Andersp: the question isnt if you would want to roll the dice ... but if you want to double . if you are stuck on the bar you might still want to double ... just to scare your opponent i guess ;)

In fact I've seen some very strange behaviour.

I doubled one opponent when I had only a few pieces left and he still hadn't borne any off (but there was no way I could gammon him, before anyone asks).

Not only did he accept but doubled me right back next turn to make it an 8 point game (in a 7 point match). Of course I won easily.

I urge people to read and understand the rules. Ask for clarification here if necessary.

Is it a bug that forces us to roll dice even if we are trapped in the bar and the whole "home" is blocked? Doesnt make sense to me to roll the dice when no diceroll can help me out.

Rose: It's quite simple. The object is to get to some number of points, for example 9.

Games are worth 1 point each to start with.

If you get doubled and accept, the game is worth 2 points, meaning whoever wins gets 2 points.

If you reject the double your opponent will win the game but get only 1 point.

Once you accept the double, ONLY YOU can double again. In this example you would be doubling the game value to 4, and if your opponent rejects you would win the game and get 2 points.

Im sooo confused!!

I think I have too many people telling me different rules to the cube..

I thought if I was losing and I got a double offer that I could reject it an continue the game and If I lost i lost points. But I just refused a double off an I lost the game.. arggggg

Walter Montego:
OK, thanks!
I corrected.

jolat: I think you have made a mistake in the creation of your tournament. It is not 3 points with double cube tournament. It is 2 games each player. The 3 points with double cube only applies according to your tournament page if the tournament ends in a two way tie.

Hello,

I created a new Backgammon Tournament for all players .
This tournament is addressed to the players who can play at least a
move per day.

Limit of registration: October 28

If you are interested, register you at
http://brainking.com/fr/Tournaments?trg=11934&tri=64781&trnst=0



Greetings

jolat

I'll probably get the usual "please make post of this nature on the BG board" type of reply/post on the FR board... so I'll repost it here, so I don't tick the moderators off for posting on the wrong board.... :o)
http://www.bkgm.com/variants/Chouette.html
another link about 'chouette' variant... those interested should look at the bottom of the page and find many more variations of 'gammon games and maybe direct the powers that be on BK in this direction. if BK ever wanted to cater to their gammon players, as they do to their chess players, this would be a good place to get some ideas... :o)

SueQ: I agree, in big bold and colored writing.

Also I'd like to see the current score in the tournament screen (instead of a dash if the match isn't over yet), kind of like the team tournaments.

Is it possible to get the match length and the current score of the match posted towards the top of the screen? I am constantly scrolling down to find out what the score of the match is.

Walter: It's called a dead cube.

frolind: Oh, OK then, thanks for correcting me...:)

Pedro Martínez: It's not a bug, it's Fencers choice (which is common on the other backgammon servers I play on as well):

(from the rules)

If a player is 1 point away from winning the match, he won't be given an option to offer a double because the reject would always won the match for him.

When a doubling cube value reaches the point where it would win the match for the player, the system won't show more options to double the cube value because it wouldn't make sense to increase it anymore.

Pedro Martínez: I asked my opponent about this and his reply would seem to explain why I don't get the option.

Since I only need one point to win the match, doubling does nothing for me and that's why I don't get the option. I guess winning extra points is meaningless as far as playing a match goes.

Walter Montego: You definitely should be able to double. Report it to the BugTracker.

In this game http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1131636 my opponent offered a double right as soon as the game started. I have the cube. When my turn comes up, I'm not being given the choice to double. Is this a bug related to the implementation of the Crawford rule? When the score was 3 to 2 he doubled and I doubled him back. I went on to win that game making the score 6 to 3 my favor. We're playing first player to seven game points wins. In the following game, the double choice was never offered. This is the Crawford rule, right? Anyways, he won that game making it 6 to 4. We are now playing the next game. As I said he doubled immediately and I accepted. The double cube indicator is now on my side of the table showing a 2, but when my turn starts I am not given the choice to offer a double. I don't want to double in this current position, but I should have the option to, shouldn't I?

Vikings: It's especially bad when you have two games with a person and they play in one, but not the other and the circumstances are as you say.

Vikings: You can do what I do. Avoid people that do this. It makes no sense, but I've seen this behavior a few times. Losing is part of the game, just like winning is. So why the sudden change in playing speed? I guess it means that much to them to not lose, and way too much to them to win.

BIG BAD WOLF: you are right, duh, I'll pretend I was drink'n

Vikings: I don't understand your point. They can postpone making their play, but the opponent will not use any vacation time while waiting for the player to move. The same would be true in the other match.

Vikings: 2 different games will be 2 completly different matchs.

What happens in one of the games has nothing to do with the other game.

So for example a tournament is set up for the 2 game match backgammon, with the 5 point cube.

Player A will get 2 games - both worth 5 points each with player B. If they are in danger of losing one, and winning the other - there would be no advantage to just slowing down on one.

BIG BAD WOLF: I don't think you understand what I mean, lets say that the game is tied, and one more point wins, and one player is winning one while the other is winning the other, I know of a couple of people on this site that would figure out if they have more vacation time than you to stall the game they are loosing just long enought to win the other and thus the match.

Vikings: Just more games - people who like to play games should like it.

The chance of someone holding up a game is the same if it is 1 game or 2 game tournament.

has anybody noticed that there is at least one tournament with the cube that is set up to play 2 games at once. Does this make any sense? couldn't a person drag out one of the games that he is loosing in and if he has more vacation, win by default?

alanback: Nonsense, perhaps you need a lesson in English?

grenv: Your original post certainly gave the impression that you DID need a lesson in statistics ;-)

alanback: I don't really need a lesson in mathematics or statistics, I was pointing out that the ratings appear to be meaningless. Of course the more games it is based on the better, but only once the general population has reliable ratings.

I suspect in cubeless backgammon it will take years for the ratings on this site to start meaning something.

playBunny: Of course :)

alanback: "Ratings are an approximation and are no better than the data" ... and formula ... "on which they are based."
;-)

grenv: Ratings are an approximation and are no better than the data on which they are based. In backgammon, random factors dominate the early ratings, so a player's rating is really reliable until they have a few hundred games behind them. The ratings aren't bogus, but unquestioning reliance upon them is. They are only an indication of ability, not proof. As you have observed, playing style is the ultimate proof of ability; not even won-loss record is better in that regard.

I noticed some players with high (about 2100) ratings playing 12-19 on the first move with a 6-1.

I think this proves the ratings are bogus.

These players will get trounced in a long match, which argues in favor of separate ratings I think.

Here is my first cube match against the #3 ranked player... a nice 9 to 1 trouncing in a 7 point match! Seems like a lot of work for only one little win though....

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1125288

BIG BAD WOLF: problem with multiple point maches in anti-backgammon is that there is a much higher percentage of backgammons(3 points) than in regular backgammon

BIG BAD WOLF: I agree 100%...and if people cant see the resignwarning, simply ask the translators to add <font color=#ff0000> then you have it in red..you dont need to be a software engineer to do that!

Fencer: This is very true, and it was my fault for not reading the warnings when I proposed to resign. What I didn't take into account was that my opposition would not be presented with the resignation and have the ability to reject or accept. I didn't realize that the computer had full responseability with the decision making.

Please stop it. This is the Backgammon board to talk about Backgammon issues.

playBunny: It's all here. No need to repeat it, especially since your royal highness can't be bothered to actually read a message before responding to it.

frolind: I enjoy a good debate. "Good" means that I have someone worth debating with. Redsales, Alanback, Grenv, Walter, Abigail, ... all these and others people are worth debating with. You have yet to go beyond single-sentence abtract utterances. Please explain your reasoning and how I'm wrong.

Alternatively, given that I don't think you're interested in actually debating anything meaningful, let us continue this conversation in the Flame Pit. There is a message waiting for you there.

Pedro Martínez: I would suggest that rules be writen just for anti-backgammon since it can be confusing.

Well the rule for anti is the object of the game is opposet.

So the rules for regular backgammon are:
# Single game (1 point) - the winner's opponent has borne off at least one piece.
# Gammon (2 points) - the opponent hasn't borne off any pieces.
# Backgammon (3 points) - the opponent hasn't borne off any pieces and still has some pieces either on the bar or in the winner's home area (the six pipes where the winner bears off own pieces).

So i would almost have to say that instead of the "winners opponent", it should be just winner.

So I guess what the "program" should do is calculate how much it would normally give to the opponent (or the person who removed all their pieces first), then instead of giving them the points - the other player should get them.

= = = = =

Another suggestion:

Would be nice if the tournament section that has 0 for loses and 1's for wins - if instead of 1's, it lists how many points were won for that game. Would make it quicker to see who is close to winning & losing.

How is it possible to score gammon or backgammon in anti-BG under the current rules?

playBunny: LOL. Was it really that painfull for your super-sized ego to realize that you were wrong?

In this game:
http://brainking.com/cz/ArchivedGame?g=1123600
TC resigned and I received 4 points (gammon x 2). But, I think I should have gotten 6 points since it should be my pieces, not his, that should be counted as to whether it is gammon or backgammon in the anti.

Fencer: Maybe it would help if the "warning - you will lose X points..." was 1 font bigger - and/or a different color to help make it a little more eye catching.

Fencer: 1) Sure. I may state what I believe though.
2) Yep. I took a liberty there at the risk of making you blush.
3) Does that mean you're going to ignore the opportunity to make this minor but useful improvement?

The example given below was a little silly. Part of the game is to try to bear off a piece to avoid being gammoned. If you resign before going through this essential part of the game you deserve to lose the points for being gammoned in my opinion.

Fencer: you're the man

playBunny: 1) I am the only one who specifies my own responsibilities.
2) Reposting someone else's posts or private messages without his permission is against the user agreement.

frolind: "LOL. Well, at least now we know why you were clueless about the subset thing."

No, frolind. You think you're making sense, somewhere in your mind, but nobody else knows what you are talking about.

Please join me in the Flame Pit so that we can conduct an investigation into your mentalstate....

Andersp: Well done that man .

But you've had the benfit of reading these messages and knew what to look for. We are talking about those who needlessly learn the lesson the hard way. It's avoidable with a small change to the message.