grenv: i would love an analysis as well :)
i think you are right .. i tend to play too defensive lately .. trying to turn around again :)

6-6 i would play 13/7*/1* with 1 piece and 13/7 with 2 other piece (i think)

Hrqls: I think the move you suggest is a huge blunder and would love to try a computer analysis at some point. Your opponent has a great chance of running or blocking your 7 point etc etc.

I'm sure with that particular roll you must hit the opponent on your 7 point. In fact even with 6-4 you should play 13/7 24/20 and with 6-5 I would hit both (13/7 6/1).

Interesting problem: If you roll 6-6 do you play 13/7*/1* or 13/7* 24/18 ?

alanback: Plus ce change, plus ce meme chose

grenv: if my opponent went 24/18, 13/10 with his 6+3

and i would roll a 6+2 after that, i think i would go 1/9 or 1/7,1/3 (i think the second because i like to advance my last piece at least a little bit, i somehow like the 3 spot)

Hrqls: I'm sure in the situation I described there is no better move than the 2 I siggested. I think 24/22 is slightly better than 13/11 unless you really need a gammon.

What would you play? Anyone else have a theory?

grenv: hehe thats exaqctly what has happened a few times the last weeks :)

if i would go 13/7* then i would go 13/11 as well ... if i were taking the risk then i would take it well and provide with enough options to secure the position

i still wont do it myself though .. i think the risk is too high .. although i might do it when i am in a weird mood (just as taking the 5 spot while leaving a single there :))

Hrqls: If you don't hit and they block the 7 spot it's very good for them. High risk high return.

For example if you started with a 6-3 and moved 24/18 13/10, then your opponent rolled 6-2, his best move is to hit you with 13/7* 24/22 or 13/7* 13/11

lately i see a lot of players hit my single piece on the 7th position (close to their home) leaving a single piece of their own there

they even do this at the start of the game

isnt this too dangerous ? as its quite easy to hit it back (7 with 2 dice, or a single die for a piece still in their home) and they will lose a lot more than i lost when i hit them back ?

or is their some secret reason for this ? :)

alanback: I would agree if the universe of players was larger, however with a limited number of players who have that level of experience it doesn't seem too odd to me.
Thankfully the list includes the number of games, so we can easily look at it any way we want.

I'm going to say this one more time and then shut up. There is a basic flaw in the ratings system as applied to backgammon games. It simply should not be possible for a player to rise to the top of the ratings in fewer than 100 games. Yet the top 3 rated hypergammon players and 2 of the top 3 backgammon players have fewer than 100 games behind them. Any system that allows this is broken and needs to be fixed.

grenv: I thought as much

alanback: lol, i didn't even notice it was crowded. Just looked really quickly.

grenv: If this were a game of backgammon, I would probably agree with you. But I think in Crowded it takes a bit longer to bear off fully after opening the 6 point, so I thought the chance of a gammon was negligible. It is always necessary to consider the risk that I could be forced to leave a shot during the bearoff, a risk I prefer to avoid!

grenv: *nod* but when he was bearing off i had a little chance ... not big enough to worry about though

but i wonder if that chance is lower than the chance of me winning 2 more matches (as the first is the crawford game)

so far alan won 6 out of 6 games against me, so him winning at least 1 game in the next 2 is about ... hmm 100% *fear* ;)

Hrqls: You had almost no chance to hit back, all he needed was a 7 or 8 on 2 dice, or a 1 or a 3 to block you entirely.

Hrqls: hmm on the other hand .. if i had accepted i would have had the option to double back making this the final game in the match

argh! doubling questions at the end of the match are tougher than at the start :)

Hrqls: on the other hand though ... i still had a chance to hit alan back .. and by taking this 1 point we entered the crawford game in his advantage

so i think it was a nice thing to do double after all :)

BIG BAD WOLF: hehe *nod* somehow i forgot the fact that i still have to come off from the bar first ... i was thinking 'can he send me back to the bar' and 'do i think i can hit his single piece there' :)

now i realize he could easily close it down i am glad i didnt ponder too long and declined quickly :)

grenv: do you really think he could have gammoned me ? how far away does someone have to be to have a chance to be gammoned ?
i would have 5 pieces out, 4 which i could move in with 2 moves, 1 piece which could take longer. i suppose i would be out when there are 2 positions free, leaving my opponent with at least 8 pieces, which means about 5 rolls .. hmm .. calculating out loud now ... 5 rolls .. thats about what i would need to get my pieces in my home and 1 out :)

i think i could have been gammoned indeed with just a little luck for my opponent, but not as much as i thought it would take :)

alanback: :) i know ... but you know the dutch .. they are like that knight on the bridge in monty pythons :)

alanback: I disagree, I think it was too good to double.

Hrqls: Of course not -- resistance is futile ;-)

Seriously, it was a dead drop, I only cashed because I didn't see a serious gammon possibility.

Hrqls: I don't know any stats about a position like that or not, but in my opinion - I would not have taken the double either.

Your opponent could easly close up your only opening (even with a 7 - which as I understand the most common dice roll) - or at the very least, moved his piece so you could not land on him.

You would have needed luck, too much lunk in my opinion to accept it.

shoud i have taken the doubling offer in this position ?

BIG BAD WOLF: ah! yes of course :)

i started to play at work, i guess i clicked on 'roll dice', had to leave, and now i check back when the dice are already rolled :)

thanks!!!!

(just showing me being blonde ;))

Hrqls: You should have been able to offer a double - up until the time you hit "roll dice", which after that you would not be able to - but before that, you should have had the option.

i am not sure if i want to double, i am just missing the option

is there a reason why i am not allowed to offer a double in this position ?

Marfitalu: I believe the question was "why is this a draw and not a win and a loss?".

I think this is a question of definition on this site. A match is considered a single game no matter how many games are involved, dubious but probably easier to implement?

I just recently noticed while looking at my finished games, that I am showing 2 draws in anti-backgammon...
I have neither offered a draw or accepted a draw, so I looked a little further... the games in question were part of a stairs match that my opponent and I split( a win, and a lose)...so why does it count as a draw? because it is part of a 2 game match? ...seems a win and a lose would be sufficient for the record books(bkr ratings) ...I think a draw would only count in a game where there is no clear winner...

...pardon to the powers that be if they feel this should be posted on the stairs board :o) ...it was perplexing to decide where to ask a gammon-stairs question...

Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper

It is already fixed for future games.

Marfitalu: it is a bug, it will only give you the 6 points if the opponent resigns

Yes if a gammon is awarded then why not a backgammon too?

Marfitalu:
I don't know. Seems logical that you should earn 6 points but you only earned 2. Seems like a bug to me....

Run this through your program... open with 61, 65, 55, how many times do you lose?

Czuch Chuckers: LOL...:)
That's what the program said...

Pedro Martínez: hahahaha... thanks pedro!
I never said I was any good, but because I got lucky to be in such a commanding position in the first place, means that there was no luck in him winning this game????????? Anyway, I feel better now! Btw, Im going to vegas!

Czuch Chuckers: GnuBG says that at that point, the probability of your win was 94.17%. After your 52 roll, your chances dropped to 85.23%. GnuBg also says that you made two very bad moves, two bad moves and two questionable moves while pgt made only two bad moves. Moreover, GnuBG evaluated the luck factor in the following way: pgt: None, Czech Chuckers: Go to Las Vegas immediately.

Anyone want a good laugh? Am I the only person who loses games like this? Can someone give me the roll out odds at this point? Thanks!

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1449343&i=55

playBunny: I dont know the true rational, but in all of my sporting experience it is the most common bracketing that I have encountered. Generally in these situations though, the teams get their ranking by playing each other as part of a league or conference or the like.

For example NCAA college basketball tournament getting ready to start soon here, takes the top 64 ranked teams (basically) and pits #1 ranked vs #64 and so on down the line. Tennis is international and does similar in their tournaments. It seems to be quite common, and the ratioonaol seems to be that if you have earned the highest ranking to begin with you deserve to play in the finals against the number two ranked payer unles someone is able to upset someone along the way.

One point, in college basketball for example, your ranking is not in jepardy if you get upset as it is the last game of the season for you. In backgammon tournament here, your ranking is effected by an upset from a lower ranked player.

I think for a backgammon tournament here, set up likie this, it should be a 7 or 9 game match to make it more likely that the better player will not get upset.

pentejr: "In a tournament where one loss puts you out of it, those with higher ratings should be protected against one another in the early rounds."

I've never heard of (noticed) this bracketing method, let alone the rationale, so this in a new idea. You're saying it's about protection and the top half are the ones who are getting protected and the bottom half pay the price, as it were. #1 gets the most protection by playing #8, and the #4, being the least important of the protected, therefore gets the least protection by playing #5.

If that's the aim then it makes sense to me. Certainly it would work in my favour in tournaments, lolol.

"I think we have different definitions of "fair."

I wouldn't call it "fair" at all because it's deliberately designed to ease the passage of some at the expense of others. Nothing fair about that as I see it (showing lack of favoritism; in an evenhanded manner; free from favoritism or self-interest or bias). But if that's not a priority, that's, er, fair enough.

ok,
So I caught up on all my games tonight and was waiting for someone to move. LOL!!!!


RandomGammdon #1
Random Gammon games,
1 day moves. NO days off. 16 people needed~

Single Elimination Backgammon #3
Backgammon only,
1 day moves. NO days off. 16 people needed~

Really REALLY fast backgammon
Backgammon only,
8 hour moves. NO days off. 16 people needed~

More Gammon Tournement
All gammon games
1 day moves. NO days off. 5 players per section

*edited links*

pentejr:Play enough games and you can end up further down the list LOL

I'm ranked 6th on this site in pente.

Rating difference between myself and the #1 pente player: 136 pts.

I'm ranked 62nd on this site in hyper backgammon.

Rating difference between me and the #1 hyperbackgammon player: 130 pts.

Woohoo!!!

pentejr: uhm ... ... hmm ... maybe because there is some tactic in it and you try to force your opponent into a position where you can finish him ? ;)

Hrqls: I like racquetball too (never played squash). I also play tennis and bowl. None of these fun pursuits ever struck me as particularly relevant to backgammon...

furbster, alanback, Eriisa: dead balls needs to be warmed up to bounce at least a little, but even when quite hot they will still bounce less than live balls (hmm this almost sounds like a post which could get me banned ;))

tips for squash :
- know your strength: either speed and putting pressure on your opponent, or steady play and let your opponent take bad risks
- when your game is a game of pressure/speed then hit the ball from the air before it bounces, this will increase the pressure and speed on your opponent
- sometimes play the ball where your opponent just was, its often far more tiring to turn back than to continue his run
- balls along the wall, straight to the back, are quite nasty
- when you are in front or just had a tough ball, dont hesitate to place the ball high in the back, this will gain you some time to get back to the center point (the T)
- sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) place a serve through the middle to confuse your opponent. this doesnt work with good players though, so test it once first :)
- i like to hit a cross boast, this confuses the opponent sometimes, but a ball along the wall is usually better, or a drop
- use the corners, never hit a ball through the middle :)
- never despair!!! and have fun :)

Eriisa: Live ball bounces much better than a dead ball.

alanback: ok, I got to ask. What's the difference from a dead ball and a live ball?



And does the Prevention to Cruelty of Live Balls, approve of this game?

furbster: There are 2 games, squash is played with a dead ball about the size of a table tennis ball and a racquet with a small head; racketball is played with a larger, lively ball and a racquet that resembles a short-handled tennis racquet.

Hrqls: It's called Squash here too, I've just started lessons Hrqls and would eb grateful if you've got any tips to share :o).