeping webmaster ;-)

coan.net: (But as a side note - since my post, no new points in the discussion has come up - just the same ones... wow, who could have predicted that.)

A discussion trailing off isn't necessarily vindication of a "why don't you shut up?" post, it's quite possibly a sign that you piped up redundantly. So who could have predicted it? Anybody.

I'm sorry that you think this is argument rather than discussion. This is the liveliest that this board has been for a long time. Perhaps a sleeping board is preferred?

playBunny: The reason I posted that was that the conversation was moving away from a discussion and into an argument - with all points in the subject already covered. Sorry if I did not make myself clear in what I said and possible offended you or something.

(But as a side note - since my post, no new points in the discussion has come up - just the same ones... wow, who could have predicted that.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Anyway, as a Moderator of this board - PLEASE keep this board as a place to discuss issues. The discussion has been moving close to being an argument which is not wanted here. Thank you.

coan.net: ...many would like it - some don't care, and probable a few don't want it...

Here is an another idea - lets Vote and then this madness will be complete!

PS: Now it's time to check if Vote/Poll system has been requested already

Edit: Yes, a Poll system has been requested.

Czuch: Well, all I have to say about that is insert what I don't have to say.

playBunny: In auto pass games I know that my opponent has rolled something that lets him back in from the bar, but since I am not shown what the roll is, i wonder if maybe the program has determined that he will get back in but doesnt determine which, of a combo of possible rolls that let him back in, roll to give him.

i know, you dont have to say anything, but i just wish, since the roll is already determined, that it was also displayed

alanback: Yes, it's a word game. You made a statement about postponement of gratification, ie. that it was applicable to this dice situation, and I asked a question about why it is applicable. You've done everything except answer that question, talking instead about ego and Spirit. That strikes me as playing word games.

Czuch: Only better because we would not have any wonder if the dice rolling is completely random and fair,

How does knowing what the dice are sooner than later inform you about their fairness or crookedness?

playBunny: Ditto

coan.net: Is there anything else we need to say about this?

Speak for yourself. Do you need to say anything? If not then be silent. As for other's needs to say anything? You either have a need to know ASAP whether they do or not - or you are telling others that you have a need for them not to say what they have to say.

Why is people arguing about this?

People have different opinions. But the one that counts on this issue is Fencer - and if anyone can get Fencer to work on this feature rather then on the site and/or games - well good luck.

Otherwise, I think it is safe to say that many would like it - some don't care, and probable a few don't want it. Is there anything else we need to say about this?

alanback: It just makes sense to me, that if the dice are already rolled, then they should be shown, or they should be rolled only when the player goes to the game.

Now i have made myself wonder.... if a player goes to a game and doesnt move and then i go look, are the dice shown or hidden?

Czuch:  Jeez, so now Fencer is responsible for your mental health too?

alanback: Maybe so, but my paranoia could be eliminated if after the dice are rolled , they are also shown!

Czuch: Now that's just paranoia!

Thad: Only better because we would not have any wonder if the dice rolling is completely random and fair, I dont think its not, but it makes me wonder when the dice are rolled but not shown.

Thad:  Neither better no worse, for me.  If most people think it would be better with the dice revealed, as a matter of customer service they should be revealed.

alanback: So you actually think BK's current implementation is better than it would be if the dice were revealed as soon as possible?

playBunny:  Hardly a word game; the unfortunate thing is that I am trying to express in words that which is only knowable by direct experience.  Certainly the need for gratification exists in the universe we experience on an everyday level, but it does not exist in Spirit.  My point was that gratification and the need for it are experienced only because of the illusion of separation from All That Is.  Off topic, I suppose.

My original crack about postponing gratification was meant just to call people's attention to what was going on in their own heads.

Thad:  I suppose the only thing to say is that there is more than one opinion as to whether the game would be "more fun".

alanback: You're just playing word games, Alan.

IMHO it's a silly thing to be concerned about, but if most people want it, it should be implemented. ...... Just more evidence of our inability to postpone gratification :-)

You introduced the ideas of gratification and postponement of gratification. It was your given!

alanback: Why is this such a big deal. We are here for one thing... fun. The game would be better if the dice were shown straight away when they can be because that would be... more fun! So do it already. What more is there to say?

playBunny:  The need for gratification is not a given, it is a creation of the egoic mind and ceases when understood as such.

Czuch: No, I tend to state a position and ask questions as accurately as possible and that way round is not what Alan was suggesting.

playBunny: Dont you mean the harms of postponement vs the benefits of immediate gratification?

I believe that is more the point here?

alanback: Hmmm, I wasn't querying whether there was a need for gratification - it's a given. My query is about its postponement in this instance, namely the benefits of postponement versus the harms of immediate gratification.

alanback: There is obviously not any real need to see the dice, rather a desire to see them, except where there is a concern that the dice are less than random, and seeing is believing.

Showing the dice just takes away any concerns, whether founded or not.

playBunny:  Ah, but the desirability of seeing the dice -- and the felt need for a change in the current system -- arises only from the need for immediate gratification.  Gratification implies a need that is to be gratified.  If the need did not exist, the issue would not arise.
No question of justification was involved, merely an observation. 

alanback: Just more evidence of our inability to postpone gratification :-)

Isn't postponement of gratification best done when there's reason to; some benefit from delaying? I'm not sure what that benefit would be in this instance, nor what harm comes from knowing what the dice are when you leave the table.

alanback:  Of course, on Dailygammon it's even better, because you get to see your opponent's moves before they are made.

playBunny:  IMHO it's a silly thing to be concerned about, but if most people want it, it should be implemented.

Just more evidence of our inability to postpone gratification :-)

It's obvious to anyone who has played at GoldToken or Dailygammon and been glad that they can leave the board knowing the dice that have been rolled that it's a Very Good Thing.

Anything else is just dumb.

...waiting patiently for playBunnies response to this

Czuch: I agree. If the dice are rolled, show them. It doesn't matter whether either player or someone else is the first to look at the board (as long as it's not private). If anyone looks at the board, BK should show the current status of the game (which includes the rolled dice). Anything else is just dumb.

alanback: In an auto pass it is okay to see the dice first, and since they are supposedly already rolled, why not show them?

Czuch:  You dont get to see your opponents dice before he does, which seems quite appropriate.

Why are the dice rolled and then hidden until my opponent checks the game?

It makes no sense, and only adds unnecessary mystery

fakar10: Good idea. I'd join if I wasn't a pawn. I hope you get lots and lots of members and that Fencer sees that (1) autopass should be a feature, not an option and (2) that he should expand the power of autopass to other situations, like endgame moves.

Autopassers, a fellowship where the players are expected to use autopass in the games.

Thad: Very good. So there must be at least one such game i would think

Vikings: According to grenv's calculations,
Backgammon (grenv, 2007-10-04 14:05:59)
it takes 17 rolls minimum to get all your checkers home without any doubles. If you went first, your opponent would get 16 rolls. That's 33 total. The odds of not rolling doubles on any roll are 5/6, so the maximum odds of rolling a doubles free game are,

(5/6)^33 = .002438 or 1/4 of one percent, about once every 400 games.

I suspect the typical game is close to 25 or 30 moves/side, so the odds are probably around,

(5/6)^50 = .00011 or one in 10,000.
(5/6)^60 = .000018 or one in 50,000.

coan.net: o.k. then, back to my question, has anyone ever had a complete game without any doubles?

Wow, leave for a day and come back to a board full of posts.

OK - Lets stop this discussion - it looks like everyone has had their say, and the discussion has turned into an argument - which is not needed.

So lets get back to the regular backgammon discussion please. Thanks.

playBunny:
There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

Nobody is trying to say that if asked to do so, they shouldnt comply to the request to play out their moves.

rather, that there is nothing wrong with not wanting to comply either!

Thats where I am coming from, and i am also along for the laugh

Czuch Czuckers: Gosh, Czuch, I certainly do enjoy a good debate but please don't ever think that I agree with you about being rude to people simply because they have a different preference. It is almost as if you view other people as machines. I know you're incapable of understanding this but I seriously think that the attitude you show is self-centred and boorish!

But I dont understand how you can defend someone being offended or upset over someone else playing within the boundaries of the rules

There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

That's where I'm coming from.

Anders, on the other hand, is just along for the laugh.