BrainKing - Discussion boards (Backgammon)

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

AbigailII: Separately, it would be nice to have the option to resign the entire match - not just for backgammon, but for all games.

That would seem to be taking a rather defeatist position? As Yogi Berra said, "The game's not over till it's over"

28. March 2007, 10:38:34

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

nabla: I think cubed matches are treated the same way as multi-game matches in other games. And there a time-out only times out a single game.

But I agree, it would be nice if you can offer a resignation for a certain amount of points. For the user interface, only three options need to be offered "resign with backgammon", "resign with gammon" and "resign". If a backgammon, or a gammon is not possible, those options don't need to be offered. And an opponents confirmation is only required if the choosen resignation isn't the highest possible.

Separately, it would be nice to have the option to resign the entire match - not just for backgammon, but for all games.

28. March 2007, 09:53:16

pgt

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

nabla: I disagree. There are many situations where one needs to play a dozen or so moves to avoid a gammon, where autopass would notb help at all. If one could resign "normal" without the need to move the dozen moves to avoid a gammon, that could potgentially reduce the time of a one-move-per day game by two weeks!!!

28. March 2007, 09:21:28

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

alanback: IMHO a player who times out in a multigame match should forfeit the match, not just the current game.

I agree with that, at least with backgammon cubed matches, which should really be seen as a whole and not as separated games. So if timing out is currently worth a backgammon, it is still a low price to pay.

As for resignations, it is true that ideally one should be able to state what type of game one should resign, but I don't find it too serious that one cannot. Proper autopass / autoplay would save a lot more time !

28. March 2007, 03:33:14

alanback

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

KotDB: Seems odd, but the person who timed out doesn't have much basis for complaint. You should not feel bad about it.

IMHO a player who times out in a multigame match should forfeit the match, not just the current game.

28. March 2007, 03:29:16

Peón Libre

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

jryden: I'm guessing that what you mean by the current state is equivalent to the worst-case scenario, except in a few unusual cases that I've just thought of (e.g. White has borne off 10 checkers and has 5 on his ace point, while Black has 14 on his ace point and 1 on his 19-point: a backgammon is not possible, but one might say the game is in a backgammonish state).

But the game in question was not in a backgammonish state, nor was a backgammon possible, yet I was awarded 3 points. Therefore BK behaves differently than the way you and I believed it behaved.

28. March 2007, 02:58:55

jryden

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

KotDB: Brainking assigns points based on the current state of the game when the timeout occurs. I think worst case scenario is not practical to calculate.

I'm pretty sure that the correct way to resign cube match game is to offer your resignation along with the number of points you are resigning. If you resign a single point to me but I think I can gammon you, then I reject your resignation and we keep playing. Brainking doesn't support this. If you resign you give up the number of points on the board.

This being the case, you should never resign a cube match game until you have borne off a least one checker, and then only after it is mathematically impossible for you to win.

28. March 2007, 02:06:56

skipinnz

Subject: Re: Scoring of timeouts

KotDB: I've had time outs and received the max possible.

28. March 2007, 02:02:13

Peón Libre

Subject: Scoring of timeouts

Is it well understood how many points are awarded for a timeout in a cube match? In this game, I was trailing 4-2 in a 5-point match when my opponent disappeared. A backgammon is no longer possible on the board; in fact, if the game were played out, every possible sequence of rolls and moves would result in a gammon. I thus expected that when my opponent timed out I would receive 2 points for the gammon. Instead I received 3 points and won the match 5-4. I feel somewhat guilty for being credited with an impossible backgammon. Not very guilty, as I expect my opponent would also have timed out in the next game, but somewhat guilty.

I had thought that a timeout would be scored the same way as a resignation -- i.e. that the player who timed out would lose the maximum number of points possible from the final position, at the current value of the cube. But I can't find this written anywhere. Has anyone else had experience with this? Is this the intended result, or a bug?

26. March 2007, 23:57:25

Subject: Re: Amazing

alanback: Where do they argue?

26. March 2007, 22:35:01

alanback

show this user posts | link

Subject: Anti-backgammon - checker strategy

Does anyone have any thoughts about checker play in anti-backgammon? Aside from the obvious -- fill your home with blots, hit the opponent as far from his home as possible, etc., I mean. For example, how should the mid-board be handled? I tend to focus entirely on my home board and my opponent's. However, as I play against better opposition, I see that they use the midboard quite effectively at times. I have seen players extend the blot-filling strategy to their own outer board to good effect. And what about the endgame? I believe that bearing off strategy is potentially even more important in the anti game than in the regular game. Any thoughts about that?

26. March 2007, 21:34:41

alanback

Subject: Amazing

I'm amazed that people can be so interested in a feature that will save time and trouble will waste so much of everyone's time arguing futilely about it. ;-)

26. March 2007, 21:04:47

Subject: Re:I would feel cheated if I were that person.

Modified by Andersp (26. March 2007, 21:05:15)

nabla: I dont think anything would help, this seems to be the only "autopass" we can get

AbigailII: I guess i trusted Fencer to do a good job :)

26. March 2007, 16:05:38

Subject: Re:I would feel cheated if I were that person.

Modified by AbigailII (26. March 2007, 21:15:11)

Andersp: Ah, yes, I thought it was you, but I wasn't sure and that's why I didn't mention a name.

Anyway, if I were to ever make an offer in the form "I'll buy a black rook (or two) if you implement this-and-this", I'm sure to write down an exact specification of the feature. ;-)

26. March 2007, 14:28:09

Subject: Re:I would feel cheated if I were that person.

Andersp: In your opinion, what would make Fencer implement complete auto-pass and auto-play ? More black rook subscriptions ? Testimonies from users who say they went to play on DailyGammon only because it had those features ?
We know that we are right to ask for it, so there must be something working :-)

26. March 2007, 14:07:31

Subject: Re:In the future with enough pressure from players it will be implemented properly.

grenv: Dont count on it

26. March 2007, 14:06:40

Subject: Re:I would feel cheated if I were that person.

AbigailII: I suppose its me you refer too, yes i had a "deal" with Fencer "Add autopass and i buy 2 black rooks".

I kept my part of the deal and Fencer installed "autopass"

Cant say i feel 'cheated" since we never discussed any details but i had at least hoped to be able to use autopass in every game without asking for my opponents permission.

Thats whats unfair, the "no sayers" have a choice but we autopasslovers have no choice.

26. March 2007, 14:06:39

Subject: Re: autopass feature

AlliumCepa: I agree with you, I love it too.

26. March 2007, 13:53:15

AlliumCepa

Subject: autopass feature

Modified by AlliumCepa (26. March 2007, 13:57:53)

I love this feature. I use it. In fact, I will not accept an invitation without the autopass enabled. It is a mystery for me - what's the big deal that your opponent can see your dices. They will see it anyway when their turn comes. So what? Furthermore, I will support all newly added goodies that would speed up my games.

Here is a screenshot from another backgammon site - see what they have.

26. March 2007, 11:45:59

Subject: Re:

AbigailII: I don't know exactly what was the promisses done, so it is difficult to speak. But you are probably right that the implicit meaning of "autopass will be implemented" should have been "you will be able to use it in all your games".
Excellent point about autoplay, I didn't think about it ! And actually, in some games like Ambiguous Chess, this feature is a real playing help. Sometimes I click on a square thinking that only one piece can go there, and then the system doesn't move it there, making me see that another piece could move there too (and that it would be very costly). We indeed have half an autopass and half an autoplay.

26. March 2007, 11:13:46

Subject: Re:

nabla: Whether that's the only "unfair" thing I cannot say. I leave that judgement to the person who paid for a black rook to get autopass. I would feel cheated if I were that person.

Note that autoplay has been half implemented for years already: if for instance in chess, you click on a piece that can only move to one square, the game automatically moves it to that square. And you don't even have the option to prevent your opponent to use this feature.

26. March 2007, 10:36:55

Subject: Re:

AbigailII: So the only thing which is really unfair is the name of the feature (and maybe the promisses done). Now I 100% agree that "autoplay" would be the logical and useful sequel of "autopass".

26. March 2007, 10:32:52

Subject: Re:

grenv: I agree with you, I am just not sure that the pressure from the players will be enough.

26. March 2007, 03:07:52

grenv

Subject: Re:

Andersp: Once upon a time Fencer said he'd never implement auto-pass.
Now we have a half-way implementation (which is better than nothing since at worst you can't use it which is the same as before).
In the future with enough pressure from players it will be implemented properly.

26. March 2007, 01:30:24

Subject: Re:

grenv: Problem is that Fencer doesn't think it's "broken" and needs fixing. Something has been implemented and is labelled 'autopass'. It just doesn't match what others think should be called 'autopass'.

A few weeks ago, a new gamesite opened. It doesn't have many games yet, and it won't implement backgammon (because it wants to implement games you don't find anywhere else), but it does have autopass/move. And you don't even get the option of performing mindless clicking. If you don't have a choice to make in a game, you don't have to click.

26. March 2007, 01:09:33

Subject: Re:

grenv: It wont be fixed....Fencer has said that autopass can only be used in games where BOTH players agree to it.

= if you want to use autopass in a game but your opponent says "no thanks" then nobody can use it...sad but true.

So even if you change your settings to autopass you can not be sure that you can use it

26. March 2007, 01:04:42

grenv

Subject: Re:

Andersp: Well that's silly, if it's not working it's because it's not implemented properly. Should be anyone who wants to use it can... whenever they want.

Please nobody suggest that it be abandoned, only fixed.

25. March 2007, 23:07:52

Subject: Re:

Oceans Apart: I agree that it can be unfair to the other players in the tourney, some of them might use auto pass.

Ive told Fencer many times to forget the whole idea with autopass, the way he created it only causes confusion and unfairness.

25. March 2007, 23:00:04

Subject: Re:

Andersp: yes, but also i think it is unfair that soembody isnt going to move in their games until the last minute because the other person isnt using autopass.

25. March 2007, 21:44:55

Very unfair if we cant use auto pass if we want too

25. March 2007, 19:41:43

Subject: Re: Punish them all, I say

playBunny: I agree, i think it is very unfair.

25. March 2007, 18:29:49

playBunny

Subject: Re: Punish them all, I say

AbigailII: I would use autopass if one of my opponents would actually let me. So far they don't (which means I won't move in their games until I'm about to time out; don't expect that 21-point cloning backgammon tournament to finish for the next couple of years...)

When I was a kid, some boys knocked over some bins and wouldn't own up. As a reult the whole class got a slap across the hand with the Strap. Decades later I still hate the unfairness of that. I'm glad I don't play in your tournament.

25. March 2007, 18:24:11

playBunny

Subject: Re:Is there even a way to know if we are playing with auto pass

Modified by playBunny (25. March 2007, 18:24:49)

playBunny: Regarding how you know whether a game is played using auto-pass.. If it is then it's shown in the blurb with all the other match info.

I believe Fencer sets tournament games to auto-pass but others are a joint decision. This is fair enough, though frustrating if you want it and your opponent doesn't. The trial for auto-pass was hexkid's service and one of my opponents used it. That was good for a fast plaer like me as he was (still is, and will be for a long, long time, yaaaaawn) a tortoise, but then he switched it off saying that he preferred to see each move, including the blocked moves. I understand that but personally I'd prefer auto-pass to be automatic for everyone and for people to get used to it, which they would pretty quickly.

25. March 2007, 18:18:18

playBunny

Subject: Re:Is there even a way to know if we are playing with auto pass

Family Man: I want to play my turn in auto pass games through until it is not my turn again

That's how it works at GoldToken and DailyGammon and it's a very natural way to play. I second the idea of being returned to the game if an auto-pass occurs but not as a where-to-go-after-moving option. It would be better as an independant setting alongside the main auto-pass one. http://brainking.com/en/Settings?p=3

25. March 2007, 14:14:22

Subject: Re:Is there even a way to know if we are playing with auto pass

pgt: Its not really a problem, its just that I have it in my head that I want to play my turn in auto pass games through until it is not my turn again, and I agree with grenv that it should be the default to have an auto passed move come straight back to you, thats all.

25. March 2007, 13:42:31

Subject: Because Fencer was it that way

joshi tm:

25. March 2007, 10:23:48

joshi tm

Subject: Re: I would use autopass if one of my opponents would actually let me.

Andersp: Because Fencer was it that way. I don't know how many users use auto-pass, well at least I do.

25. March 2007, 03:57:08

pgt

Subject: Re: I would use autopass if one of my opponents would actually let me.

Andersp:

25. March 2007, 03:55:40

pgt

Subject: Re:Is there even a way to know if we are playing with auto pass

Family Man: I don't see what the problem is. Whether it comes back straight away or drops to the bottom of your pile, it's still a game for you to play - and you turn comes around again a lot faster than it would if your opponent has been off line.

25. March 2007, 00:12:19

Subject: Re: I would use autopass if one of my opponents would actually let me.

AbigailII: Exactly...but why must i ask for my opponents approval to use it? ..makes ZERO sense to me

25. March 2007, 00:11:58

Subject: Re:

AbigailII: Do u think that is being fair

25. March 2007, 00:11:33

Subject: Re:

grenv: LOL, at first I didnt know it was auto passed, and when the game came back after a couple of other moves, I was thinking that my opponent was online and making moves quite fast!

25. March 2007, 00:07:43

Subject: Re:Is there even a way to know if we are playing with auto pass

Oceans Apart: I am using auto pass and know how to activate it, but I am playing backgammon in the stairs format, and you dont have any choice to lay or not.

I obviously dont mind paying with auto pass, but if you are playing through your game list and some of them are using auto pass and some are not, i think there has to be a better way than to examine every game before every move to remember if it is an auto pass game, or to have to play and stay here on every move to find out if a game has been auto passed back to you or not?

25. March 2007, 00:06:33

Subject: Re:

Andersp: I would use autopass if one of my opponents would actually let me.

So far they don't (which means I won't move in their games until I'm about to time out; don't expect that 21-point cloning backgammon tournament to finish for the next couple of years...)

24. March 2007, 23:56:42

grenv

Subject: Re:

Family Man: Staying on the game until it's your opponents turn should probably be the default behaviour. However you'll soon get to it again, and when it's the only game left where it's your turn...

24. March 2007, 23:55:15

Subject: Re:Is there even a way to know if we are playing with auto pass

Family Man: Yes there is, first of all if you WANTED to use auto-pass then u would go to your settings and select it ( bottom left hand side). If you are sent a invite for a backgammon varient, if u scroll down the invite u will see it reads, "This opponent has selected autopass.....continue if u agree", i presume if u dont agree you would uncheck the box.

24. March 2007, 23:49:02

Subject: Re:

Family Man: Not much i can do, no use crying over spilled mik

Fencer has more important things to do now, he's busy fixing his sites layout :)

24. March 2007, 23:44:04

Subject: Re:

Family Man: Fencers does look at this board when he is logged in.

24. March 2007, 23:41:24

Subject: Re:

Andersp: Well, I was under the impression that ideas and complaints etc about specific games belonged on that games own public board, but i dont think fencer has been to this one lately, and I dont want to spam every board looking for his attention.

It is a shame that you were one of the main instigators to get this auto pass option, but you were duped into thinking that it would be implemented they way you would like to see it implemented.

24. March 2007, 23:36:41