coan.net, fencer: http://www.fibs.com/ratings.html#explained

Andersp:  Backgammon is not a luck game; it is a skill game with a random component.  A large part of the skill in backgammon is understanding and working with the random component.  However, it frequently happens in a single game that luck overwhelms ths skill component, and a lower rated player wins because of having better dice rolls.  The chances of this happening diminish as the length of the match increases.  But in a single game, a very good player can expect to lose to an average player 25-35% of the time.  This would be unheard of in chess, on which the ratings system here is based.  

alanback: You know, Fencer has been doing different things - like AutoPass which seemed like something that we would not see on this site.

Maybe it's time to see if Fencer is interesting in putting in place different rating "systems" for different types of games.

- - - - -

For those of you new, the rating system that BrainKing uses is a type based on Chess rating system - a 100% skill game. A game where a 2000 rated players should beat a 1500 rated player 99% of the time.

For Backgammon (and other games with luck factors), I would say Backgammon is around 60-75% skill game with 25-40% luck (others would say higher & lower - but that is a stupid debate to have - but everyone agrees that there is more luck to it then say Chess). Anyway, a 2000 rated backgammon players should beat a 1500 rated players probable around 75% of the time. Since bad dice can come into play. A good player can still win with bad dice (that is where skill come into play.), but enough bad dice can doom even the best gammon player.

So there are certain Gammon rating systems out there, which in my opinion should be used for Gammon - and other games with luck factors (Battleboats, Dice Poker, etc...)

Fencer - any chance of having different rating systems for different games? I'm not sure of the formulas off-hand, but if you were interested, I'm sure someone can help you get the correct formulas and such.

alanback:   Still dont get it..how can rating in a luck game be so important?...if its a skill game you shouldnt be worried to play us "not good players"?

Hrqls:  OK, you win

alanback: i know what you mean .. i mostly play tournaments without paying too much attention to my opponents ratings .. and i sometimes curse myself when i lose to a lower rated player .. i like the ratings :)

but i also like the game .. and to play against different opponents .. so everytime i still join new tournaments with new players instead of only the top players
(i do join the 2200+ tournaments as well though :))

i guess its even worse when you are 2400+ :)


but! to try a new tournament type on this site must be something special .. isnt it ? .. shouldnt that be worth a small risk in bkr ? ;)
(your win/loss ratio shows you win twice as many as you lose .. so thats more than 55% :))

come on ... join us for once .. : Triple Gammon

Andersp:  That is precisely why I created the unrated tournament, so that I can play all comers for fun and not for ratings!

alanback: Try to play for fun, its only a dice game

Andersp:  Absolutely.  For example, I went to the waiting games and picked out the highest rated opponent waiting to play backgammon.  His rating is less than 200 points lower than mine.  The predicted BKR change from playing this person is

win: 2425 (+4), ... loss: 2409 (-12)

In order for this to be fair, I would have to be 3 times as likely as the opponent to win this game; in other words, I would have to have a 75% chance of winning.  While this might be true in games without a random factor, it overstates my winning chances significantly in backgammon.   (They are  probably more like 55% than 75%).

As the ratings gap increases, the system becomes even more ridiculous.  It's not uncommon for me to receive a match invitation for which my upside potential is zero!

Yes, the ratings are important to me.  That is why I won't play against opponents whose ratings are much more than 100 points lower than mine.

alanback: U serious?

I don't know how many high-rated players are reluctant, as I am, to join a single-game tournament against all comers.  Unfortunately, the BK rating system was not designed for backgammon and unfairly penalizes the higher rated player in a game between players with a large rating difference.  In order to permit higher rated players to enjoy a Triple Gammon tournament without worrying about ratings, I have created an unrated version.  All players are welcome.

coan.net: The same system as for doubling cube games.

So how does the new tournament type handle people who resign or time-out in a game?

The new backgammon tournament type!!!

lets try it all! .. it would be great if we could get 64 players in it to have a second round of 8 players as well :)

please tell your friends to join as well :

Triple Gammon

Fencer: ok ... hmm .. does anyone know another solution to prevent a second round with only 2 or 3 players ?

Hrqls: No, it's not possible. You must wait.

Fencer: ah ok .. hmm .. 8 players per section is the maximum now ? is it possible to set it to 10 players per section for this section for once ? ;)

(and to set the maximum players to 10 as well ?)

Hrqls: No because the tournament system hasn't been changed yet. After the triple gammon is tested, I can add an option to make bigger sections.

Fencer: the total tournament should be 1 section ..

in this tournament it shows a maximum of 8 players per section .. could that line be removed and the total tournament be 1 section ?

Fencer: will the games in a triple gammon tourmanent have a different color or something to show it to the players that they should go for gammons and should care too much about losing a game ? ;)

Fencer: After it has been tested in tournaments, will Triple Gammon be available in matches ?

GREAT!!!! thanks :)

i created a tournament .. at least 8 players should join .. and a maximum of 20 .. so join fast! :)

Triple Gammon

i thought i would be first .. but AbigailII beat me to it

AbigailII: That's a visual bug. The final game will be a normal one too.

skipinnz: Nowhere, of course. You can set up a tournament.

Fencer: Questions: 1) How does Anti-Backgammon in triple gammon score? 2) I just created a triple gammon tournament - and (as standard) it sets the final game to be a three win match. How does that work in triple gammon?

Fencer: OK, too bad, but I can live with that :-)

FencerWhere can I set up a game of trple gammon?:

All right, test it.

nabla: 0, 1, 3, 5 is the final approved version.

AbigailII: Yes, 0,1,3,5 what Thad proposed in this thread and what I relayed. It is indeed exactly the same game as TTT. But actually I would like 0,1,3,3 even better because it changes only the gammon value, and the backgammon value is pretty irrelevant anyway.

Hrqls: No reaction.

alanback: deaf ears as in mute (no) responses or did they offer an explanation ?

AbigailII:  I made the same proposal on Dailygammon, which fell on deaf ears.

Fencer: 1% of the code deals with draws? ;-)

AbigailII: That seems to be a good solution. I don't like fractions, 99% of BrainKing code is based on integers, not floats.

Hrqls: And to get rid of fractions, 0, 1, 3, 5 as scores work as well as 0, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5.

It reminds me a bit of 'streetsoccer' as played on littlegolem and mastermoves. There the winner/loser scores can be 5-0, 4-1, 3-2 and 2-2. (5-0 for a win without overtime. 4-1 for a win in overtime. 3-2 for a tie with goals - winner is the person scoring last. 2-2 for a goalless game).

Fencer: mentallay : it makes seem that losing isnt that bad .. although i think the outcome would be the same with 0 for a loss, 0.5 for a single win, 1.5 for a gammon win, and 2.5 for a backgammon win

i didnt do any maths for it yet though .. giving 0.5 for a loss will make it possible for the scores for a win (single, gammon, backgammon) to be the same as in normal games .. i think thats why they chose to make a loss 0.5 points .. it requires less changes

And I don't like the idea of giving 0.5 points for a loss. Is there a logical reason for that?

> And I don't want to work on something I don't like.

And that's what keeps this site from being supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!

(although it's pretty good) ;-)

AlliumCepa: hmm .. the capital S gives me away .. i have to admit i copy&pasted it :)

nabla: i dont know the inventor's idea either
i am playing trictrac on a dutch site now (i didnt know of the game before yesterday) and its different from, backgammon

i dont know why mike named it trictrac .. but to me it feels 'not-right' to change its name (at least not without contacting him ..which i dont know how to do as he seems to be on a long vacation)

Hrqls: I checked on the French Wikipedia, the name is usually spelled trictrac. The game is played on a backgammon board, but its rules and especially its scoring system are awfully complicated. There is a whole chapter on the various penalties which should be applied when one of the players did a scoring error :-)
For it to be a good name, I think it would require something more mind-boggling than upgrading losses to half a point. Or maybe I missed the inventor's idea ?

Fencer: ah ok .. i thought tavla was slightly different .. but thats my mistake as i did leanr backgammon on here and all my 'knowledge' of backgammon comes from this site ;)

Fencer: hmm .. just the name ? the rules remain the same .. we could even come up with a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious name which could be abbreviated to TTT :)

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.