too funny - irrigardlessly I described a different situtation in which a draw doesn't
harm anyone unlike in the perverted form that comes on his mind as first (funny too)
soon draws will be criminal sure. lacking fantasy cAn get a sickness if so notorious I say ~*~

we need a totalitarian system where the fantasyless ones spend 24/7 to
fight creativity and a totally blonde tournament creator to find something
objectable whatsoever finally in the provenly great option of a draw ... . ~*~

WhiteTower: thats a method to play by .. although i wouldnt do it myself i can understand you would :)

but for people who dont play by that method .. the draw feature is available :)

danoschek: woohoo! you want me to be the tournament creator :)

even if liberty becomes ashcrofted and criminalized in some countries meanwhile
it will remain elementary and futile to fight it in the free world existing globally yet ... ~*~

... it merely was meant to expose blonde attitude of those obsessed by computers
meanwhile trying to program mankind to silly and unworthy machine standards, too
- not to generalize our nice frisk neighbourhood from south of texel to north of juetland ... ... ~*~

AbigailII:
Finally, there's a tactical element. Suppose you're in a 6 player section. Your current score is 4 out of 4, your opponent has 4 out of 4 as well. There's one other section, and it's already know there's a single winner there. Suppose you, your opponent, and the winner of the other section are all equal in stength, so you estimate a 50% chance of winning any game between any two of you. If you play for a win, you have a 25% chance of winning the tournament - 50% chance of beating the current opponent, and 50% chance of beating the other winner. But if you go for a draw, your chance of winning the tournament increases to 50%! (25% of being a solo winner, 25% of joined winner).


First and since you accept equal strength of the opponent, we must assume that the opponent should also have equal cleverness in his decisions. So he would accept the draw as then he would have more chances to win the tournament (50% instead of 25% as you said-i don't agree with the 50%-number but only with the conclusion (that he would have more chances to win)).......

So after accepting the draw both 2 players would advance to the final, so the final would have 3 players of equal strength that would take the same decisions in draw cases.

But there is one important thing also: What a tie does? Forgetting about Sonneborn-Berger criterions of ranking we have the following cases:

We assume that in the final ranking if there is a tie of 2 or 3 players, then all players win!
That means and since all players have the same smartness, they will agree all games to a draw and all be the winners with a probability of 100%! If they risk one or more games by not offering a draw or rejecting one then they would have less than 100% chance of winning. So they would all offer a draw from the beginning and their equal-generally opponents will accept and win......

But since you assume that the 50% number, is the probability of winning at the final between 2 players, by having the statement: "and 50% chance of beating the other winner.", you assume that a tie repeats the game. Having that in mind.......:

We assume that in the final ranking if there is a tie between 2 or 3 players, then all series of games are repeated.
This means that the probability a player has to win the final is 1/3 or 33.3...%
If he didn't offered a draw at the first round he would then had 50%·50% = 25% chances of winning at the final.
So the player who offered the draw to achieve better chances to win the final, was correct in his decision. The same conclusion with yours but the probability to win is 33.3...% and not 50%.


And we can find a general statement with this observation: If we have for example 2 groups of N equal players each, that would compete for the final.
Then if a specific player tries to win to advance in the final he would have (1/N)·1/(1+X) chances to win the tournament, assuming a tie repeats the games (X (0<X<=N) number of players from the other group that promoted to the final).
But if the specific player offered draw in every game and his opponents accepted and did the same to all of their games(same IQ), they would then have 1/(N+X) chances to win the tournament, assuming a tie repeats the games.
And since (1/N)·1/(1+X) < 1/(N+X) the smart players of the one group that drawn all their games will have better chances to win the tournament than they would have if they fight for having wins.....
But all these are impractical cases as there are no equal players.....

As for the r being smaller than s, in your below example, i think that this is not a good thing to happen in such a game-site as it should be s=r. And the fact is that at Braiking and specifically at Backgammon it is r=s=8 for players rated above 2100. In fact for players with more than 2100, the system is easy: "+8 -8 =0" with equal(in a +-400 range BKR points) BKR points and "+1 -16 =-14" for players with not equal(in a range more than +-400 BKR points) BKR points.......

I don't like this system at all but...........I would prefer the range factor to be smaller and the rating change to be more wild.....
For example:

A game against opponents that their BKR difference is less than or exactly 100:
A win for the "stronger" player = "+10 -10 =0"
A win for the "weaker" player = "+10 -10 =0"

A game against opponents that their BKR difference is less than or exactly 200 and more than 100:
A win for the "stronger" player = "+8 -12 =0"
A win for the "weaker" player = "+12 -8 =2"

A game against opponents that their BKR difference is less than or exactly 300 and more than 100:
A win for the "stronger" player = "+6 -12 =0"
A win for the "weaker" player = "+12 -6 =2"

and so on........

That would tend to rise the BKR average but that's not bad at all and it happens in many Chess lists........

Lacking fantasy.........??????
RYTFBE!

would enable ideas like putting all the mechanistic computer clubber
into a file for those interested in iterative boredom and put just a link here. ~*~

Chessmaster1000: RYTFBE! ?? I gotta know!

And are you going to answer my previous question? (24. June 2005, 14:04:21)

Hrqls: of course... you are a Brain Rook, not a lowly pawn like me :) You have a lot of advantages, which I have chosen not to pursue by being a paying member. With that in mind, I must pursue and protect any small advantages I do have, including draw rejection in games that are mathematically un-draw-able...

Just make sure you're not going on holiday any time after we start a game of Backgammon together :)

BTW a draw in Anti-Backgammon might be considered, as I have experienced the utter and chaotic hopelessness of finishing such games... but then again, this "game", which might be fancied by a lot, is definitely out of my schedule for the next 1000 years :)

playBunny:
Your question was not in the post of 24 June 14:04 but 24 June 16:04.........:-)

It is the: but are you saying, George, that everyone should be deprived of the ability to offer a draw?

Well no, if some people want to offer a draw they should offer, so the feature should remain, because there are some people that want this.......
But i would never offer a draw or accept one (in the Backgammon game), even if i'm losing the game and my opponent suggest to have a draw or even if my opponent desperately wants it......It's just my pedantic nature.......:-)


WhiteTower:
BTW a draw in Anti-Backgammon might be considered, as I have experienced the utter and chaotic hopelessness of finishing such games...

I know what you mean but this is again a bad choice......We should keep our position of no-draws-in-non-draw-games and remain fantasyless.........~*~ Even if we have to play a 87.000 moves on a Anti-Backgammon game.....:-)

when the darkness is complaining again - it happens everyday and will
remain futile ... looking forward to some dogmatics suffering a very short circuit
when they need a draw to avoid a draw in an evennumber-games match ... ... ~*~

Chessmaster1000: Lol. 14:04! How localtime() of me! ;-D
I'm glad that the initial impression of No draws! was incorrect. And of course I fully accept your preference not to involve yourself in draws. Ha-hah, an opportunity to tease! Instead of doubling before I bear off the very last piece (why do some people do that?) - I'll off you a draw! hee hee ;-))

nb. That title? Corny British humour, can't help it.

I have some games in the waiting room +1700 if anyone would like to play 1 day limit games

Chessmaster1000: That's it then, my fellow countryman... we have just started the
NDPA on BK (Non-Drawable Players Association) :>>>

WhiteTower: It seems there's no way to persuade you to accept draws and no way that we (of the Anti-NDPA) can accept having no draws.

So let's call it a draw shall we?

playBunny: It's more of a stalemate... mate ;)

WhiteTower: Too long since I played chess so I didn't anticipate that one. Lolol. Nice one, very true. ;-)

danoschek: some censoring will always take place in social aspects ... to keep things social one would have to be able to think from another persons point of view and determine what reaction might be most likely and decide if thats the reaction one is aiming for, if not then one should censor himself, or when one is mistaken and the reaction would certainly not be one which would be building a social aspect which could be desired in the environment then another censoring could take place

(where is juetland ? i never heard of that ;))

WhiteTower: when we are playing a game while i have to be away i will have to rely on my (automagic) vacation days :)

what i am trying to say is that draw offers are available for various reasons ... but you dont 'have to' accept the offer, you can simply make your next move and ignore it if you dont want it .. its just an extra feature :)

ah ja .. .. well if you have socially aimed at me asking to repeat your msg please
(as I was so fascinated that it reduced to a colourful scrolleffect) it was uncensored
indeed after all. ... and if holland is gammon, then juetland is backgammon north. ~*~

Hrqls: so, hopefully, and after the social aspects mention in your previous message, you considered the situation from my point of view, the view of a lowly pawn ;)

WhiteTower: *nod* as i said before i can understand your situation :)

pawns arent that lowly though .. not in my point of view .. they can beat me in any type of game ;)

Juetland=Denmark?

a peninsula, south part german ... here the wikipedia entry about - my hometown kiel
outlines the fjord between the sub-peninsulae schwansen and angeln - go figure what
lingo anglish ppl spoke - but the brits mis-spelled when we urged them to learn it ... ~*~

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=894030
In this game, my last roll was a 4-2. I chose to move 11-7 which then negated the opportunity to move the 2 hence staying safe and I pointed this out to my opponent. If this was a game of real backgammon following the international rules, I would have had to move 7-3 then either 11-9 or 3-1 (probably 3-1 was the best option)

Does anyone have an opinion on what should be done in this situation? Is this a bug or simply a different rule that is allowable in the game of Hyper?

Thanks

wayney: a known edge ... this nifty feature here allows different
variations of socalled international rules - now that you know you may
wish to find a courtesy with your opponent before the game ... ... ~*~

danoschek: what would you suggest for this game though?
Draw, Resign, Deletion?

from the principle I do not give hints
on games yet in progress ... good luck ... ~*~

danoschek: The idea of this thread was to gain others opinions. If you choose to offer none, then it would be much appreciated if you refrained from pointless board clatter thanks

Lol. Wayne has chosen to bring this to the Board of Backgammoners. That wasn't particularly my wish but, as the hand has been played, let me lay out all the information that we have at present:


This is the position that Wayne was in when he rolled a 4-2.

He moved 11/7 as he said, stacking all the men in a temporary position of safety. This is an illegal move under the accepted rules of hypergammon.

Wayne knew this because his message to me was:
look carefully at my last move.
because of the flaw in Fencer's programming, I only had to move the 4. Normally I would have had been forced to move both 4 and 2
Naughty Fencer



My reply:
Hmmm. naughty Fencer indeed. It's a shame that you pressed the [Move] button before doing the correct move. What move would you have done if you'd used both the 4 and the 2?



Then Wayne:
I would have had to move 7-3 with the 4 and then 11-9 or 3-1 with the 2 which obviously would have opened me up. Probably 3-1 if I didnt know your dice roll



Then me:
Aye, I'd have done 7/3/1* as well, I reckon. If nothing hit it then it would be safe in the corner with a good chance of that 7-point man covering it is he survives.

This bug makes for a very interesting situation. The problem is that you knowingly made an illegal move. Now some would say that that was cheating but I don't see it that way. A proper cheat would have kept quiet and hoped for it not to be noticed. You, having very clearly pointed it out, are not a cheat.

What you did do was take advantage of a bug that you discovered. You got to make a move that could turn out advantageous (depending on what happens when you split them next go) but, if made properly, and now that we know my dice, would have seen your man get sent to the bar with the others possibly to follow.

More importantly, at least to me, is that you missed a wonderful opportunity to score a very good sportsmanship point.

If I'd been in your situation I'd have made the correct move and told you about the bug and how I'd dealt with it. That way I may have lost the game but I would certainly stick in your mind as a fair-minded player and a good sport. That would have had more value to me than the result because getting the opportunity to win happens every game but getting to show that you're a good sport doesn't. (Some people would see it as spelling chump and loser but I don't think you're one of those.)

The situation leaves us with the question of how to proceed. As I see it there are several possibilities:

6) You, having taking advantage of the bug, resign. I say it merely because it's a possibility. I'm definitely not in favour of this solution.

5) We play on. If I lose, I will feel that I lost unfairly. If I win then I'll wonder whther I should have lost. Either way it won't be the game that we should have played.

4) We make the game a draw. It gets added to our history but our ratings remain the same.

3) We ask the powers-that-be to make the game unrated and play on. This would turn the game into an interesting but painless what-if.

2) We ask that the game be deleted. This is the 'cleanest' solution.

1) We ask that the game be put into the state it would been had you made the move that you would have done (hence me asking you what that would have been). I'm in favour of this one because we get to keep the game after an interesting interruption.

I'm in favour of options 1, 2 or 3.
What thinkest thou, Wayne?
:-)



And me again:
Lol. I've just thought of another possibility.

4a) We report the bug and Fencer declares it Not a bug. We play on.

That's acceptable to me too, for this situation, but not for the game as a whole.
;-)


And Wayne:
actually this has been mentioned so many times in the past and Fencer's opinion has always been that this is ok to do in games on BK. Remember too we are playing HIS hypergammon and not backgammon. I would NEVER have done this in a game of "backgammon" however, this is Fencer's Hyper Gammon and hence it is not a bug, only a nuance


And Wayne:
I would have said option 1 if I did not know your future dice roll.
If we can have option 1 with the future still to be undetermined, that would suit me.
Feel free to ask Fencer to do this and you have my ok on that



Unfortunately I seem to have lost a bit of 1) when I was editing for it includes me keeping the dice roll that was given me after Wayne's move. (It's a 3-1 which would have hit the blot that he'd have left on the ace point.)

Wayne wants version 1a) where I lose that dice roll. ;-)



So, ladies and gentlemen of the board, these are the facts, opinions and wishes of the two players. What are your own feelings about these 8 options?

if you do not have a minimum of style either, you better
should not talk in public altogether ... welcome on my
hidelist and - read the rules before your next spamming ... ~*~

playBunny:

3. No copy'n'pasting other user's posts or words onto public boards without their permission.

playBunny: My 2 bits worth,call it a draw and play again. I also believe that both dice should be used when ever possible ie good sportsmanship. Learn from the experience.

if I cAn shoot a goal and that is the goal of the game, I'd be stupid not to do so - your
belief is inessential here & even about rules there are divergences - like the very silly kindergarten move-out, "internationally" allowed, anything but sportsmanship for pros. ~*~

1. He's a Pawn.
2. Hyper Backgammon (as well as, possibly, all other versions of Backgammon) is poorly implemented (sorry Fencer, but... this case was ample proof)

Conclusion: Play with what you are allowed; obviously there is no rule that says "when a game implementation is faulty, try to stick to the rules of real world play"...

Maybe posts like this can make a difference in the future for the benefit of all, and make Pawns be heard for a change...

playBunny: draw and play again would be the easiest ... but this would make you both start at 0 .. losing the advantage wayne might have now (although with his piece captured, he must be lucky to cover his other 2 advanced pieces)

the most fair option would be to ask fencer to move the game back in time, and give you 1+3 (but i dont think thats possible, the dice cant be edited i think?)

or play on and have a game with a confused move in it ...

i made a few of those moves in bg when i started playing it (i never played it before i came here), because i didnt know it wasnt allowed (wayne of course did know which changes this case slightly) .. so it wont be the only game with this type of move

anyway .. when both parties agree on any of the options .. then noone else would be needed to offer opinions

(i sometimes am a referee in squash and use the rule that if i doubt but both players agree on something .. then i wont change that agreement ... unless i am 100% certain of an error :)

The most fair option is to play on according to BK rules.

playBunny: I'd start with banning danoschek from this board. He purposely goes out of his way to annoy everyone and his specialty seems to be obfuscation and obscurity.
That and his propensity of putting people that he dislikes or disagrees with on "hide" or "block user" and making it just about impossible to even give one's self a chance to make things right with him or at the very least get your side heard by him.
And don't forget all the names he calls people and somehow gets away with. Or how he looks down upon us poor valley folk while he's up there on his thrown in the hall of the mountain king laughing and calling us all fools as he basks in his splendar and all-knowing.

As for this game situation. It's not a bug, but how the game is played here. It being a game of Hyperbackgammon, I'd be willing to bet there's no such thing as "Internationally Recognized Rules". And, even if there is, we ain't playing by them. We're playing by Fencer international rules. I've always wondered why regular Backgammon has that use of the dice for the rules, or use the larger die first rule. Does everyone here think that's the best way to play Backgammon? Why not let the person choose how to play his dice? OK, OK, them ain't the "Internationally Recognized Rules" you say. But at one time the rules were different than they are now, or have you forgotten? So now we have to live with these rules? Or can't we play it as it is here? Yes, I'd just as soon play by the established rules. It'd certainly make for less grief when I hear this complaint time and again about Backgammon as it is played on this site. What Fencer should do is write in the rules section of Backgammon that it is played differently here. Clearly, and with examples. Then one could play his dice as he saw fit and not have to worry about being sporting or taking advantage of a situation. This would certainly mitigate the hard feelings and leave the problem where it belongs, with Fencer!

So, how 'bout it Fencer? Would you either make the play of Backgammon fit the so called "Internationally Recognized Rules" or could you clarify this in the rules section of the various Backgammon variants that you may play the dice to whatever advantage the player may see fit? Either way would almost certainly stop a lot of misunderstandings and hard feelings during the play of the game.

Please be alerted and don't feel that I'm being unsporting or am cheating. I am playing Backgammon by the rules as they are played here. I think the rules to Dark Chess are inferior here too, but I still play by them. As I said in my previous post, Fencer should state clearly in the rules sections how Backgammon is played here in any of the ways it is different from established or internationally recognized rules. In the meantime, I will play by the rules as they exist. It is up to my opponents to know this and to play accordingly. It is not my fault that the game is as it is on this site, but it is the way it is. Please play with this in mind.

do you have to play the highest die first ??

what if you throw 6+5 when you have one piece back in your opponents home .. the rest is in your home already so you cant move those .. one opponents piece is single 5 steps away from your piece-to-move ... do i have to move 6 first and then 5 .. and thereby not capture my opponents piece .. or can i move 5 first capturing him, and then 6 with the same piece ?

Hrqls: In that situation, as long as you can use both dice, you can choose which to use first.

A player must use both numbers of a roll if this is legally possible (or all four numbers of a double). When only one number can be played, the player must play that number. Or if either number can be played but not both, the player must play the larger one. When neither number can be used, the player loses his turn. In the case of doubles, when all four numbers cannot be played, the player must play as many numbers as he can.

You just have to know that the rules on BK differ than some other "accepted" rules. If it bothers you, I guess you shouldn't play gammon or else try a gentleman's agreement before the game. But if both players play by these rules, morally or morally right, the games, like the dice, should theoretically even out in the end.

bumble: ah! thanks .. that makes it clear :)

on playsite.com i was playing a bg match for 3 points, the score was 1-1 .. my opponent was slightly ahead in pips .. and he had 2 pieces at my #1 and in a few turns would probably have a chance to capture me while his home was completely blocked ... i didnt want to risk this and offered a double as i hoped he would decline and give me a 2-1 lead with a crawford round, so i had 2 rounds to score a point

in his case i would have accepted the double though .. as the game was (imo) quite balanced at that point and i would have hoped to win the match with it

he declined though .. and i won the next round, and the match

what would you have done ? any suggestions ?

bumble: nonsense - if you get anyone to that courtesy, congrats though
- but for me it's just a silly interpretation not covered by rules whatsoever
that's why I don't claim the adults-rule for moving pieces out, either - who cares ... ~*~

Hrqls: Trailing 2-away at Crawford you have only about a 30% chance of winning against an opponent of equal strength. Therefore, when you are doubled at 2-away, 2-away you should accept the cube unless your winning chances are less than 30%.

...it exists in Backgammon as well as hypergammon and should, in my opinion, be corrected as soon as possible.

Furthermore, anyone who realises should not take advantage of it.

Anyone not realizing needs all the help they can get.

1 day no vacation days for +1700 bkr

Walter: In the voice of Mr T: Danofool !! ;-)

Thanks for a full and well considered response. It was very persuasive. And then I checked the status of my bug report. Tulip reported the same bug back in March with regard to this game. Her opponent's next roll was a 6-5 and he should have had to break his block but got away with moving a different man using just one of the dice values. Fencer marked that bug as open with a priority of 3 and my bug as a duplicate. This tells me that Fencer recognises the maximise dice usage rule and wishes, when he has time, to implement it correctly. Moves made as a result of the bug would therefore be illegal under the BrainKing rules - else it wouldn't be classed as a bug.

That doesn't mean that we are necessarily obliged to enforce the rule ourselves. To me it's an opportunity to be sporting. But if we were playing for money, or I didn't like my opponent, then I'd be more likely to shove sportsmanship to the side and take the advantage.

grenv: Hey, good buddy, are you and I actually agreeing to something here?! lolol. My opinion revises upwards. ;-) (I assume that by ".. needs all the help they can get" you mean those who don't know the rules well enough need help in winning the game rather than all the psychological help they can get - which is what it sounded like at first, lol).

Hrqls, skipinnz: I'm torn between asking for a draw, knowing I'll be pissed off with losing, and playing on to satisfy my curiosity. I wish it could be made unrated but unfortunately there's been no response from anyone with the ability to make changes to the game. Big Bad Wolf, are you one of those persons?

WhiteTower: Pawn Power Rules!! ;-)
You're correct in saying that .. there is no rule that says "when a game implementation is faulty, try to stick to the rules of real world play". However, how many gentlemen's agreements are? By their nature they tend to be implicit and "understood". A rule that exists in the mind is still a rule, even if it's unenforceable and for adoption only by those who prefer to live by it.

Hrqls: Thank you, too, for a considered answer. I like your approach to refereeing and it fits this situation. I'm not here to find out what to do. (As you say, that's up to Wayne and myself). For me, this is more about bringing a potentially interesting topic to the board.