Czuch: I agree. If the dice are rolled, show them. It doesn't matter whether either player or someone else is the first to look at the board (as long as it's not private). If anyone looks at the board, BK should show the current status of the game (which includes the rolled dice). Anything else is just dumb.

alanback: In an auto pass it is okay to see the dice first, and since they are supposedly already rolled, why not show them?

Czuch:  You dont get to see your opponents dice before he does, which seems quite appropriate.

Why are the dice rolled and then hidden until my opponent checks the game?

It makes no sense, and only adds unnecessary mystery

fakar10: Good idea. I'd join if I wasn't a pawn. I hope you get lots and lots of members and that Fencer sees that (1) autopass should be a feature, not an option and (2) that he should expand the power of autopass to other situations, like endgame moves.

Autopassers, a fellowship where the players are expected to use autopass in the games.

Thad: Very good. So there must be at least one such game i would think

Vikings: According to grenv's calculations,
Backgammon (grenv, 2007-10-04 14:05:59)
it takes 17 rolls minimum to get all your checkers home without any doubles. If you went first, your opponent would get 16 rolls. That's 33 total. The odds of not rolling doubles on any roll are 5/6, so the maximum odds of rolling a doubles free game are,

(5/6)^33 = .002438 or 1/4 of one percent, about once every 400 games.

I suspect the typical game is close to 25 or 30 moves/side, so the odds are probably around,

(5/6)^50 = .00011 or one in 10,000.
(5/6)^60 = .000018 or one in 50,000.

coan.net: o.k. then, back to my question, has anyone ever had a complete game without any doubles?

Wow, leave for a day and come back to a board full of posts.

OK - Lets stop this discussion - it looks like everyone has had their say, and the discussion has turned into an argument - which is not needed.

So lets get back to the regular backgammon discussion please. Thanks.

playBunny:
There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

Nobody is trying to say that if asked to do so, they shouldnt comply to the request to play out their moves.

rather, that there is nothing wrong with not wanting to comply either!

Thats where I am coming from, and i am also along for the laugh

Czuch Czuckers: Gosh, Czuch, I certainly do enjoy a good debate but please don't ever think that I agree with you about being rude to people simply because they have a different preference. It is almost as if you view other people as machines. I know you're incapable of understanding this but I seriously think that the attitude you show is self-centred and boorish!

But I dont understand how you can defend someone being offended or upset over someone else playing within the boundaries of the rules

There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

That's where I'm coming from.

Anders, on the other hand, is just along for the laugh.

My aplology to all peple who are offended because i tried to resign this discussion

joshi tm: AND, is there different etiquette for Crowded Backgammon? LOL... I'm SO just kidding!

Czuch Czuckers: I think thats a good conclusion (and hopefully ending) of this silly discussion  LOL

One hundred posts ago, someone posted the best plays for normal Backgammon games. My question: Is this still the same when playing crowded Backgammon?

playBunny: I happen to agree with Grenv that you do understand our point of view, and probably even agree with it, but just enjoy a good debate?

But I dont understand how you can defend someone being offended or upset over someone else playing within the boundaries of the rules?

Andersp: but to me its still more rude than to resign a finished game :)

But that really is irrelevant. It's not about what you'd find rude, it's about what an opponent who wishes to continue play would think.

i (and most players here) know the real reason why you dont accept even a friendly invitation

Go on then, spell it out. Make sure you properly include the terms "in protest", "rating system" and "really sucks". And you can get bonus points if you add another sentence or two incorporating "DailyGammon" plus some choice ideas from my profile.

playBunny: LOL...yes Bunny you are right, i didnt misunderstand, i (and most players here) know the real reason why you dont accept even a friendly invitation.....but to me its still more rude than to resign a finished game  :)

grenv: Yes, this is my way.. I resign in a lost position. I never said others had to do the same.

Nor did I say that you said that. But you have said that you do not accept their point of view. You've said that their definition of the end of the game is wrong, that their wanting to finish by removing the last piece is pointless, ridiculous, etc, and that you'd resign regardless of their wishes.

you are saying that others might be offended at my actions and request that I play out the game. Wouldn't this be a case of them asking me to do it their way, not the other way around?

If you know that they'd like to continue play and you resign in spite of that then it could be considered rude and, yes, they may well be offended.

If you say to them that it really pains you to have to play on then you are asking them to take your feelings into consideration. If they take you at your word and assume that it truly does "pain you", and they would only "quite like" to continue, then it would be inconsiderate to expect you to play (not that they can force it, of course). In that case the reasonable way forward is to accept your resignation.

It's very likely to be the case that they will let you have your way even if they believe that their preference is the stronger - because they also value being the "nice guy" about things. Probably most people are like that but I get the impression that you wouldn't be one of those.

Difficulties arise when both players feel adamant about getting their way and that's when you could call in the judge. In reality, however, the likely outcome is that the one with the power, ie. the resign button, simply exercises it, and rudeness be damned. Indeed, rudeness may well have already surfaced during the "negotiation".

It's about mutual respect. It's not about simply dismissing the other person because you think their position is ridiculous.

Andersp: Oh im sorry i misunderstood...so you accept a friendly invitation for backgammon?

Lol. Yes, you have misunderstood and I dare say you know it, too.

It's very clear what my position is. It's completely certain that I will reject (by ignoring) a rude invitation (defined specifically as one with no text whatsoever). And it's very unlikely, in the case of Backgammon, that I will accept even friendly invitations. "Very unlikely" is, of course, not measured as 0%. This therefore means that some percentage of friendly invitations would be accepted.

think you should add that to your profile

It's all there in one short sentence. All you have to do is not misunderstand it!

playBunny: Oh im sorry i misunderstood...so you accept a friendly invitation for backgammon?  think you should add that to your profile

Andersp: To me its more rude to not accept a friendly invitation on a gamesite

Really? You feel obliged to play any game that someone sends an friendly invitation for, regardless of whether you want to play that kind of game or not??

playBunny: I don't think you're saying anything meaningful here. Yes, this is my way.. I resign in a lost position. I never said others had to do the same.

On the contrary you are saying that others might be offended at my actions and request that I play out the game. Wouldn't this be a case of them asking me to do it their way, not the other way around?

Since you're smart enough to realize this, you must in fact be joking and/or enjoying a silly argument.

playBunny: Thank you, I was beginning to think you had blocked me

Czuch Czuckers: Answer this then.... Do you think ...

Nope, I won't answer that then or even now. It's a whole new topic. Repost it tomorrow.

grenv: as in the law where the test is always "the reasonable person". If someone is unreasonably offended that is their problem not mine.

In Law we don't have the plaintiff acting as prosecutor, witnesses and judge as well. Whose definition of "reasonable" is the reasonable one here?

Andersp: "Even with a friendly greeting, I am very unlikely to accept Backgammon invitations."

That's from my profile, for those that don't know. You've quoted it out of context, Anders, which is quite inconsiderate of you.

The full quote is: I consider it rude if I don't know you and you invite me to a match yet say nothing in the invitation. I will ignore it until you take it away. ...... Even with a friendly greeting, I am very unlikely to accept Backgammon invitations.

And, people being people, some will take it personally and be offended, even though it expresses my general preference for not playing Backgammon.

Also from my profile: Check out the Play Bunny of the Month for May 1999. Isn't she a cutey? :-D

People being people, some will take personal offense to that.

Anders, your point is...?

playBunny: There is only one (1) person on BK i know who wants to continue playing and she is sitting behind me LOL

playBunny: "Even with a friendly greeting, I am very unlikely to accept Backgammon invitations."

Andersp: do you think its a good idea that we ask Fencer if he can give us an option to add a "dont resign mark" to our nickname?

Asking Fencer for anything to do with backgammon is a long and hard struggle. In this instance we can ask as long as it "we" means Andersp!

....i've rsigned many games and no one has complained so why should i think that they are offended?

For you there's every reason to think that not one of them is even the slightest bit offended, ever. That even includes the ones who you know, for a fact, would prefer to play on (they being the ones that we've been discussing).

playBunny: So there's no possiblity that someone else could find backgammon to be anything other than a contest which has a rigidly defined ending point?

When someone is playing a rated game, yes that is correct!

grenv: The reason to finish a jigsaw is to look at the picture I assume, perhaps show to others?

No, the purpose is merely to discover the position of the pieces. The finished article doesn't matter at all. It's meaningless and therefore pointless to waste time putting the last few pieces in place. If you want to see the picture then look at the box. it doesn't have all those quiggly lines on it for a start!

Anyway this is clearly an aesthetic endeavor, whereas a game of backgammon is a contest.

Ah, I see. So there's no possiblity that someone else could find backgammon to be anything other than a contest which has a rigidly defined ending point?

Admit it, grenv, this is your way and not the only way. What do you gain by refusing to see other people as individuals not from your mould?</i>

am i the only one who thinks that Play Bunny is joking? :)

O K, you guys are discussing about just those last two moves? That's making me a laugh.

First, as long as players (also like me, sorry about that) do not resign, please don't complain. If fact, I play BG games so fast that I forget the option to resign. In other games, however, I resign every lost position because I have to look at the game board first :). I think a large number of players here play BG games that way.

Second, come on! You already won that game, and the opponent just plays it out. O well, you are a Brain Rook member, so what does that extra game count to you?

Andersp: If you do something against the wishes of another it's very convenient to imagine that they won't take offence. Very convenient indeed.

playBunny: Answer this then.... Do you think it is rude for someone to use their whole allotted time limit for every move in a game, even if they have the ability to play them faster? What if I asked them to play faster because I prefer it? Does that make a difference? If they are asked and still refuse, would you defend my right to get upset about it?

playBunny: Dont think so

Czuch Czuckers: I think it is wrong for someone to get upset about me doing anything within the rules of the game!

The rules, the rules. Yes, the traffic warden mentality blossoms wherever there are rule books. Being human needs much, much more than the ability to following rule books, Czuch.

Andersp: Would your opponent think it rude?

AbigailII: your opponents play will not take gammon considerations into account.

Is that really true? Do you start playing doolally moves if your opponent has already lost or do you continue playing consistently? If you continue playing consistently, how many times are the moves the same between gammon go and merely winning? It's not zero percent, is it?

It's fun when playing a bot to see if you might get a backgammon but, unfortunately, if the match is already lost then they move randomly and don't seek to avoid the backgammon. A human opponent is very unlikely to do so. They will move out of your home just because they can - because it avoids the virtual backgammon. Yet if they leave the pieces there and lose by a backgammon, it will still tend to be intentional. People don't often do random.

Conversely if a human opponent is playing on, even if they have won, there's a high chance that they will play to see if they can get the gammon, just as the loser is playing to see whether they can avoid it. It's a mini competition above and beyond the game itself. Call it fun, call it foolishness, call it what you like. Bots don't give a damn about such things, they can't understand the point. So, it would seem, is the case for certain humans. The bots, however, don't feel a need to argue that the funsters are wrong!

Even if you avoid the gammon, it does not mean you would have avoided the gammon if the gammon had mattered (because your opponent might have made different moves).

Granted, they might be making different moves. In a bearoff situation that's how likely? But anyway, if they might then they might not, and might not is more likely if you're playing a human of the kind outlined above. And if they might not then the exercise is not fruitless.

Czuch Czuckers: Correct, as in the law where the test is always "the reasonable person". If someone is unreasonably offended that is their problem not mine.

playBunny: Political Debate

Andersp: the game is over so why go on clicking?

Because they want you to, and because they may become upset if you dont!

playBunny: Yet someone getting upset about your viewpoint is wrong.

I think it is wrong for someone to get upset about me doing anything within the rules of the game!

playBunny: Even if i knew that my opponent prefers to click til the board is empty i would say "Congrats good game" asnd resign...is that an answer to your question?.   And i dont consider it rude...the game is over so why go on clicking?

playBunny et al:  All this reminds me of the story I once read about a utopian society that had only two rules:

1.  "Thou shalt not bother other people."

2.  "Thou shalt not be too easily bothered."