Liste der Diskussionsforen
Es ist Dir nicht erlaubt, Nachrichten in diesem Forum zu schreiben. Man muss dazu mindestens den Mitgliedsrang Brain Bauer (Pawn) haben!
alanback: Still dont get it..how can rating in a luck game be so important?...if its a skill game you shouldnt be worried to play us "not good players"?
alanback: i know what you mean .. i mostly play tournaments without paying too much attention to my opponents ratings .. and i sometimes curse myself when i lose to a lower rated player .. i like the ratings :)
but i also like the game .. and to play against different opponents .. so everytime i still join new tournaments with new players instead of only the top players (i do join the 2200+ tournaments as well though :))
i guess its even worse when you are 2400+ :)
but! to try a new tournament type on this site must be something special .. isnt it ? .. shouldnt that be worth a small risk in bkr ? ;) (your win/loss ratio shows you win twice as many as you lose .. so thats more than 55% :))
Andersp: Absolutely. For example, I went to the waiting games and picked out the highest rated opponent waiting to play backgammon. His rating is less than 200 points lower than mine. The predicted BKR change from playing this person is
win: 2425 (+4), ... loss: 2409 (-12)
In order for this to be fair, I would have to be 3 times as likely as the opponent to win this game; in other words, I would have to have a 75% chance of winning. While this might be true in games without a random factor, it overstates my winning chances significantly in backgammon. (They are probably more like 55% than 75%).
As the ratings gap increases, the system becomes even more ridiculous. It's not uncommon for me to receive a match invitation for which my upside potential is zero!
Yes, the ratings are important to me. That is why I won't play against opponents whose ratings are much more than 100 points lower than mine.
I don't know how many high-rated players are reluctant, as I am, to join a single-game tournament against all comers. Unfortunately, the BK rating system was not designed for backgammon and unfairly penalizes the higher rated player in a game between players with a large rating difference. In order to permit higher rated players to enjoy a Triple Gammon tournament without worrying about ratings, I have created an unrated version. All players are welcome.
Fencer: will the games in a triple gammon tourmanent have a different color or something to show it to the players that they should go for gammons and should care too much about losing a game ? ;)
Fencer: Questions: 1) How does Anti-Backgammon in triple gammon score? 2) I just created a triple gammon tournament - and (as standard) it sets the final game to be a three win match. How does that work in triple gammon?
AbigailII: Yes, 0,1,3,5 what Thad proposed in this thread and what I relayed. It is indeed exactly the same game as TTT. But actually I would like 0,1,3,3 even better because it changes only the gammon value, and the backgammon value is pretty irrelevant anyway.
Hrqls: And to get rid of fractions, 0, 1, 3, 5 as scores work as well as 0, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5.
It reminds me a bit of 'streetsoccer' as played on littlegolem and mastermoves. There the winner/loser scores can be 5-0, 4-1, 3-2 and 2-2. (5-0 for a win without overtime. 4-1 for a win in overtime. 3-2 for a tie with goals - winner is the person scoring last. 2-2 for a goalless game).
Fencer: mentallay : it makes seem that losing isnt that bad .. although i think the outcome would be the same with 0 for a loss, 0.5 for a single win, 1.5 for a gammon win, and 2.5 for a backgammon win
i didnt do any maths for it yet though .. giving 0.5 for a loss will make it possible for the scores for a win (single, gammon, backgammon) to be the same as in normal games .. i think thats why they chose to make a loss 0.5 points .. it requires less changes
nabla: i dont know the inventor's idea either i am playing trictrac on a dutch site now (i didnt know of the game before yesterday) and its different from, backgammon
i dont know why mike named it trictrac .. but to me it feels 'not-right' to change its name (at least not without contacting him ..which i dont know how to do as he seems to be on a long vacation)
Hrqls: I checked on the French Wikipedia, the name is usually spelled trictrac. The game is played on a backgammon board, but its rules and especially its scoring system are awfully complicated. There is a whole chapter on the various penalties which should be applied when one of the players did a scoring error :-) For it to be a good name, I think it would require something more mind-boggling than upgrading losses to half a point. Or maybe I missed the inventor's idea ?
Fencer: ah ok .. i thought tavla was slightly different .. but thats my mistake as i did leanr backgammon on here and all my 'knowledge' of backgammon comes from this site ;)
Fencer: hmm .. just the name ? the rules remain the same .. we could even come up with a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious name which could be abbreviated to TTT :)
Hrqls: By the way, have a look at BrainKing in Turkish, backgammon is translated to tavla and I am sure there are more languages which don't keep the English name.
whirlybabe: "Tric-Trac" and "tournoi" are French, but we would say "Tournoi de tric-trac", not "Tric Trac Tournoi". I never heard of remotely similar rules in the old game of tric-trac, but I am no specialist of game history.
Fencer: Tric Trac isn't actually an English name. *4* If it were me I'd change "Tourno" to the nearest equivalent in the target language but keep the "Tric Trac" that Mike gave it.