KotDB: One reasonable measure of overall strength might be average BKR across the five games. I doubt you'll find anyone who can top alanback's 2160.

And what if someone has not played 3 variants for example? We will put 0 to calculate his mean BKR value? So i don't think this is a reasonable way.....
And to measure what...? Overall strength? How do you define overall strength......?

alanback: Leaving on top? Well yes if you define top as the top 5. But no, if you define it to be number 1. If you define it as the best overall with statistics on Brainking then probably yes.....
If you define it generally then no, we don't know for sure.....

You said: "I have been in the #1 spot in most of them at one time or another in the past"
The point is: If you start reminiscing the past for successes then you are already history!

Anyway it's a shame you will leave, but oh well. You know better:-) Do you intend to return someday.....?

alanback: I'm presently in the top 5 in all 5 positive gammon games, and there is nobody who is ahead of me in two of them. Anyone else have a better claim?

I have one: I claim that there is a number of years from now that both of us will would not be able to make any more claims....
While many can question your claim nobody can do the same with mine....

Hrqls: .
.
.
They don't double their effectiveness! Imagine they double and the opponent accepts and they lose because of their inferiority at the checker play. So they have a double loss.....

Yes cube is too important, but i would not put its importance higher than that of checker play! Ask a simple question: Can someone that doesn't know to play a good checker play, have any possibilities to win anything good, even if he knows well when to double and when not?
The question of who has the advantage, someone with better cube play but inferior checker play against someone, is simply not well defined....
Anyway a general idea is: Checker play + Cube play are impartible! No one can go to the success room if he is good only to one of these....Both are needed.....

SafariGal: .
.
.
That is exactly the same with probability of >50% for a win.

alanback: Actually the "you should always win" should mean a >50% probabllity for a win.....
Although when people speak about "he should win now, it's clear!" they probably mean something like: "The probability to win is >70-80% "

pentejr:.
.
.
Doubling when on the bar is not 99.98% stupid.
Probably yes, i gave that number more or less randomly and i was wrong....But still the situations you described are more rare to happen altough not 0.02% as i've said.

grenv:
If your 2 home pieces are on positions 1,2 then the opponent has about 70% to lose.
If your 2 home pieces are on positions 5,4 then the opponent has about 62% to lose.

grenv: .
.
.
You speak about cost. I wonder what is the cost of implementing such a feature
I consider it clearly as you say, as a Fencer's choice. Perhaps i'm wrong and there is a big cost for implementing this feature, but i just can't find any reason to have a big cost for that. Not even a small cost....

SafariGal: .
.
.
maybe with the vast influx of money with black rook membership fencer will be able to implement such a feature. It seems a lot of people are showing faith in fencer by signing up the black rook membership so it follows that he would return the favour and offer auto pass. Fair is fair
I don't see how the increase of black rooks memberships can make Fencer to think more seriously to implement this!?!?!
Also from your words i may imply that you think there is a need for more black rooks to register in order Fencer to make improvements to some features other members ask. So simple(white) Rooks or Knights memberships aren't enough and they don't have the right(or they have it but they will be ignored since they are not black Rooks) too ask things as long as they remain non-black Rooks?


I don't think black Rooks have anything to do with what will be implement here.....

grenv: .
.
.
Yeah! Simple, easy(to implement) and elegant!
As also a general option of "Autopass all games until I can move a checker."

Yes there is this option for both players to use the cube since this is a "cubed" game.

People here (i think) speak about auto-pass in non-cube games. And players would have this as AN OPTION.
But an even more advanced feature could be auto-pass in cube games only if the player wants this. Since to double on such situation is at 99.98% of the cases, stupid. Personally i would sacrifice the rest of the cases, where a double when you can't move isn't stupid and lose the right to double in this 0.02% for the sake of all the time i gained without having to wait at the bar.
I guess i wasn't clear in what i meant about this advanced feature and when this occurs but it doesn't matter. The important thing is auto-pass in games where the cube can't be used.

.
.
.
Hehe, yes it's very exciting!!!!!
The link is a bit wrong as you entered a br
Correct link

Yes if a gammon is awarded then why not a backgammon too?

Marfitalu:
I don't know. Seems logical that you should earn 6 points but you only earned 2. Seems like a bug to me....

playBunny: Czuch: "Is it against the rules here to have a program assess a situation to help determine the probability to get a gammon or if a double should be offered?"

For sure. You should only analyse a chequer play or cube decision, after you've made it. Same with discussing it here. "

No! About the first case: You should NOT analyse a chequer play or cube decision, after you've made it.

Why? Because you may have an exact position later against another opponent or the same one! So you would gain inappropriate knowledge that comes from a computer! Cheating!
Also you should wait all games here to finish before analysing with a computer anything! Why? Because you may have a position you analysed so you will gain that knowledge and play according to computer's analysis.....
So in short: We should never use computer for analysing anything until we stop playing here.....

In the second case: "Same with discussing it here."
Again another person may meet the exact position with what you had and shown with your analysis so he would take advantage of it. So no more analysis here until all games finish. In 15-20 years i guess.....

Pedro Martínez: Even without looking the games a score of 20 won games out of 20 games played, in a game of luck like Backgammon and ESPECIALLY in a game of much luck like Hypergammon, is something no one can achieve! Only if his opponents were random-movers. But i guess they were human species with a kind of intelligence.

Assume that someone is very skillful at Hypergammon. That would give him let's say a 58% advantage over his opponents to win a game since at Hypergammon even a huge skill difference is rejected by the huge luck factor in this game.
Then in order to win both 20 games the probability of that is 0,0019% or 1 to 54000.

Also if you see some of his games you can obviously see stupid play from his opponents.....

Alsi i wonder why he plays with an ix almost every time.....?

grenv: The concern over "chatting" is ridiculous.

Yeah!!!!!!!!
The first 2 reasons of Fencer are very easily rejected by the simple way of making auto-pass an extra option and the default the current way. So less-experienced users won't be confused at all.....!
The 3rd is the ridiculous we agreed....LOL!

Czuch Chuckers: Yes good reason to chat and see the move that auto-passes, but why not make it an option? At least an option.....It would speed up the game considerably and i think many would use it.....

About seeing what was the starting double. It is completely pointless! I can't find any reason i want to see which was the starting double that happened and led to a re-roll by the system for having a non-double.....
Tell me a reason....

Czuch Chuckers:Then the dice-generator-system of Brainking, chooses again 2 numbers until they are different.....We don't see all that....

Grrr i thought it was damn obvious. Suppose you want to set up a position with GNUBG to play from it. And then would be your turn to play, etc....
So you set up a position with the dice on GNUBG's board and finish editing. So now i ask if you know 2 ways of doing that.....? I know one but i hate this way so i thought you might know any better way.....

playBunny: Without having time to read the conversation here do you know 2 ways of forcing GNUBG to play after you set up a position with GNUBG to play?

7 games very well commented by 2 expert players!

Download BGBlitz
Then even if you do not buy it, you can use it to show some very good tests you can download on the same page and use it with BGBlitz. They contain analysis and often annotations for each move and why it's bad/good to play etc....
Note that BGBlitz 1.9.5 is a top program at the level of GNUBG 0.14 but i think GNUBG is a little better....


What is the best way to become better at Backgammon?

4th) Stop fearing to leave a checker alone! :-)

3d) Learn the opening rolls and their main replies....

2nd) Study games and positions like the above i gave....Not too hard, not too lazy. Don't try in any case to memorize the position so you would have something to compare! Never! Just try to understand the reasons why each move is better or not....

1st) Play hundrends of games against Jellyfish 3.5, or Snowie 4.0 or later, or GNUBG 0.14, or BGBlitz 1.9 or later. But while playing these games you should open your brain and accept the knowledge you gain and learn from the games.

grenv: I think I made a mistake, but want to be clear:
After the opponent plays 4-2 (which has to be 8/4, 6/4 or it's a mistake) then I roll a 2-2, I'm playing 24/20, 6/4(2).

Since you cleared it up, i have the impression that you would NOT play the awful 24/20 6-4(2) after a 42 of your opponent so you retract your statement i have quoted above.....
After a 42 of our opponent, if we have 22 then we should play 24-22(2) 6-4(2) or 6-4(2) 13-11(2)....

playBunny: Much better.....

Playbunny:.
.
.
I can't find a way that there could be a blot on 5 in the starting board! Perhaps a forgotten one from the previous game.....?

KotDB: .
.
.
Correct although here in Greece we sometimes play it with the rule: "The winner of the starting roll doesn't use the rolls occured to determine the starting player, but rolls again!"
So we have doubles as well. And actually i prefer that games although some of my opponents don't like this and play without doubles....

Hrqls:
D-6: Yep clear.....
D-5: Clear again....
D-4: Your prefered play is the one i play too in most cases....
D-3: Many things here. It depends on the mood:-) In most cases: 6-3(2) 24-21(2) or 6-3(2) 13-10(2). I used to play 13-8(2) long ago but i found it to be inferior....
D-2: 2 choices for me: I play regularly 6-4(2) 24-22 13-11 but when i don't feel confident(55 is devastating but if you escape you are OK!) go to the superior 6-4(2) 13-11(2)....
D-1: This is clear.....

playBunny: I thought I had heard that computer analysis had ressurected the 2-point opener.
Aye, I'd gained that impression as well and it's been my preferred move for some time now. There's always the possibility of operator error, lol.

64 with making 2-point is the best choice in a gammon-go situation. That means when you hunt a gammon....
But it's a bit inferior in my opinion in general games' situations.....See here for some 2-ply rollouts!

playBunny: Gammons are part of chequer play while I'm used to having the cube as a separate deal. I wouldn't say that playing for gammon means a significant difference strategy (though, of course it depends on what makes for significance).

Oh no.....You've disappointed me! But hopefully you corrected your mistake at the last moment....
Of course and game play is very different when someone plays for a Gammon. Even from the start. Trying to close his home board from the beginning, slotting like a maniac(well the maniac goes in desperate situations), playing very aggresively, bringing builders targeting at the home board, double hitting in almost every chance, not paying big attention to splitting, etc.
For example when you are going for a gammon and the start play is 64 then you just make the 2 point! This would be correct in this situation. 43,32 starting rolls call for bringing 2 builders from 13. Even when the opponent starts with 43 and plays both from his 24-point, and then you have 32 for example, a double hit is probably the best move in a go-gammon situation....Also 21 with slotting, although this is considered superior in no gammon-go situations too, 51 with slotting, etc.....

alanback:
I don't think there is a difference, is there? There is a difference for games where draws are possible. If draws were possible, then each player would earn half a point toward the 10 point goal in a draw, but draws would not count for anything in a 10 wins match.

But draws in Brainking Backgammon are possible.....
So a 10 points match is different from a 10 wins match....

Imagine the following:

Situation-1
----------------------
----------
At a 10 points match:
Player-1 = 18 draws + 1 win
Player-2 = 18 draws
Player-1 wins!
----------------------
At a 10 wins match:
Player-1 = 18 draws + 1 win
Player-2 = 18 draws
Nobody wins yet! Score is just 1-0 for player-1. Player-1 has to win 9 more games in order to win, while Player-2 has to win 10 games....
--------------------------------

Si

tuation-2
--------------------------------
At a 10 points match:
Player-1 = 2 draws + 9 wins
Player-2 = 2 draws + 5 wins
Player-1 wins by 10-6!
----------------------
At a 10 wins match:
Player-1 = 2 draws + 9 wins
Player-2 = 2 draws + 5 wins
Nobody wins yet! Score is 9-5 for player-1. Player-1 has to win 1 more game in order to win, while Player-2 has to win 5 games....
--------------------------------

So there is a difference.
What i am missing.....?

I can assure you that if we play together 30 games and finish them today, there is no chance you or i will beat the other 100% of the times!
But as i see here this is not the case since they both play a huuuuuuge number of games at the same time so this is somewhat possible although i see maaaany resigns.....?!?!?
Notice how many games they have playing against each other! !!!!!!ENORMOUS!!!!! value......
And 40 days per move.

I guess you are refering to the matches resigned from ZEROZERO at 1 February 2006 and at 29 January 2006 and at 26 January 2006, always against NOBODY25.....
But there was some ZEROZERO's massive wins at January 26 againt NOBODY25! Covering traces?
What is your suspicion.....?

Czuch Chuckers: V.Allis Solution to 5 in Line
Or here for more....

Walter Montego: playBunny has lots of Backgammon ideas

What do you mean he has Backgammon ideas? What kind of ideas do you mean....?

And why this seems so incredible to you? LOL!

Walter Montego: I saw that you did this. I can't beat the SMIRF any more and yet I can hold my own against you. I'm confused.

You should not! What i do perfect is to play with anti-computer style! That obviously doesn't work well against humans....:-)


What I want to know is, what is this anti-computer play you talk of?

Well it is just one rule that you have to find the way to make it work over the board! Play moves that would result in a favourable position for you that goes beyond their horizon!
Easy to say yeah? Difficult to make of course....
What does this mean? Well my main strategy is to play Pawn moves at the opening and create a kind of position that limits the movement of the computer, WHILE i place at clever places and always in the side of the opponents King the more heavy pieces. At the same time there should be a closed center all the time! Most of the time i try to weak my other side(the side i don't place the heavy pieces)
and the computer tries to take advantage of it weakening it's King position and losing many tempo's for gaining material. That means if the development goes normally, (the computer can't attack my King since i preserve a good Pawn structure as i've said and a closed center) i would have a hidden attack. Hidden from the computer's search. Horizon effect! The rule i gave. Then i advance the Pawns on the opponents King side and the result is always the same.....

The games with Smirf was my too first Embassy Chess games so i didn't managed to understand the way to do it. My brain hasn't worked the patterns for this game for obtaining an anti-comp strategy. But even this way, i've managed to create with white something similar to what i have said. And i would win easily if i would be a little more patient and didn't played a bad move(move 20). If i've waited 2 more moves then result would be much easier.

In my black game i didn't followed the afementioned procedure of anti-comp but of course followed the basic rule. I had prepared from move 3 only a Queen sacrifice for an Archbishop that Smirf didn't accepted! I was impressed by Smirf at that point!
If Smirf accepted it would be positionally lost although i would have given my Queen for the Archbishop. But game have more surpises for Smirf.
After some clever manoeuvres by me, we resulted in an endgame where i had an Archbishop against a Rook. Every human knows that this is better for the Archbishop side....But it was not easy. I have found a way to make it easy giving my Bishop with 35...Ke6!! So how can one play such move?
You play againt a computer. You give it material for free at a first glance. But you know that after Ad2+ Axb3 you would get 2 passed Pawns. Computer can't see this as it is many plies beyond its horizon! Our rule. So play it.....2 horses are too far away from the passed Pawns so....No computer can see that Bishop sacrifice.....!

So my anti-comp system is to play Pawn moves at the start blocking the position and keeping a closed center, bring heavy pieces in the side of the opponents King and wait, wait, keep your King safe, give the computer the chance to prevail in the other side of the board and then start the attack with Pawn pushes. As long as the center is closed with no fear to open and you have 3-4 pieces attacking at the King by means of be in the same side with him, the success is guaranteed.....
Closed center is easy for me to achieve at Gothic Chess but i find it more difficult to achieve at Embassy Chess maybe because i didn't managed yet to understand he game....Closed center means that whatever Pawn move the opponent makes (D,E,F,G Pawns the others are not any disturbing for us)
the center can't open.....


Does it work against human players?

Of course not! It might work against weak players but against strong it doesn't....Actually it worked against Caissus and Mely and Matarilevich when i played as Chessmaster1000 Gothic Chess and i was surprised by that.....!


How come the computer programmers don't keep such plans in mind while designing their programs?

It's not that easy to make a workaround to prevent anti-comp play, as it may seem..... Reinhard(author of Smirf) after i offered him 2 new Embassy Chess matches after i won 2-0 Smirf, told that he must modify Smirf before he can play against me again. And that this would take much time before it happens if it happens at all. This is sad for 2 reasons. Of course because i think Smirf has the potential to become a very good program, even more than it is now, and second because i just wanted to play 2 more games while now i have to wait so long.....Greg Strong(author of ChessV) after i defeated his ChessV 2-0, was very interesting on how i'm doing this and i've given him my way of thinking. He said that he would try to create a new ocncept of thinking at ChessV to think more like me....I haven't had any news from then....Ed Trice(author of Gothic Vortex) often mentioned that he has added many improvements to its King safety from Vortex games against me.
BUT still i have the impression that i will be able to beat all these programs for the next 2-3 years....

Does this work against the Backgammon programs?

No! In a game where luck comes to play too, this can't work! And also remember: While at Chess-type games humans are better in the positional area while comps at the tactical area, at Backgammon the exact opposite happens! So you can't outplay them at positional decisions.....Only on some technical decisions....


These neuronets you speak of for Backgammon, why aren't they used for Chess type games?

They have been used in some projects but they have completely failed to give a strong Chess engine!


And what about Dark Chess?

What about it? Neural nets can't be used there also as there are many difficulties on that. Even if someone succeed the result would not be good.....
Dark Chess has to be programmed by the usual computer Chess type algorithms. Alpha-beta/transpositions/iterative deepening, etc... Well that's how i plan to do it....But only after i program a Chess program first. So i'm afraid that you have to wait a bit more....:-)

Yes i haven't seen this Domino variant i was refering from the other known Domino Backgammon, but from somewhere else....I don't like the Domino as described at bkgm.com as it has some rules of "not move your back men until move 4, etc".
There can be of course many different variations and the proposed by me variant is just one that i remembered. I haven't really played this variant for the last 5-6 years so i don't remember if there was a better one Domino-variant....

As for the computer programs part, i see that many of you don't have a real idea of what computers can do and highly overestimate the abilities of them....

In the Chess game, human programmers needed around 70 years from the time they started their real and serious occupation with computer Chess, after Adriaan de Groot's and Claude Shannon's publications on computer Chess algorithms. Only recently (probably the win of Deeper Blue against Kasparov is the most known) computers started to show signs of equality or even superiority over humans at Chess. Before 3-4 years i could beat occasionaly and very seldom of course a top Chess program with some anti-comp play. Now i can't!
All this knowledge of course all this years, that came from Chess programming is used to produce for example Gothic Chess programs or Atni-Chess programs or Reversi, Checkers programs etc. Today no one can beat a Reversi 8x8 program indeed. They are invincible! They might solve the game in the next 7-8 years or sooner.

Checker programs have for a long time prevailed over humans in the game. After Marion Tinsleys' death computers have completely dominated at Checkers. The freeware and top Cake Manchester for example if inserted in a tournament with humans will dominate easily!

Gothic Chess type programs or to say CRC type programs, have yet a long way to travel before they can be like their Chess relatives....In this site i have beaten such a program at Embassy Chess with a humiliating way. I gave my Bishop and while the program thought it will clearly win i knew that its loss was obvious! That shows that at CRC type games humans can still beat computers. I have yet to lose from November from a computer at CRC type games. ChessV, Smirf, Vortex, Zillions are all losing. So CRC is still at humans hands!

Anti-Chess: Here computers again prevail but this is logical since this game has some long forced variations that computers with proof-number-search can find in a second while us have to be tortured to find....

Three Checks Chess, Atomic Chess, etc: I don't know another computer player for this game except Zillions and ChessV and are both very weak at it, so human is still above them....

Backgammon: Probably one of the first tries for a Backgammon program was made by Hans Berliner at 1979 with a program called BKG(and a version number i don't remember). Due to the brilliant mind of Berliner one would not expect anything else except BKG to be a good program even in 1979. And BKG in an exhibition match against the world champion of that time L.Villa, won the human with a 7-1 and a won a symbolic 4000$ prize.....Although BKG played well the mistakes that made were more than the mistake of Villa and it was obvious that it was far away from an expert level. It was until G.Tesauro created a neural net Backgammon program. A method that all todays top Backgammon programs (GNUBG,Jellyfish,Snowie,BGBlitz) use.... He first tried an approach in which the net used some Backgammon knowledge and the program was trained on games of expert players and with this way the program derived its weights....That was called NeuroGammon and was good eanough to win the computer Olympiad, but not good enough to become an expert. It was G.Tesauro's TD-Gammon that changed all. TD-Gammon used a neural network that was trained using temporal-difference learning. That means the program (networks) without having almost any knowledge at all played against itself some thousands of games became very strong. The networks using as starting weights the Neurogammon's and playing again thousants of games became the most strong bot ever at Backgammon until that time. Final TD-Gammon 2.0(or 2.1 i don't remember) used 1500000 games of training against itself and reached level of expert!
Todays programs are on the strength of top human players or even stronger....

Domino Backgammon. As Playbunny has said the branching factor is very big and the number of 36 dominoes or even 21 is big enough that no program could play it perfectly for the next AT LEAST 18-19 years! Consider this: 21 dominoes with for each domino to have around 3-5 possible plays. That means a branching factor of around 84 for the first move! Second move would have ~20·4=80 That means to be able a program to solve it should calculate (84·80·....·4)^2 which is a very big number.....!
Not even dedicated neural net with super computers could do it in less than 15 years and that may even be a huge underestimation.....

Oh gooooood! I hope it will be way before the start of the 29th Olympic games....

Grasshoper is very interesting game too and there is no luck at all inside it! It's a little complicated at the beginning but as you play it you will appreciate it more.... I used to play this game in the past but now i have almost forget it....:-(
It would be nice to add 4-5 more Backgammon variants. Actually i hope for 8-9 but from 0 i can choose 4-5

.
.
.

__GAME|Stra|Luck| Fun |Comp|Speed|

Fevga......|  20 |  11 |  19 |  20  |  16 |

Plakoto....|  16 |  16 |  14 |  17  |  14 |

HyperBG.|  08 |  20 |  16 |  03  |  20 |

CrazyFevg|  18 |  15 |  19 |  20  |  17 |

BGammon|  19 |  14 |  20 |  16  |  19 |

Stra = Strategy = Strategy depth and strategical mind required.
Luck = Luck involvement in the game
Fun = How much fun is to play it.
Comp = Complexity = NOT of the rules, but of the strategy required. The branching factor.
Speed = The speed of the game. How quickly it evolves not with absolute criteriaof speedness, but with some other that i can explain if you want.


All numbers in each category(column) have been derived in comparison with a 20 that has been given(defined) to a specific game) and are my feelings for each game.....

I've put fun=16 for HyperBG, as after a while it gets boring.....(personal opinion again of course)

furbster:
First Narde(Russian) is similar(only one difference actually) to Fevga while i prefer our(Greek) Fevga because is a bit more simple and a bit more superior to strategy requirements.....

Second Crazy Narde just like Crazy Fevga(or Gioul as it is said here) has only one difference from it's non-crazy partner: The player that has a double of type X(X=1,2,3,4,5) plays all the doubles up to 6. So if one rolls a 44, he plays 44,55,66!

I would love to see Fevga/Narde and Crazy Fevga/Narde here....! And since the difference between them is so small if madPhilip implement the one here it is easy to implement the other too

Also a Crazy Backgammon is not a bad idea..... Actually it is but it will be fun!

For me Hyppergammon is fun but way too simple to enjoy it a lot! I want complications and Hyperthing is not giving them to me....
I vote for Fevga! Many people here in Greece say that Fevga is the King and Backgammon(Portes here) way beyond. I don't agree but i value Fevga as equal to Backgammon speaking about general greatness..... But speaking about strategical play Fevga is of course the King as it's the game that separates big brains from the others....

I would decline too. Too many hit choices for black and a strong home board....

When you meet our new year, tell it a hello from me..... Oh and while passing from 2010 tell me who will win the football world cup then.....

Czuch Chuckers: It depends from you your opponents and the dice.....Such distribution is normal.
I've dug out some results from me against Jellyfish (5-point matches). Here are the results (1=win for me , 0=lose for me):
1011000110111011100100111111111010111011101


01011000000011011001001110101101 101001 = 48/80 = 60%
As you may see i have series of 9 matches won and series of 7 mathes lost. That is normal.....

An easy way to stop the free fall is to stop playing for a while so the graph would stop look like a free fall....

Matarilevich:

I would a bit correct the aforementioned like this:

A person that is on you list of blocked users as Person-A cannot:
* invite you to a game using the Person-A profile,
* see you on Who is online page using the Person-A profile,
* send you a message using the Person-A profile,
* add you to their Friends list using the Person-A profile.

>but i am not sure of he can not write you a message into the started game. Maybe someone can help you about this doubt.

He can't write you any message on an already started game using the Person-A profile....

playBunny: Maybe he meant he didn't have 50 doubles in his last 50 moves?!? LOL!

Czuch Chuckers: Oh that means a probebility of:
(5/6)^50 = 0.011 % Not so unlikely.....:-)

It depends on the length your games had (match length and game length).
For example for 50 1-point/single games of a short 20 moves per game(that means i've taken the best case so your case would have even less probability) the probability of not having a single double is:
(5/6)^(50·20) = 6.5 E-78 %
That means a 100% FLAW on dice generator!!!!!

But i guess you are overreacting and that "50" and "NO double at all" is not correct....


PS: To give a feeling of what 6.5 E-78 % is:
6.5 E-78 % = 0.000000000....another 65 zeros....00065 %

Yes but there is indeed something strange about ratings:
Take for example Pahtum game and Loop Chess. Both have around 12000 completed games with Pahtum having even a little more games finished, but at Pahtum the rated players above 2000 are very much less than that of Loop Chess.....Can you or anyone exaplain this anomaly.....?