I think it's clear that the number of points needed to qualify for an "established" BKR is too small in backgammon games. It's only necessary to view the ridiculously inflated ratings at the top of the lists and notice the small number of games behind them to prove this.

I believe that the BKR formula provides for larger ratings adjustments for players under a certain level of experience (500 points?). I would recommend that this number be lowered -- say to 100 points -- and that the same number be used as the dividing line between provisional and established BKR.

WhiteTower: I've never seen stats kept on such things as gammons. I don't think it's a meaningful statistic. Backgammon is a money game, and the only thing that's really relevant in tournament style play (as here) is whether you win or lose.

fungame: Of course the opponent should not see conditional moves until the opponent has committed himself to the respective prior move.

Purple: Poetic justice, if you ask me!

Fencer: Thanks :-)

I will let you know if performance improves. I have not seen very many delays that were traceable to the Google ad, but there have been a few.

Fencer: This apparently does not apply to the Google ad under "Logout" in the menu bar.

eagle eye: There is one thing that could be done, which is to remove the link.

fungame:A conditional move could also be designed to operate after the system automatically generates a dice roll. Then we would have the autopass feature whose lack is so much lamented in some quarters.

prophet: Whether the system encourages or discourages longer matches is not a simple question. Under the ELO formula, when players are of roughly equal rating, then a longer match will result in a greater rating adjustment regardless of who wins. However, where there is a significant ratings difference, then after a certain point a longer match can actually result in a smaller adjustment. This is because the ELO formula takes into account the probability of either player winning the match. As the match gets longer, the probability that the higher-rated player will win increases, and the ratings effect of a win by the higher-rated player gets smaller. Of course, if the lower-rated player wins, then the ratings adjustment is always larger in a longer match.

Therefore -- the current system, which does not take into account match length, actually can be seen as encouraging high rated players to play long matches against low rated players. This is because the high rated player is more likely to win a long match than a short one, and yet the ratings adjustment will be the same for the long match as for the short one.

If players are of roughly equal strength, then the failure to take match length into account should be a neutral factor. At the start of the match each player's expected outcome is zero, i.e., there is an equal likelihood of +x or -x, since it is not known who is going to win and both have the same chance. It doesn't really matter what value is assigned to x.

If anyone is discouraged, it should be the low-rated player, who will not be properly rewarded if he does manage to win a long match against a high-rated player.

If there are players who grumble that it's too much trouble to play a long match for a relatively small ratings adjustment, my response to them is that it's more fun and a greater test of skill to play a long match. In addition, if your self-esteem depends upon achieving a high rating on this server, you really need to reconsider your goals.

Thanks for the score display, Fencer :)

When a message board is active, a response sometimes is widely separated from the message to which it responds. (E.g. Fencer's message to Andersp). It would be nice to have a link to the previous message, or alternatively a button to "view thread" which would provide a list of all messages in the string.

Czuch Chuckers: Agreed. I struggle with French and German, and with the language of whatever country I happen to be in at the time . . . and always welcome assistance from the natives!

In multipoint backgammon matches, since not all games are worth the same, it would be helpful to provide more information in the match history table. Best would be to add columns showing the value of the game (single, gammon, backgammon or 1x, 2x, 3x), the ending value of the cube (i.e. the value after the last accepted double), and the total point value of the game (which would be the product of the first two columns). It would be nice to see the running match score also. I recognize this is asking for a lot of information.

In addition, would it be possible to display the match history table every time the board is displayed, rather than just once per turn?

BIG BAD WOLF: Right, but in the case in question the opponent has no auto vacation days remaining.

Fencer: Thanks :)

Fencer: I see it there, but there is no such information on the profile page for my opponent mentioned before. Of course, it is possible that today is the last day of her vacation.

Fencer: I don't see any link to check vacation days on the profile page.

Fencer: And how is that done?

Is there any way to view an opponent's vacation table? I.e., to determine what days the opponent has marked as vacation? If not, I think there should be.