"24-18 13-9" along with "24-14" are the best choices in single game matches. Perhaps the best is the first but i almost always prefer the second. I'm a runner at 64.......

BUT when you are behind with 8-2 for example in a 9 point match or you need to cover a gap, then you should make the 2 point and try to get a prime. There is not other choice......So here since there are no gammons, making the 2 point is something not so desirable.......

No my choice is not to make the 3 point! That would be a small(perhaps a little larger than small) mistake. I just asked as a quiz which is better. The best is "13-8 24-21" with "13-8 13-10" being a little behind. Making the point on 3 is clearly the 3d choice.....

Many novice people think that making points inside our board is always good, but there are many examples(the above was one) that this is wrong.

And even worse there is the famous Magriel's 53 starting play with "13-10 13-8" which is now believed to be worse than making the 3-point. I could say that although Magriel's recommendation is too close, making the point is stronger for various reasons and with less disadvantages.....

And even more worse, is that there were (perhaps there are) players that were slotting at the 5 point with a starting 53!?!? A huge mistake in my opinion. OK the five point is the five point but if you get hitted then you have nothing......And you have to hit again as an advanced anchor on 5 is waiting for your opponent, altough this should not be the main concern about the game.......

BIG BAD WOLF:
Here is something on topic:
Both players have a 31 at their starting roll in a Backgammon game and both make the 5 point of course....
The next roll is 53 for the player on turn. Should he make his 3 point or............?

wayney:
He,he. I don't care if you believe me or not. I just say what has happened....... I don't ask you to believe or anything like that....

Anyway if you want quick play then after our game i will not participate in tournaments where you join and not the opposite, not because i hate you or i've been insulted (No! I never feel that way..) but because i don't want people to have problems with me. Or perhaps i will do one other clever thing: Play faster.........
I don't really know. For the moment i would not join on any more tournaments as more new games will not be easy to handle anymore although this makes me feel bad...........

And the worst has yet to come. I calculate around 130 new games are coming from my signed tournaments in the next 2 weeks......
But it's not so difficult to handle as you think. Try it.......!
Of course the consequences are compains about slow play. But i'm improving...........

Walter described the situation perfect! Some Pawns that only have 10-20 games expect from their opponents to play quick. But they should think deeper.......... Just look at my main page and try to find your game. It's a complete chaos!!!!!

Walter you were worng on one thing: I don't study our game a lot, i don't even look for more than 1 minute..... If i spend even 5 minutes studying each game, then i will have to spend 5·50 = 250 minutes = 4 hours per day at Brainking. Clear madness.......

I'm so sorry for my slow play but it's difficult to change this.......
Specifically about wayney:
Yes things was exactly as you described, but you should know this: I remember the situation: i was at university and in a class with a PC in front of me. And i was stealing some time playing games here, when my teacher was leaving(of course i should make different things). But many times (and this is one of yours) i was about to play a move while at the same time he appeared. So i have to quickly close the window and leave.......

You spoke about bad sportsmanship, but what really i could gain if i will deliberately delay the game.......?!?! Waiting for the end of world perhaps....? But even then i would not win the game.......! I'm not an idiot. I can accept the loss........And that was not such case

"A quick search"????? Is there any search option for such a thing...........?

Well the asnwer to the theoretical question of what is the shortest game possible in Backgammon can't be answered, since the question is not well defined.
It is not, because we have to say if a "pass" move is considered as a move or not, we have to exclude resignation (of course!) of a player, we must care only for single point games and not include doubling cube(of course again!).

So if we consider the "pass" move as a move for a player, and not take into consideration the resignation and doubling cube options, then the shortest possible game WHICH IS ALSO LOGICAL (meaning it doesn't contain bad moves) must*** be the following 17 moves@@@ game:

*** I say must, because it hasn't been proved.
@@@ A move is defined like the move each played does, and not like a sequence of 2 moves, that of one player and that of the other.

1) 43: 13/9 13/10
55: 13/8 13/8 8/3 8/3
2) 55: 13/8 10/5 8/3 8/3
55: 13/8 13/8 13/8 8/3
3) 66: 24/18 24/18 13/7 13/7
33: 24/21 24/21 8/5 8/5
4) 66: 18/12 18/12 12/6 9/3
66: 21/15 21/15 15/9 15/9
5) 66: 12/6 8/2 8/2 7/1
66: 9/3 9/3 8/2 8/2
6) 66: 7/1 6/off 6/off 6/off
66: 8/2 6/off 6/off 6/off
7) 66: 6/off 6/off 6/off 6/off
66: 6/off 6/off 5/off 5/off
8) 66: 5/off 3/off 3/off 3/off
66: 3/off 3/off 3/off 3/off
9) 66: 2/off 2/off 1/off 1/off

(The above game was given/invented by Kit Woolsey i think.)

Many more 17-move games can be found with the above restrictions(With many bad moves though). I have once read that the shortest game possible with the above restrictions is 16 moves but i haven't seen the game and also many disagree with this claim. I don't know. Does anyone else knows?

Oh Cariad, i remember this game. I will never forget it :-)
How did you posted the music notes?

As for the pips, i'm obsessed with numbers and statistics so i keep record every possible thing. Like pipcount and number of doubles, effective pipcount and doubles, for me and my opponent. One amazing thing is that in 150+ games i played here so far, i or my opponent had only one time the same dice two consecutive times. So(and for other reasons) the dice of Brainking is not what i could call "random random" but "symmetrically random" meaning it is random, but you don't need a great number of rolls to see that a given dice number (for example 35) has a probability 2/36 to happen(or 1/36 for doubles). I would guess that 1800 rolls are enough to have for all possible 21 rolls, an error from the theoretical probability value of 2/36 (or 1/36 for doubles), 10 times smaller than the same error would occur on 3000 games of my real(live) games. That means the Brainking dice is very normal obeying in the probability laws much more precisely from the real life dice.

No. In Backgammon there is skill and luck. One can win games with luck and no skill or with skill and no luck or having both luck and skill.
You say that someone must have luck to outplay another. This is not true. He can do this if he has the ability/knowledge/skill even without much luck.

What i meant was that the quality of moves i played was much better than my opponents, but the luck they had was enough for them to win me. Despite the fact that i was playing the best moves while they played wrong, the dice for them was MUCH better.
As i've said my pipcount number of my first ~60 games was 86% of the pipcount number of my opponents. That was VERY strange. Now after 120+ games, i calculated it again and it is 96% of my opponent. A logical value.

Grrrrrrr... I would suggest that the 66 and 55 must be removed from the possible rolls here:)

I hate when i'm outplaying my opponent and the dice decides that he should win! In my games here i have a dice-number about 0.86 of the opponent until now. This is amazing and one can easily say that Brainking dice hates me!