Back to backgammon!

Andersp: "no ..not coming..waste of time..i prefer to play games"

Except that you did.

Andersp: Your inability to understand and your clumsy lies .... this is not the place to discuss them.

See you in the Flame Pit.

..... Are you coming?

redsales: "So-called" is right, lol. I doubt if you'll find it anywhere else. A name was needed when it was being discussed and that was the shortest phrase that said it all. ;-)

redsales: http://www.bkgm.com/rules.html

so can anyone give me a link to an "official" backgammon body so I can read this so-called maximum dice usage rule? I scroogled the term (www.scroogle.org) but it didn't come up even once.

You fellows are enjoying yourselves, to me you're wasting my time and space on the board.

Nevertheless is has been acknowledged a couple of years ago that problem will be fixed "soon". "Soon" the whole point of this discussion will be GONE FOR EVER!!!!

playBunnyWell, as any programmer knows, a small bug can make a big difference. I like your description of the ELO formula, and didn't realize the formula used here was so different.

I can't wait to see what kind of ratings world I wake up in tomorrow ;-)

alanback: That's a pretty radical change. It sounds more like a different formula than a bug fix! I can see how you expect a large difference in your rating when it's applied to the BKR history.

Though it's an improvement, I'd still like the ELO Backgammon formula to be used (like at Vog, Fibs and elsewhere) as it knows about the luck of the dice.
Your 2700 would reduce to 2200 or under with such a formula because of the diminishing returns that you mentioned.

It's even more pessimistic in its judgement as it predicts 30% loss of single-point matches between a top flight (2200) and an average player (1600). That's a big luck factor and it's entirely missing from the chess formula.

And I agree about the differential being too punishing. In our game I stand to gain 10 and lose only 5 and you vice versa. The proper formula would award us nearly equal shares of the match value.

I just had the odd experience of having the dice change on me in the middle of a move. This has happened to me on other sites, but not here. Probably a cache issue locally or on the server. It was disconcerting, though -- I saw double fours and after the first click, they changed to 5-1! Thought my mind was playing tricks and so I hit the back button, and there were the double fours again. However, the server insists I move the 5-1. Such is life :)

grenv:

The results of the new system still don't look right to me, as the win/lose differential is very large. This might be appropriate in a game like chess, where the better player should usually win. However, in backgammon, even against a weak opponent, a strong player will lose a significant number of games. For example, I would probably lose 10-15% of my games against a beginning player just because of the luck of the dice. But even against opponents close to my skill level, I currently stand to lose much more than I stand to gain. For example, in a Nackgammon game I am currently playing, the ratings are 1925 and 2208. The win/lose differential is 3-13 or -10 against me. This implies the odds of my winning are something like 13/16, which I think overstates the probabilities.

It would be interesting to see if one could devise a ratings system that more closely reflected the actual likelihood of winning based on a given rating differential.

alanback: Hear hear!!!!

I stated many times the same bug, which manifested itself by making all draws count zero. Now it seems to be fixed and the ratings will be far more accurate as a result.

yay!

playBunny: First, let me say I have insisted before that there was a bug in the ratings calculator, and I'm glad to see it being addressed.

Prior to today, if I played anyone whose rating was within 400 points of mine, the result was either +8 or -8 -- nothing in between. As a result, assuming that I won more than half my games and only played people whose ratings are within 400 points of mine, I was pretty much guaranteed an upward trend (with random dips, naturally, but the overall trend should be upward). If you will look at your game pages now, you will find that your expected BKR gain from winning against anyone lower rated than yourself is less than the expected BKR loss from losing. This is the way the ratings system should work, and it should have the effect of squeezing the ratings closer together. It should also get harder to improve your rating the higher your rating goes, which is now the case. I suspect the bug that previously existed was the reason that Fencer felt the need to remove the 2700 ceiling on ratings.

Looking at my games, I stand to lose many more points than I stand to gain in each one. Since backgammon is a game of both skill and luck, I will certainly lose a significant number of games -- probably at least 35% against all opponents, very likely more. This is why I expect my rating to go down.

Moreover, as I interpret Fencer's announcement, he is going to recompute all ratings from the beginning, using the historical database of results. Thus, current ratings (like mine) that have been inflated by the bug should decline. It remains to be seen what the relative changes will be.

From what I remember about FIBS, it was said that your rating reflected primarily your last several hundred games -- i.e. that your rating wouldn't be too different if you applied the FIBS formula to the last 400 or so games than it would be if you applied it to your entire history. If that is the case, I may come out of the process in good shape, since I have been rather fortunate lately.

It's been a fun ride at the top, but I won't be upset if the recomputation leaves me somewhere in the middle of the pack.

alanback: That's interesting. What difference have you noticed? And why should you drop so much? - you're way ahead of the field!

frolind: What? Just 'cos I'm being noisy today? or is it the way I'm so adamant? ;-)

alanback: I guess I can sound acrimonious. Hang on, I'll just look that up so I know what I'm saying .... a sharp and bitter manner + marked by strong resentment or cynicism. Ouch! That bad, eh? Hmmm. I do put make my points firmly and I can certainly put sharp knives in with my words when I don't like someone or their behaviour. A touch of the Victorian schoolmaster, perhaps. Lol. How do I tone that down?.... [goes away pondering]

AbigailII: I've asked Anders to provide proof in the rules of his players-can-use-a-single-dice idea. I would, however bow humbly before any other compelling evidence. Somehow I don't think I'll have to.

I did expect you to throw back my challenge to Anders but it is an empty gesture. The maximise-dice-usage rule, which you agree is easy conceived, isn't in the written rules explicitly. I've provided logic that you so steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and attempt to refute. That's my evidence. Why do you not address it? Is it because you can't? Is it undeniable that the bug implies the rule?

As for your request that I show you where it states the MDU requirement in the written rules ... We've had that debate already, and you gave up. I do enjoy debating with you but it's puzzling that you don't deal directly with the points I make. You didn't provide any compelling logic then. But here's your chance now....

See also:
http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369309

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369575

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369642

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369667

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369758

playBunny: It did occur to me after my initial post that debating might also be a form of relaxation, like martial arts to some folks. What disquieted me was that there seemed to be quite a bit of acrimony involved in the debate, but I may have read more into it than was there.

On a totally different point, I am very interested to see what happens when Fencer re-runs the BKRs tomorrow. I am betting there will be huge changes, not just slight ones. I have noticed the difference already, and I doubt I'll ever see 2700 again! It wouldn't surprise me if we had a different #1 player after tomorrow.

Call me childish, but playbunnys behaviour makes me want to take advantage of this bug against him.

playBunny: Some rule are conceptual ones, perfectly capable of being held in your head without requiring you to see them in print or on a web page.

Sure it can. And anyone can think of any rule, hold it in its pretty little head, and accuse others of cheating if they don't confirm to the rule. And then ask others to show them the rules that allow this behaviour, as you asked Anders. Here, this is what you wrote: 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.

alanback:

Just to add - relaxation is only one of the benefits that's available from the game. As you say, different strokes ... ;-)

I also enjoy the tempest game, I mean the debating game.

WhiteTower: At the risk of descending into semantics, I might argue that anyone approaching the game so tightly wound is not likely to find relaxation in it. However, different strokes for different folks!

playBunny: Don't despair. There are many worthwhile activities that don't require a frontal assault on others' ways of thinking!

AbigailII: Since when does a rule have to be written for it to be a rule? Some rule are conceptual ones, perfectly capable of being held in your head without requiring you to see them in print or on a web page. It would be better, as BBW says, if Fencer made the rule visible, but it is available through logic.

So. Please refute that logic relating the existence of the bug to the existence of the rule - if you can.

playBunny: My point? You were claiming Brainking rules were broken. I was asking you to quote the rule being broken. Which you didn't (couldn't since there isn't such a rule).

WhiteTower: Lol. Well said, and thank you. I laughed when I read alanback's message because in the greater scheme of Life and the Universe it is trivial stuff and I found it funny that the player ranked #1 finds it a "silly little game" - but, hey, why not?!

Yet your point is very true, and more relevant than his long-term with-hindsight perspective. My relaxation and enjoyment did evaporate with this situation and is a minor part of why I've got fewer games going. But then, this isn't a silly little game to me, it's a big part of my current way of life. And fairness is one of my key values.

alanback: I'm sure I'll fully agree with you once I look back on this time from a me that has lost my current degree of involvement in the game. As for changing the world? If I can't even further the cause of sportsmanship and justice in a tiny wee corner of the Backgammon world, what chance have I with the bigger issues out there?

AbigailII: Telling me that we agree on something doesn't make it true. Sorry to be so dense but could you repeat your point in a simple undeniable logical sequence? Oh, and tell me where the flaw in my own logic is, if you'd be so kind.

playBunny: Ah, so we agree the requirement to swap your dice if that's the only way to be able to move from both dice isn't in the rules.

WhiteTower: In this particular instance it was 50-50 before the move. The illegal move protected against leaving a blot. Had Tiikeri done the best legal move, my next roll would have been a hit giving me winning chances of 2/3. By protecting herself with the illegal move Tiikeri's own chances were 2/3.

That's a reason to think that a resignation would have been appropriate, but it was a very volatile game - her man on the bar would have been entering a 5-point board with a blot which, if hit, would have swung the game back the other way again - so a draw would also have been acceptable.

But, as I said to Walter, the point is not the game itself but the sporting attitude or otherwise that's shown.

alanback: I suspect that people who take the effort to argue about this issue do it because that relaxation would evaporate the moment a deviation from the established rules occurs - those rules are what make the game relaxing as well, if I am not mistaken.

AbigailII, BBW: My point is the one in the post to Walter. That's the one to answer, if you wish.

I have worried a great deal about utter trivialities in the past, so I speak with some authority when I say that it really doesn't make a bit of difference to anything that matters who moves what in this silly little game. It is a game, after all, and if you can't manage to relax about it, then by all means find some way to use all that energy to make the world a better place.

playBunny: Yet Fencer regards the "manual" dice throw as important enough to deny auto-rolling - go figure!!!

playBunny: see... this is why there is no point to have this debate again.

It is against the official rules of backgammon

--- AND ---

It is current allowed on BrainKing with their current rules & limitations.

So even though you may lean towards one side of the debate then the other, other people are going to disagree - so depending on what side you lean towards is if you think it is cheating or not. (So again, there is no correct answer to the debate - except that it would be nice if Fencer corrects the rules and then states that those are the rules for now on.)

playBunny: She made an illegal move which is against the Brainking rules.

Which rule would that be? Care to quote the relevant portion from the rules pages that says you have to swap your dice if that's the only way to be able to move with both dice?

Please, feel free to show me the bit where it says you can use just a single dice if it suits you.<br>
There isn't such a line in the rules, and there doesn't have to be. However, there's nothing at all in the rules that forces you to move with the second dice first if that's the only way to be able to move from both dice.

There's no mismatch between the rules on the rules page, and the current implementation of the game.

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!!