Walter: I don't agree that the flaw is in the name of the game.

BrainKing Backgammon is standard 1-point Backgammon.
Here's the logic behind that statement.

1] If the ability to make the move in question were part of BrainKing Backgammon then it would be a feature of the game.
True or false.

2] If the move was a feature then the server wouldn't need to protect against it.
True or false.

3] The fact that the server doesn't protect against it has been acknowledged as a bug.
This is undeniable.

4] As the ability to make this move is an artefact of a bug then it's not a feature.
True or false.

5] If it's not a feature and it's due to a bug, then the move is illegal.
True or false.

6] If the move is illegal then BK Backgammon is standard 1-point Backgammon, but with a flaw in the implementation.
True or false.

7] If BK Backgammon is standard 1-point Backgammon then making the illegal move that the server fails to prevent is against the rules.
True or false.

For me it's True all the way down and I don't know how you can see it any other way; perhaps you can show me what's wrong or missing.

playBunny: One way to resolve this would be to check if the offended player's next dice throw would have a direct impact, i.e. hit the offending player's men - if not, maybe there was no harm done anyway...

Andersp: How wrong can you be? On the scale of 0..100 you're at 100.

"Tiikeri is absolutely no cheater"
That's your opinion. Mine is the opposite except that I don't go for dramatic language like "absolutely". In my opinion she is a cheat - she openly admitted that she knowingly made an illegal move, thought that "everyone would do it" and said that it was unfair but so what. Those points spell cheat and unsporting in my book.

she is playing within the rules
No, she is not. She made an illegal move which is against the Brainking rules. Please, feel free to show me the bit where it says you can use just a single dice if it suits you. Show me your proof. And see my post to Walter for the logic of my own assertion.

but to ask her for a draw
I didn't ask her for a draw. I didn't ask her to resign. I told her that the situation was a critical point in our playing relationship and left it for her to decide what to do. Although she lacked my verbosity, we exchanged messages for over a week. During that time I did spell out a whole range of options, including draw, resign, do nothing, tell me to get stuffed... but I did not ask her to do any one of them specifically. I told her that the playing relationship was at stake here and that my action depended on what attitude she showed. She said that she wanted to continue playing with me but her lack of positive action contradicted her words, and I let her and the games go.

and sit
Lol. Anders, you missed a wonderful chance to accuse me of standing - on a soapbox!

and complain about her wins
I'm doing no such thing. Her wins against me in prior matches were an indication of how she should feel no need to cheat in order to beat me - she was doing very well with good play and luck. Her "wins" in the "cheat" match and another match that I suspended at the same time weren't wins at all. I let those games time out and, as I said, the losses are trivial compared to the loss of an opponent who, if she had chosen to be sporting about the sitution that her choice of move created, could still be beating me today.

... complain on a discussionboard is to be a VERY BAD LOSER
Yes. I am a bad loser. I've lost respect for a player and I've lost an opponent and I don't like it one bit. I'm angry and disappointed that she preferred to take the games and lose the partnership.

But although I'm saying "Yes" there, I don't think that's the meaning you were implying. I can point you to many players, mostly at Vog but here as well, where my opponent has been surprised by how magnanimous I can be in defeat. Many a lost match has found my opponent congratulated for playing well, with smiles and thank yous, and declarations of how good a fight it was or what an interesting game it was.

No, Anders, I am VERY GOOD LOSER. In fact I feel at times that I am a poor winner because if I beat someone too often I start to think that they won't be enjoying playing me so much. That takes a significant edge off my own enjoyment, and can sometimes affect my judgement too.

That's not typical behaviour for a competitive player, many of whom are silent or even leave the table abruptly (Vog is a realtime site), but it is typical for one who values sportsmanship and relationship.

Your score: 0 / 100.

But thank you for the opportunity to express my values.

pgt: Yes, Walter's posts are always worth reading, even if I may not agree. :-)

It surprised me greatly when I did a search of this board and found that you had pointed this bug out in 2003! It's not a trivial piece of code to add to the Backgammon server, but neither is it so daunting that it should take years. If the problem occurred once in a blue moon then I would not be concerned but this bug has shown itself in 5 of my 260 games (at the last occurence) - 2 in Backgammon and 3 in Hypergammon - which, at 2%, is too frequent for comfort.

I share your diappointmebnt that Fencer regards this matter as unimportant.

Walter: Lol. Thank you for that point re. Pedro. And I agree with your sentiments in that paragraph.

The first person to use this tactic against me was Wayney. That matter was solved by him being booted from BrainKing for the more serious rating-fix cheating and since him I've been alerted to the possibility of similar. I do play people hoping that they share my attitude but I don't expect it. I'll challenge anyone who makes an illegal move and I'll respond according to the attitude that is shown at that point. Inadvertent bad moves are acceptable - (even from someone who knows the rule, like BBW, because he is a wolf with a lot of bunnies t-, er, games to chew on, and may sometimes swallow a bone whole without realising that he should have crunched it first) - provided that the situation can be resolved with respect and sportingness. In practice that means a draw or a resignation, or a very persuasive reason to continue the game as is. It's how the ploayer responds to the situation that shows their mettle. The move and the game are simply the context in which this gets explored.

Walter Montego: As usual, Walter has made another well considered and valuable contribution. But it is a real pity that this subject has cropped up yet again, as it has at least half a dozen times in the past couple of years. I offered to try and fix the problem a couple of years ago if Mr Fencer would send me the source code, but he assured me it would be fixed "soon". I think "soon" has now well and truly passed, and that there has been sufficient discussion on this board to elevate correcting this "bug" to the top of the list. If that is not possible, then my offer still stands, or alternatively Walter's suggestion of renaming Backgammon should be seriously considered.

playBunny: You forgot in rebutting Pedro about copying that writing about what someone has written is not the same thing as copying what someone has written. I think I will change my profile to reflect this because I believe that anything that someone sends me is fair game for public dissemination unless I have expressly asked for the information and have agreed in advance that I would hold it in secret. Unsolicitated writing is not something that I will grant special privilege to even if the writer asks for it in the message. This being said, I avoid repeating what others say unless it has some baring on the conversation.

The flaw rests with the site and it's naming of the game we play here "Backgammon". This site has a game very similiar to Backgammon, but it is not Backgammon. As I've said, I will move as the site allows. My opponents are welcome to too. I think Fencer should make the game called Backgammon on this site play as Backgammon is commonly played, or the name of the game should be changed to reflect the fact that it isn't regular Backgammon. This is done with other games here, such as Pente. If the game is going to be left as it is, then Fencer should address the moving of the men as they relate to the dice to how the game is played on this site. If it really is a bug as lots of people say that it is, then it really should be fixed as soon as possible. This conversation about the forced use of the dice has come up too many times to be thought of as a trivial problem and a lot of Backgammon enthusiasts are greatly troubled by this.

You, playBunny, made a false assumption about your opponent in assuming that she held the same ideals as you do when it comes to playing a game called Backgammon. You were playing a different game than what the game on this site is. I would agree with you that she was cheating if the both of you said you were going to play by the "forced to use the dice" rules of regular Backgammon and the game was a side game between the two of you. Otherwise, she moved as allowed, bug or no bug, and you're just going to have accept it or get Fencer to fix the problem with this game. If it was regular Chess instead of Backgammon and someone castled through check, I am sure the "bug" would be fixed with an alacrity that'd make your head spin. So why isn't this use of the dice problem fixed? I played Janus Chess on this site using Extinction Chess rules. I made moves that would have lost the game had it been regular Janus Chess, but my opponent resigned when two of his pieces became extinct. It was an agreement between us. Now, had he continued on with the game I would have considered it cheating, because those weren't the rules we agreed to play by. We discussed it ahead of time and we played by our agreement. To do otherwise would have led to a situation similar to yours.

How about, "Any use of Dice Allowed Backgammon" ?

BBW You're allowed a "My personal feeling:" but I'm not? I'm having no debate, just declaring someone a cheat. End of topic on my side (well, maybe, lol. It depends what anyone else says).

Pedro Martínez: So sue me Pedro. AGAIN. When was the first time, by the way? ;-p And why are YOU telling me or anyone; are you the UA guidelines wathcher? And how come you're assuming that permission hasn't be granted? And if someone is a cheat should they have the same rights as others? And what's it to you anyway? You may answer any or all of these questions but I'm not particularly interested - except, in the interest of accuracy, that bold question.

playBunny: Is there any reason to have this debate again?

playBunny: I would like to remind you AGAIN that copying and pasting what somebody else told you in a game or via PM onto a public board is in breach with the User Agreement.

BIG BAD WOLF: My position on it, apart from it being against the understood Backgammon rules, is that it occurs because of a bug and is therefore an illegal move in BrainKing terms - otherwise it wouldn't be a bug.

Inadvertantly making an illegal move is one thing, but I say that a person who makes such a move deliberately is a cheat. Furthermore, if challenged, they should either draw or resign the game.

The example shown by Marfitalu shows a game between myself and Tiikeri. She's a very good player, in the Top 10, and ahead of me in our matches together, yet she chose to make the illegal move so that she could stay out of trouble.

When I pointed it out to her she said "If the computer let me to do that, I think it's OK. I know that this move was illegal, but everybody else does that, so would I. Sometimes that isn't so fair :)"

In fact not everyone does that and a number of top players have stated that they will not take advantage of the bug, giving priority to good sportsmanship rather than a cheap win.

She and I had an exchange of messages about it over the next week and the outcome was that she preferred to stick with her illegal move. She wasn't sporting enough to suggest a draw, let alone resign as a gesture of goodwill.

It was more important to her that she win that game than that she try and mend the break in our playing relationship, ever though she claimed to enjoy playing me and wanted us to continue. What she wanted was for me to accept her cheating and pretend that it was okay. In the end I let my games with her timeout and I will not play her again unless forced to in a tournament.

I don't miss the points lost which I will forget and make up for in due course, but I do miss the opponent whose attitude I no longer respect. That will not be forgotten so readily.

Marfitalu: Just search back - that has been debated many times before here.

It is of course against the "official" backgammon rules that you should move with both dice if possible.

But it is a known problem on BrainKing that it is allowed - so some have said since it is allowed, it is OK to do on here. Other say that even if it is allowed, to be true to backgammon - you sould not do this.

Which is correct? Well like I said, read back and check out the debate... both sides are correct in a way. :-)

My personal feeling: Cheating? No, I would not call it cheating - unsportting - possible. But then again, you have to assume that the person was paying attention and knew there was another move to make. I've done the 1 move thing without even noticing until after it was pointed out to me. When I'm playing quickly, I spend about 10 seconds looking at each board as I move... so it is an easy thing to not notice.

WhiteTower: Sort of and more. One of the Crazy Narde rules is that when a man enters the home table it is stuck on the point on which it lands (so placing the men there must be done carefully) and, because of that, bearing off requires the exact number. As a result of this you can be trailing by 120 pips with your opponent down to just a few men and catch up and beat them. Because you get every dice number that the opponent can't use, that 120 pips goes down very quickly. Your opponent can get left standing despite having had what in normal bg would be an undeniably winning position. For the opponent a lot of hard work and luck can go down the toilet in the bearoff phase. Very Grrrr! ;-)

furbster: It's the windfall of dice, isn't it? :)

I love crazy narde, and hate narde lol tis quite strange!!

playBunny: That's Russian Backgammon, with slight modifications to the rules of Fevga (or was Fevga like Narde with slight modifications...?) Anyway, watch those URLs, buddy! :)

Walter: It can be played for free at VogClub where it's called Narde (Fuega). It's definitely a different way of thinking.

There's another version called Crazy Narde (Gul Bara) in which a double gives you not only the 4 dice values but also every double higher. Rolling a 1-1 can thus give you 84 pips to play with, lol. But in practice you can't use them all and what you don't use your opponent gets. Crazy indeed.

WhiteTower; Thanks. Link fixed.

WhiteTower: I'd certainly give the game a try. Thanks for the link. Going the same direction and without hits. It'd take an adjustment of thinking, that's for sure.

Pythagoras: Let's say it plays quite well for its size :) But yes, it wouldn't win any World Championships...

I should unfortunatelly add "with an awful playing strength AI opponnent"..........

A Greek student maintains the following page with a nice Java applet which you can use to play against his implementation of an average playing strength AI opponnent:

http://cgi.di.uoa.gr/~ea99509/tavli.html

No! This is the 5%

The main reason is that while at Backgammon there is the "home board", the "opponent's home board" and the rest board and 2 general different strategies, the one we are behind in race and the other ahead, in Fevga there are 4 different boards that we have to combine the strategies considering all these 4 boards each time, we also have many different strategies that also change on every stage on the game........

I would go as far as saying both plakoto and fevga are more strategic games than "regular" backgammon.I live in hope that both come to this site.

Pythagoras: Probably due to the diametrical start and the no-hitting feature.

The first time anyone will plat it would feel a little lost in the desert. But after he get the feeling he would put it on his favourite games.....

Pythagoras: The truth is in the playing, as everyone who plays it for the first time knows all too well :)

Here........

I can guarantee that you will not have a good impression when you read the rules and you will say that it's a bit complicated, but the truth is on the other side........

Walter Montego:

Here.

WhiteTower: Where can I see the rules of the Fevga version?

Pythagoras:

Fevga: Exactly.

Plakoto: Also quite strategic, although not at the level of Fevga.

Portes = the same Backgammon it is here on Brainking with the addition of having gammons and backgammons.

Plaloto = A nice game that i yet find a bit boring.....

Fevga = One of the most interesting games, that requires a very deep strategical play, which is much harder to play it correctly.......Very fun to play also. I suggested the addition of Fevga, and i believe that if this game spreads in the world (USA?) it would start replacing Backgammon, not to take its place but to stand along with it in the top.....

Fevga = a must for Brainking!

So, Fencer, are there any news on the possible introduction of the "Greek three-game series" that some people know as Tavli? For the record, Greeks refer to the whole genre as Tavli, and have three separate names for the variants, which they play in the following order up to 3-, 5- or, most frequently, 7-point matches:

- Portes (=Doors, no-doubling Backgammon)
- Plakoto (=Slab-covered)
- Fevga (=Go Away, similar to Russian Backgammon)

that too.. :-)

rod03801: WhiteTower can't see the graph because he's a Pawn.

WhiteTower: It's a graph showing George's plummet in the backgammon ratings. From 2556 to 1869 and dropping in just a few days. 'E's been an' gorn an' legged it.

Only paying members can see the graphs.

This one should work for you

It is best to make your imbedded links the shortened version. BBW can explain it better, but there is a reason that using the full address causes some people to go to the main page instead.

/game/BKRGraph?u=9175&tp=23

playBunny: Ummm your link redirects to my Main page :(

Dramatic!

I'm concerned. I hope he's doing better than his games. :-(

WhiteTower: It doesn't sound like a whine to me. Slow players in fast tournaments are being inconsiderate. I'm compiling a list of such players. If I ever get to be director of speed tournaments, I will be excluding them.

So there is this tournament, declared specifically for fast players. What happens is that one player now holds up the whole tournament for days using the automatic vacation feature without telling (me at least) anything about the absence. Now, I know that according to the rules this user is fully entitled to this, but isn't there some kind of etiquette regarding these cases?...

Sorry if it sounds a bit like a whine...

Walter Montego: Lol. I think the Dice Guy might do well to take out a franchise on these dice. If he's wily he might even repackage them and flog them at other sites. ;-) Although I think there are players at every site who believe that these dice must already be available - to their opponents.

re: Rating formula ... Here, here!

Walter Montego: Well put.

[points microphone to Fencer]

Any comments, Mr Rachunek?

:)

WhiteTower: The rating system that we use here might work OK for games without any luck in them like Chess or Checkers, but it doesn't seem like a good system for single game matches of Backgammon. I remember a few weeks back a discussion about the ratings for the various games. I would like a ratings system to match each game's characteristics instead using the blanket approach and giving us one that's main effect is to discourage people from playing games that have luck in them with someone that is rated far below them. This isn't a problem in Chess since someone ranked far below has almost no chance of winning the game. In Backgammon even I might beat the world's champion of Backgammon just because I get lucky. I'd never stand a chance against any Chess master, let alone the world's champion. I think the rating should reflect this reality.

grenv: Not very nice... I will be more careful.

WhiteTower: it's because your opponent's rating is so far behind yours. unrated players actually have a hidden rating. If it's their first game I believe it's 1300.

Your expected BKR change: win: 2168 (0), draw: 2160 (-8), loss: 2152 (-16)

Ummm, so I have to win in order to avoid losing points... anyone else thinks this doesn't make sense?... Or doesn't it have to do with the unrated status?

playBunny: Does the dice guy know about these special dice? You might put him out of business. :)

WhiteTower: Ahah. It was that invisble word that has become clear. "Has the exact calculation of dice in backgammon games here been ever discussed?" So now I know that you don't want to know about GnuBg's dice generation choices, for instance. ;-)

Here? All I know is that I've reached #2 in the ratings because I bought the special $150 BrainKing "Roll-'em-as-you-want-'em" Dice! Lolol.

[For those, ie. not you WT ;-), who don't understand my sense of humour - This is a joke. It's funny and false, it's not serious or true. There are no "special $150 dice" as far as I know and nor would I use them and blah , blah ... Jeez, the lengths you have to take to avoid some people misunderstanding... As if they're only $150!!]

playBunny: OK, lemme make it more specific: at DailyGammon, they have a long FAQ entry devoted to how the dice is calculated, INCLUDING the Perl script that does the hard work. Here, nuffink! I mean, it's not like a trade secret or summin', is it?

WhiteTower: Care to be more specific?

Vikings: Care to be more specific?

Lol