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?

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

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.

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.

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. 

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 !

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!!!

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.

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"

pgtnot always true I have resigned games when my opponent waits till the final moment to move. This because the games if left to run there cause would finish next decade, LOL:

skipinnz:  I know what you mean.  I am almost 66 years old, and wonder what will happen when I leave permanently!  There are a couple of games withe a couple of players which have already been running 2 years.   Is there a feature to advise permanent demise, or do one's games all have to time out when one shuffles off this mortal coil?   (It would serve some opponents right!)

AlliumCepa: I suggested something similar quite some time ago. I second this suggestion. My suggestion was to had a box or similar to check saying "autopass on my behalf until I can make a legal move, ignoring doubles" or something similar, so that it could take effect meaningfully in cube games
,

pgt: Along with a red warning saying that you might miss a good cube.

AlliumCepa: autopass is available in settings? where?

grenv: http://brainking.com/en/Settings?p=3

fakar10: Thanks. I must say it's not real obvious, with all those tabs, where things are, let alone know when some new setting appears.

Backgammon (WellyWales vs. Family Man)

I think I have found an auto pass bug. This game will not let me double because my opponent has no move and the game keeps coming back to me and just wont allow me to double!

Family Man: Who doubled first u or Welly

Oceans Apart: must have been him, since the double cube is on my side, why?

Oceans Apart:  According to the display, black has the cube 

alanback: Yes, sorry i have just had a look at the game

Backgammon (WellyWales vs. Family Man)

Now I have just done a test, and made a move, and the game has not auto passed back to me??? Seems like a bug to me!

Family Man: Looks like a bug...

on the other hand you can win the match with a gammon...

Does anyone know why I can't roll the dice in this game?

Backgammon (grenv vs. fisher)

Nackgammon ("Snoopy" vs. Somelaughs2)
uses auto pass i didnt agree to it or have things changed now
is it used in tournaments even if both sides dont agree

I love it, if it comes to autopasses just "move and stay here"

Start date is may 1st. IT is a 3 point Hyper Tournament. IT has been a popular tournament that takes a good player to win. Will you take on the challenge? Sign up and find out if you have what it takes to win it all.

Blazin's 5th 3-point Hyper Backgammon Tournament

I'm at that point where I'm not starting any new games, and I've finished all the games I have with players who move at a reasonable pace ... all I have left is those players who move every couple of days.  I'm turning on email alerts and signing off. 

I have an opponent from Turkey who is asking about auto pass. I only speak English. Can someone point me to a page in Turkish that explains what auto pass is and how to turn it on?

Thanks.

AlliumCepa: Thank you.

in this game i am only allowed to move from 5 to 4 (sending his piece to the bar) . after that i cant make another move as i will have a piece on the bar as well (cloning gammon)

in this case i think it should be allowed for me to move a piece from 3 to 2 as well .. that way i cant move my 4-die .. but if i make the move which is allowed right now, then i cant move my 4-die either

is this a bug ? or is this supposed to be this way ?

Hrqls: Bug. I suspect that the program was thinking of 5/4*/off, which maximises the dice usage. That code probably hasn't been tweaked for Cloning backgammon and doesn't takes new clones on the bar into account.

Hrqls: That is a bug or unwanted feature.

playBunny & joshi tm: ok thanks .. i reported it in the bug tracker :)

Cloning Backgammon is a nice variant, but it seems to suffer from the fact that the reborn checkers often lead to very long games, especially when the end result is obvious. I propose to start the game with only 13 checkers, one less on each of the two 5-stacks, like in Nackgammon but without the extra back checkers.

Not only would it reduce a little the probability of a very long game, but the lack of front ammunition would probably also make for more interesting decisions in the opening. In the current state, I have a feeling that in the opening one should pretty much do everything for building one's own board as fast as possible. With less checkers, such a strategy is less likely to be successful.

A possible drawback is that it would give even more importance to hitting checkers early in the game, because 13 checkers are not really enough to play with when trying to prime the opponent. I say drawback because hitting a blot is a matter of chance, but of course the game is to take this chance into account.

nabla: Should be tried somehow. But, if the game's strategy is changed fundamentally, why not make it a new game? Long games CAN also be charming sometimes.

I also wanted to try an eight checkers variant for countering the opening strategy of blocking the player's home full with checkers. But then the are other questions come up:
- Where to put those eight?
- Is the strategy changed?

Or, try cloning BG rules in Hyper Backgammon, where capturing can save lives. Should be intersting enough to give a try.

joshi tm: Cloning backgammon isn't my thing.. and I probably won't play it once my games of it are finished, (please don't be insulted!, it's just not my cup of tea!) BUT I was just recently thinking to myself that Cloning Hyper Backgammon might be pretty interesting.

people who also play on dailygammon probably already know the TTT tournaments.
I am not sure if other players are familiar with it ?

summarized its a tournament in which every plays 1 match (of 1 game) against all other players (so if there are 20 players in a tournament each players plays 19 matches, giving a total of 190 matches)
you gain points for every match you play :
1 point for a single win
2 points for a gammon win
3 points for a backgammon win
0.5 points for a loss (single, gammon, or backgammon)

the player with the most points when all matches are finished is the winner of the tournament

this leads to some nice gammon play, players will take more risks to gain a gammon as they will still win 0.5 points if they lose (0.5+2)/2 > 1

what do you all think ? should we have it on here as well ?
(erik from dailygammon is ok if we have it on here as well)

Hrqls: If everyone scores at least half of a point for each game win or lose, then why not score it 0 for a loss, .5 for a win, 1.5 for a gammon and 2.5 for a backgammon (or 0, 1, 3, 5 if you want to use whole numbers). Same, thing, yes?

Also, sadly, the tournament system here is not set up for the type of tournament you describe.

Thad: not sure if its the same as the ratio is different .. but when i tried to make an example proving you wrong i couldnt find any quickly :)

i already talked about it with fencer and i think he likes it and its not that hard to implement.

would anyone like this type of tournament ?

Hrqls: I don't like "TTT". Find a better name.

Fencer: ok boss! ;) hmm .. does anyone have a fitting name for such a tournament ? (it encourages playing for gammon more than in normal tournaments)

GPT ? (gammon play tournament)

Hrqls: What is the point of scoring 0.5 for a loss?

AbigailII: it encourages people to take more risks .. it encourages them to play for a gammon (instead of being content with a single win)

you need to win at least a few gammons to make a chance to win the tournament

Hrqls: Sounds pretty cool! Well, except for the name game, but how about man-to-man tournament?

Also, a loss should cost 0.5 points instead or give nothing...

Could something also be done for points games like Froglet, Go or Cheversi? Winning better (higher difference) causes more points.

Hrqls: I think "gammon tournament" would be good enough.