AlliumCepa:  Well, not really, as a person wishing to resign could simply allow his match to time out.  The current situation actually involves timeouts (presumably unintentional) and not resignations.  See the link below (player #10)

Unrated Triple Gammon

look it guys .. I'm sorry I timed out.. it wasn't intentional... I just got busy with other aspects of life.... I was shocked when I finally logged on and found out i timed out in that many games... I don't use the auto vacation day function in order to use them when i really need them...

Ivaylo: lovelysharon's unfortunate timeouts have awarded several players with a backgammon. That 5 points is a considerable advantage to the subset of players who got it. In contrast, just_for_fun timed out in all his matches and everyone got 5 points - but no advantage.

General note: The fact that I and Alan are the only ones lost to lovelysharon is immaterial. (well done, Sharon, dammit! ) This isn't a personal complaint but a concern for the format. If could affect a prize tourney and that won't do any good.

lovelysharon: No worries, me lovely. These things happen and it's not a question of blaming. And certainly I'd cut off my paws before even considering that you'd do something like this deliberately.

But it is a problem with the format that it's vulnerable to upsets of this nature. Your busyness has brought the matter to light, that's all. It's going to be a concern in future Triple until it's addressed.

And it's a definite problem. In a TTT or Triple, coming second, third, etc, does mean something (for all but the most competitive of players). Resignations and timeouts can thus change the outcome for many of the players in the tourney, not just who wins.

playBunny:
People who time out against only some players is a problem in TTT. However, it's also a problem in all other games, even though the "award" for winning a game is less (ie always the same). So, shouldn't the discussion be more golbal, since the problem affects every game.

I think it's impossible to solve to everyones satisfaction. Only way would be to make one timeout spread and let the player lose all his/her games, and that's a bad, but maybe fair, solution.

I play to win, but most important is still the challenges and all the things I learn. I will keep playing TTT and other games, and enjoy it. Sometimes I will get "lucky" and get an easy win, sometimes unlucky and my "worst" competitor will. Both ways, I'll have a great time! Stop woory, be happy!

Pason69: One thing that would hlep is to allow timed-out games to be restarted. Of course the opponent would have to agree to it. Other sites work similarly.

Another thing that might hlep is to use the Fischer clock.

Thad: Fischer clock is more apt to cause more time outs... that is the reason I no longer join those tournaments..

Pason69: shouldn't the discussion be more golbal, since the [timeout/resign] problem affects every game.

It's much more of a problem in a Triple than in ordinary round-robins because of the special scoring. In a standard round-robin a timeout in a match is a single match. That's not good but a single resignation or timeout in a Triple tourney is worth 5 ordinary matches. If you had experience of the real thing (ie. TTTs) then you'd know that that's major.

Only way would be to make one timeout spread and let the player lose all his/her games

.. which is what nabla said: "he or she automatically forfeits all games with maximal scores, even the already finished ones" .. which is what I posted in the first place as the official rule: "the TTT rules remove a player who ... they and all their games are no longer part of the tournament (whether that's total removal or just not contributing to the scoring)", except that the scored outcome is zero rather than maximum. But the player does get to play the remaining matches. They are not forfeited, only the score.

Stop woory, be happy!

Lol. There's no need for you to worry about my happiness. I play TTTs at DailyGammon and they work well for the "just for fun" players and also the "competitive for fun" players. I'll continue to enjoy those. My aim here was to report the problem and explain it in sufficient detail that people can begin to understand it. That's done as far as I'm concerned.

lovelysharon: Depends on the settings. If it were set for something like 7/0/30, you'd have up to two months to complete the game. Make it longer by adding to the bonus.

Fencer: would it be possible to change triple gammon tournaments so that if a person times out that all his/her games in that tournament wont count for the tournament outcome ? (for example by setting all the scores of his/her games in that tournament to n/a ?)

would it be possible to also disable the resign button in triple gammon tournaments ? ;)

Hrqls: If you do all that, you should get rid of the 'Offer Draw' button too.

Of course I think that should be removed from all backgammon games (and some other games too).

Can anyone explain why I only got the move of one die here:
Backgammon (Thad vs. kie19)

Thad: "Unknown bug" is the best explanation I could think of.

Thad: That's definitely bizarre.

7 Point Match with Cube - for 12 players 2100+

Andersp: You were probable playing better then they were, so for some - they consider that cheating.... but kind of looks like you resigned the game after that point - so apparently by calling you a cheater, it got him the game win.

... That is one strategy to win that some take - get into your opponents head.

coan.net: I won the first part/game...then i resigned the rest, dont play players who call me cheater and nazi...ive sent the game to Fencer

Andersp: I don't say I speak to Fencer often - but what I see is someone who talked his way into a win by getting you to resign. Did they cross the line? Well I'll let Fencer decide that - but if some people know they can get an easy win by just pushing a few buttons, they will.

Again, not saying that is the right thing to do - but if someone does that to me, I just simply put them on ignore and continue to play my game in piece.

Andersp: No, BKR is not that important to me - but I would not let someone talk me into giving them a free win.

Andersp: Well I don't disagree with you - tougher stance on private chat would be nice, but that is not my call - so only thing I can do is give advise on what I would do - and the "Blocked users" lists will block everything that user will say to you again... if you choose to use it.

Andersp: maybe he felt cheated because of the way that stairs games can start without accepting the challenge before the timer starts since he timed out on the first one. just a thought

Vikings: I didnt challenge him, he challenged me

Andersp: well then it's obvious,.... you accepted!

Vikings: I always accept a challenge...especially from 2250 players and higher LOL

Andersp: You rolled 1-1, 5-5, 5-5 and 2-2 in a row and later 1-1 and 3-3. Anyone who knows the "Law" of Averages knows that to have such doubles can only mean that you're cheating. Either you're doing better sacrifices to the Dice Gods (which is unfair) or you've got Fencer in your pocket or you've got a hacker to make BrainKing roll whatever you like.

Oh hang on .... HE was the one with all those doubles .. and he still didn't win.

I'm a backgammon addict. If anyone would like to play, please feel free to send an invite.

http://brainking.com/en/Ratings?tp=23&bms=0


http://brainking.com/en/BKRGraph?df=1&mf=8&yf=2007&dt=25&mt=8&yt=2007&submit=Submit&u=43955&tp=23


Finished: http://brainking.com/en/Profile?op=53326&u=43955&p=1


Yet to come: Iana Florin

playBunny: well spotted. Let's get rid of this user shall we?

playBunny: Best thing to do is PM the information directly to Fencer since he may not read all the public message boards - or the message gets buried before he read it - since there is nothing any user can do - only Fencer.

And what an intelligent choice of name for the other account.

fakar10: That's partly why I posted it here. It's so blatant that it's almost amusing.

He was involved in a previous occurence. I guess it's an irresistible game to him.

There are certain situations in which autopass is not appropriate even though a player will want to pass 999 out of 1000 times.  In particular, when a player is on the bar and has the opportunity to double, the theoretical possibility of a double means that the server must give him that opportunity even though he will almost never exercise it.

At present we have two choices in this situation -- "Roll dice" and "Offer double".  If the double were not available, the server would roll the dice itself and determine whether autopass should apply.  Since the double is available, however, the player must click on "Roll dice" and then submit.

Would it be difficult to add a "Pass double" button and program the server to treat this as a situation in which no double is available?  In other words, after a player clicked "Pass double", the server would roll the dice internally, and if no move was possible, immediately pass the game back to the player's opponent.

I know the second click is not a big deal, but it would improve the smooth operation of the game interface to eliminate it when it is not necessary. 

alanback: That's a brilliant idea, my friend !

alanback: Maybe it would be a better idea just to have in the settings page an AutoPass-when-all-you-can-do-is-double-checkbox.

joshi tm:  Well, I was tempted to suggest that, but I don't think autopass is appropriate where the player has a perfectly legal non-pass action available to him.  I think it's just the price we pay for the cube.

Andersp:  Thanks, friend :-)

Andersp:  Oops, sorry, fixed now!

joshi tm: I made a similar suggestion about a year ago. Rather than a "permanent setting", I suggested a check box on the specific game which allowed something like "ignore doubles at this time, and autopass until I am in a position to actually move a piece."

I'll add my support to this idea.

pgt:  I think I would support pgt's suggestion too, though there would be a small chance that one might miss a desirable double that way.