Pedro Martínez: Because you cannot mention a name here…

Ah, I see. I don't see why the GM didn't just bleep the name out of the post.

If the name was happyjuggler then I suggest that anyone who doubts his skills goes to play him on FIBS where they'll have a good fight on their hands. Note that he also only plays long matches, which is the best way of maximising an already considerable skill advantage.

If it's the unnameable player placed second, who has demonstrated a fantastic ability to copy moves from GnuBg into a BrainKing game page, well, he's been getting away with that for years. Just pretend that you're playing GnuBg when you play him and be suitably pleased and impressed with yourself if you win. ;o)

playBunny: pgt didn't mean happyjuggler.... pgt wrote about hyper backgammon

speachless: Glad to hear that.

I'm not going to pretend to understand this thread, but I will say that I'm glad to hear that I am innocent of whatever I wasn't accused of doing.

:)

happyjuggler0: LOL - it's almost impossible to understand the treat 'cause the initial post of pgt were deleted :-)

speachless: My initial post pointed out that (an un-named player) had played and won 15 of his or her 30 games with the same player. The games were all marked as "private" so it was impossible to confrim that they were genuine games. The game in question was Hyper Backgammon.

happyjuggler0: lol :)

using names is not prohibited per definition (i think) ... but in some cases it could lead to a witch hunt which has happened too many times in the past

sometimes a witch hunt can be justified, but sometimes not and it might be quite subjective or due to lack of all information

therefore a witch hunt is prohibited and the gms will try to prevent it from happening

of course if you have a problem with a specific player there are many ways to handle it :
- contact him directly
- pm a mod / gm / fencer
- use a fellowship
- <and probably some more>

since the brainking.com seems to be more easy going (and more quiet) the last couple of years we are (at least i am) losening control a bit, as long as it doesnt get out of hand

pgt: I think your initial post mentioned the wrong player, so might confuse people if it were still visible.  I think you posted the name of the opponent in those 15 games you mentioned.

Resher: I can confirm that pgt didn't write any name down. But since he mentioned so many details about the user people could figure it out more as easily...

speachless: I don't think I did, but in any event, I suspect it was the same person, so it matters not which name was (not) mentioned! This was not meant to be a witch hunt - just an observation.

Now all i can do is wait.... but for how long?
LUCKY THIRTEEN

furbster: My bet is that one of these pairs will be the ones to make us wait years.

Backgammon (milionovej kluk vs. rod03801) and Backgammon (rod03801 vs. milionovej kluk)

or Backgammon (playBunny vs. Somelaughs2) and Backgammon (Somelaughs2 vs. playBunny)

Only 4 moves made by each slowcoach in the time that it's taken for the absentees to timeout 13 points.

:slow headshake, downcast eyes, grey cloud with rain:

playBunny: speed it up ... off a double at the first move! ;)

playBunny: This is why I will use the Fischer Clock if I ever organize another tournament, or simply remove the slowpokes, or since we have the option now, ban certain individuals from joining tournaments I organize. Slow play might be within the rules, but for me it is not in the spirit of the game unless explicitly stated in advance. I am so leery of joining tournaments for the same reason. I don't know why, I am after all a life member of the site, but I want a conclusion to a game within a shorter time than five years or a decade as this tournament linked below seems to be taking. A few months seems more than long enough for a round. I usually create a game with an initial 7 days, and then make the speed about 3 moves per week with a limit of a week and a half or two weeks. There used to be a fast movers club on this site, but I suppose it is no longer used much.

And if I must rant about something, why is it that someone can shut off the "auto-pass" in a game that I have created? I still don't understand why Fencer likes it like that. It took him many years to even add the "auto-pass" and with much resistance on his part, and then he must have listened to the wimps and whiners that aren't even Backgammon players and made it for them unless, that is, he is one of them and I know he is not a Backgammon player, or at least he wasn't back then when I stopped playing Backgammon over the not having an "auto-pass" at all.

The game creator should have the choice. If the person joining doesn't like it, then that person should not play that game with that person. Simple. Just as if I create a game and only take one color and the other person doesn't like it, then don't play with me or send me a message and let's talk about it. I used to only play single games of Backgammon. In those the "auto-pass" happens regularly, but in match play, it is a lot less frequent as it is set up on this site.

Hrqls: Lol. I'm tempted. ;o)

Walter Montego: Slow play might be within the rules, but for me it is not in the spirit of the game unless explicitly stated in advance.

I couldn't agree more.

When I did the "I like it fast" tourneys, complete with the motorbike icon, I was on the alert for slow people to remove. Somehow I never had to. Maybe something to do with the name? ;o)

The Thirteen tourney that Furbster brought up is an auto-pass tourney; says so right at the bottom of every page. So why do I have to wait for my opponent's clicks when he's stuck on the bar?! :-S

Walter Montego: I was a Brain Rook when the Lucky 13 tournament started, and vowed to renew my rook membership when a decent autopass feature was added. Sadly it hasn't happened yet. I can only play one tournament now, so I resigned all of my games in Lucky 13 second round - didn't feel like having that as my only tournament for the next nine years.

pgt: Have you tried to join another tourney yet? BrainKing may still say that the Lucky 13 is your one and only. You can't divorce it until it divorces you!

furbster: I had one of those a while ago, we agreed on a draw. The system does not recognize that neither party can make moves anymore.
Of course, nobody can force them to make a draw, and old age will decide the game one day.

Is it possible to lose a game from a position like this?
Stíhací Backgammon (Pedro Martínez vs. Flake)

Pedro Martínez: Yes.

Sylfest Strutle: Good. Thanks.

Pedro Martínez: did you resign?

Hrqls: No, but I will resign this one:
Stíhací Backgammon (arpa vs. Pedro Martínez)

Pedro Martínez: really ?why ?

(and how come flake won at that position?)

Hrqls: I am not too skilled at rolling the dice. I just create useless primes. :)

Pedro Martínez: eh?

Hrqls: (and how come flake won at that position?)

He didn't. BrainKing helpfully shows the final score rather the current score (which nobody is ever interested in).

playBunny: ah yes .. i forgot .. its not the first time i fell in that trap :)

Здравейте! Според вас еднаква ли е стратегията на февгата и гюлбарата. Според мен горе-долу да, защото разликата в правилата е доста малка. А коя от 2-те игри ви харесва повече? За мене гюлбарата заради чифтовете, които правят играта по-динамична и интригуваща. Февгата е може би по-тромава.

hi everybody
someone offered me a draw for a game. i'm not sure now what is gonna happen to my bkr if i would accept, cause it shows me i would win OR loose 6 points... do i now loose 6 points if i accept or do i gonna loose them?

Cloning Backgammon (speachless vs. Pappy)

speachless: It is 5 wins match, game No 2.
If you accept the draw, it will be still 1-0 inthis match. Without change in BKR.

aaru: thank you aaru

Hello!

Do you think it is the same strategy for Fevga and Gul bara (Crazy Narde). I think pretty much because the difference in the rules is very small.

And which of the 2 games do you like more? For me Gul bara for pairs that make the game more dynamic and intriguing. Fevga is perhaps more cumbersome.

playBunny: i am not sure wether i like the extra doubles ... it seems to me that it favors luck more than just the normal doubles play?

what do you mean by 'for pairs' ?

Hrqls: I assume Playbunny was translating the other post for us. And I would assume pairs=doubles.

rod03801:
Yes, it was most probably a bad (automatic) translation of my original message.

Орлин: Yes, it was most probably a bad (automatic) translation of my original message.

You're welcome. ;O)

That was actually the corrected translation. ;-) I would have gone further but I wasn't sure whether you meant Crazy Narde or not and hence wasn't sure what to do with "pairs"..

I used to play Crazy Narde at VogClub as well as Narde and Tapa. From what I remember, I found that the craziness - the sequence of doubles to be played or given away - often resulted in a game that came down to whoever was luckiest in the bearoff at the end, no matter how much of a lead the lead player was. I preferred ordinary Narde.

I need some help and didn't know where to go. Please could someone look at this Game ID# 6463275, and tell me the problem ?? It's my move and I have double 6's.

Thanks so much to anyone that can help.

CurrentRiver: You have only one option for moves 24-18,18-12,12-6,6-off

CurrentRiver:


you are referring to this game : Backgammon (WHY - CurrentRiver)

i think you missed your back piece at 24 ... as Vikings says your only possible move is to move that back piece forward

normally ongoing games wont be discusses, but as there is only 1 possible move here i think there is no problem :)

Thanks, I went to my game just a few min. ago and made my move. Guess i'm going blind.I tried to make my move several times yesterday and never did see the one piece.

Have a good Thanksgiving!!!!!

CurrentRiver: Guess i'm going blind.I [..] never did see the one piece.

You're not the first to not see pieces. Still, you can always change the board to a friendlier colour scheme. Oh, hang on, there never was one. :-/

But you can make the board bigger, if that would help :-)

I have taken all off my pieces of the board in a game of Crowded Backgammon. I was awarded 2 game points for a gammon. I am wondering why I did not receive 3 game points for a backgammon instead of a gammon, as my opponent still has two pieces on the bar. Nowhere can I find that having pieces on the bar, whether sent there or from the start of a game, does it say that I do not score a backgammon and get 3 game points.

So what gives?

Walter Montego: it is a known bug. If the pieces on the bar are 'extra' pieces and not pieces you hit earlier, the system does not consider them for backgammon (not even for gammon).
The same happens in Cloning BG, when you hit someone and get an extra piece on your bar - it does not count against backgammon or gammon.

Aganju: I am not familiar with Cloning Backgammon, but it sounds like it is a completely different kind of Backgammon. Crowded Backgammon is supposed to be exactly as regular Backgammon except for the extra pieces added to the game.

So it is a bug. It should be a simple fix. So what's the deal Fencer?

Walter Montego: both games have in common that there can be pieces on the bar that you don't have to insert immediately, but can whenever you want. Those are the ones that have the bug.

Walter Montego: oh, and Fencer has mostly stopped caring about issues and bugs (and wishes) on this site. He might fix it if he feels in the mood, but chances are small. A lot of people have already discussed that and attacked him for it, but well, that is his decision, and this site is not a priority for him.