I have some games in the waiting room +1700 if anyone would like to play 1 day limit games

Chessmaster1000: Lol. 14:04! How localtime() of me! ;-D
I'm glad that the initial impression of No draws! was incorrect. And of course I fully accept your preference not to involve yourself in draws. Ha-hah, an opportunity to tease! Instead of doubling before I bear off the very last piece (why do some people do that?) - I'll off you a draw! hee hee ;-))

nb. That title? Corny British humour, can't help it.

when the darkness is complaining again - it happens everyday and will
remain futile ... looking forward to some dogmatics suffering a very short circuit
when they need a draw to avoid a draw in an evennumber-games match ... ... ~*~

playBunny:
Your question was not in the post of 24 June 14:04 but 24 June 16:04.........:-)

It is the: but are you saying, George, that everyone should be deprived of the ability to offer a draw?

Well no, if some people want to offer a draw they should offer, so the feature should remain, because there are some people that want this.......
But i would never offer a draw or accept one (in the Backgammon game), even if i'm losing the game and my opponent suggest to have a draw or even if my opponent desperately wants it......It's just my pedantic nature.......:-)


WhiteTower:
BTW a draw in Anti-Backgammon might be considered, as I have experienced the utter and chaotic hopelessness of finishing such games...

I know what you mean but this is again a bad choice......We should keep our position of no-draws-in-non-draw-games and remain fantasyless.........~*~ Even if we have to play a 87.000 moves on a Anti-Backgammon game.....:-)

Hrqls: of course... you are a Brain Rook, not a lowly pawn like me :) You have a lot of advantages, which I have chosen not to pursue by being a paying member. With that in mind, I must pursue and protect any small advantages I do have, including draw rejection in games that are mathematically un-draw-able...

Just make sure you're not going on holiday any time after we start a game of Backgammon together :)

BTW a draw in Anti-Backgammon might be considered, as I have experienced the utter and chaotic hopelessness of finishing such games... but then again, this "game", which might be fancied by a lot, is definitely out of my schedule for the next 1000 years :)

Chessmaster1000: RYTFBE! ?? I gotta know!

And are you going to answer my previous question? (24. June 2005, 14:04:21)

would enable ideas like putting all the mechanistic computer clubber
into a file for those interested in iterative boredom and put just a link here. ~*~

AbigailII:
Finally, there's a tactical element. Suppose you're in a 6 player section. Your current score is 4 out of 4, your opponent has 4 out of 4 as well. There's one other section, and it's already know there's a single winner there. Suppose you, your opponent, and the winner of the other section are all equal in stength, so you estimate a 50% chance of winning any game between any two of you. If you play for a win, you have a 25% chance of winning the tournament - 50% chance of beating the current opponent, and 50% chance of beating the other winner. But if you go for a draw, your chance of winning the tournament increases to 50%! (25% of being a solo winner, 25% of joined winner).


First and since you accept equal strength of the opponent, we must assume that the opponent should also have equal cleverness in his decisions. So he would accept the draw as then he would have more chances to win the tournament (50% instead of 25% as you said-i don't agree with the 50%-number but only with the conclusion (that he would have more chances to win)).......

So after accepting the draw both 2 players would advance to the final, so the final would have 3 players of equal strength that would take the same decisions in draw cases.

But there is one important thing also: What a tie does? Forgetting about Sonneborn-Berger criterions of ranking we have the following cases:

We assume that in the final ranking if there is a tie of 2 or 3 players, then all players win!
That means and since all players have the same smartness, they will agree all games to a draw and all be the winners with a probability of 100%! If they risk one or more games by not offering a draw or rejecting one then they would have less than 100% chance of winning. So they would all offer a draw from the beginning and their equal-generally opponents will accept and win......

But since you assume that the 50% number, is the probability of winning at the final between 2 players, by having the statement: "and 50% chance of beating the other winner.", you assume that a tie repeats the game. Having that in mind.......:

We assume that in the final ranking if there is a tie between 2 or 3 players, then all series of games are repeated.
This means that the probability a player has to win the final is 1/3 or 33.3...%
If he didn't offered a draw at the first round he would then had 50%·50% = 25% chances of winning at the final.
So the player who offered the draw to achieve better chances to win the final, was correct in his decision. The same conclusion with yours but the probability to win is 33.3...% and not 50%.


And we can find a general statement with this observation: If we have for example 2 groups of N equal players each, that would compete for the final.
Then if a specific player tries to win to advance in the final he would have (1/N)·1/(1+X) chances to win the tournament, assuming a tie repeats the games (X (0<X<=N) number of players from the other group that promoted to the final).
But if the specific player offered draw in every game and his opponents accepted and did the same to all of their games(same IQ), they would then have 1/(N+X) chances to win the tournament, assuming a tie repeats the games.
And since (1/N)·1/(1+X) < 1/(N+X) the smart players of the one group that drawn all their games will have better chances to win the tournament than they would have if they fight for having wins.....
But all these are impractical cases as there are no equal players.....

As for the r being smaller than s, in your below example, i think that this is not a good thing to happen in such a game-site as it should be s=r. And the fact is that at Braiking and specifically at Backgammon it is r=s=8 for players rated above 2100. In fact for players with more than 2100, the system is easy: "+8 -8 =0" with equal(in a +-400 range BKR points) BKR points and "+1 -16 =-14" for players with not equal(in a range more than +-400 BKR points) BKR points.......

I don't like this system at all but...........I would prefer the range factor to be smaller and the rating change to be more wild.....
For example:

A game against opponents that their BKR difference is less than or exactly 100:
A win for the "stronger" player = "+10 -10 =0"
A win for the "weaker" player = "+10 -10 =0"

A game against opponents that their BKR difference is less than or exactly 200 and more than 100:
A win for the "stronger" player = "+8 -12 =0"
A win for the "weaker" player = "+12 -8 =2"

A game against opponents that their BKR difference is less than or exactly 300 and more than 100:
A win for the "stronger" player = "+6 -12 =0"
A win for the "weaker" player = "+12 -6 =2"

and so on........

That would tend to rise the BKR average but that's not bad at all and it happens in many Chess lists........

Lacking fantasy.........??????
RYTFBE!

... it merely was meant to expose blonde attitude of those obsessed by computers
meanwhile trying to program mankind to silly and unworthy machine standards, too
- not to generalize our nice frisk neighbourhood from south of texel to north of juetland ... ... ~*~

even if liberty becomes ashcrofted and criminalized in some countries meanwhile
it will remain elementary and futile to fight it in the free world existing globally yet ... ~*~

danoschek: woohoo! you want me to be the tournament creator :)

WhiteTower: thats a method to play by .. although i wouldnt do it myself i can understand you would :)

but for people who dont play by that method .. the draw feature is available :)

we need a totalitarian system where the fantasyless ones spend 24/7 to
fight creativity and a totally blonde tournament creator to find something
objectable whatsoever finally in the provenly great option of a draw ... . ~*~

too funny - irrigardlessly I described a different situtation in which a draw doesn't
harm anyone unlike in the perverted form that comes on his mind as first (funny too)
soon draws will be criminal sure. lacking fantasy cAn get a sickness if so notorious I say ~*~

Hrqls: As I said, I am a lowly pawn, who, as "valuable" as I may be to the existence of BK (by way of numerical majority) I am not that valuable as to warrant special treatment like paying members are. I have found that several times when I made other fair-play-related pleas... I was met with the usual "yes, pawns are important, but we can't help you - pay for membership for more help".

Therefore, while that stance is still valid, I will have to use my only advantage - not accepting draws when I can still win, whatever the circumstances, and accept losses for the same reasons.

wayney: There is currently a bug similar to that in the bug tracker:

http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=411

Actually if you wanted - you should add your game to that list.... to give Fencer another example to look at which might help fix the bug.

Chessmaster1000: the weekends should not count as in this case the rule of "no days off" has been set which should also exclude weekend days
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=886923
That was my understanding. This is different to the other option where you can select weekend days off only as denoted by the green dots

WhiteTower: agreed : the game itself is never a draw

but would you as a pawn accept lost games due to holidays or other, and unforseen, circumstances .. you can always try to take action and see if your opponent is nice enough .. you might decide to draw and play the game again later ?

Chessmaster1000: true in that case it would be an abuse of the feature :) .. but only because its me who would lose 25.000$ :)

if there is another reason to offer a draw than to change the results because of the results .. then i see no problem with it .. if its used, like in your example, to change the outcome of a tournament .. then its another matter

Chessmaster1000: Lol. Then there's that other variation of the game - played with a cat in a box. If, on your turn, you look into the box and the cat is dead .... ;-))

But back to the main point: WhiteTower is obviously putting forward that no draws is the best way for him and that being fair to other players isn't an idea that he'd entertain (which is reasonable enough as being nice can't always be high on people's list of priorities), but are you saying, George, that everyone should be deprived of the ability to offer a draw?

wayney: A weekend is coming, so 2 days are added to most people as vacation days, because most people have Sat/Sunday as their standard vacation days.....

Hrqls: Suppose you play with other 10 players the following game.
Each player plays with each other one game. So we would have 45 matches.

We have in a black bag 2 balls. One white and one black.
The game is simple. One of the 2 players, picks a ball, without being able to see the color, and if he chooses the white one he wins. If not he loses.

The first 2 of the group win 50.000$ each!
And after all the matches except one, that of player-A against player-B, we have the following ranking:

Hrqls      = 7 points / 10 games
Player-A = 7 points / 9 games
Player-B = 7 points / 9 games

And the 2 players agree to a draw and win 50.000$ each one. Perfectly fair right......?

Backgammon could be at the position of the aforementioned game......Backgammon has no draw! So the arbiter should not accept draw as a result.....

I have a few games going of hyper where I set 1 day limit with no time off and the time left still shows as almost 3 days. I Think something is not working right

Hrqls: As I mentioned before, the game itself is never a draw - period. As far as fair play is concerned... I am a lowly pawn and I will accept lost games going away on holidays, the same way that I accept all the limitations I have due to my non-paid member status. From that point of view, there is no "fair play" involved, as different conditions exist for pawns and non-pawns anyway.

WhiteTower: suppose your opponent has a big advantage and very probably will win this game .. he has to go away for 3 weeks though and would time out .. he offers a draw ... would you accept the draw ?

i would .. or i maybe even would resign the game as it would be fair ... because the problem is on his side though .. a draw would be fair as well

accepting such a draw is just fairplay

i once asked thebigoh to wait to make his move until the last day of his time limit .. because i wouldnt be able to be online for a few days because of a funeral .. he was so kind to do it .. of course he would have been able to move as fast as possible as well and win the game from me because of my time out .. but the way he did it, i now respect him a lot

sometimes a pawn wants to enter a tournament but cant, he wants to finish a game but doesnt want to lose it either ... he offers a draw (with some explanation) ... i would accept ...

draws in bg are all about being nice and/or fair

AbigailII: you are right

before it just stresses my patience or universe-outreaching tolerance granting everyone
to be happy even without the obvious thrills and benefits of a draw as described earlier
any attempts to make lacking fantasy obligatory are ridiculous and abnominal of course ~*~

CM1000, WhiteTower: It's true that it's the environment that allows draws and for some people it's a useful option on occasion. Calling it ridiculous and an abomination? Wow! Is 'despise' a good word here? It's obviously something you feel very strongly about? Enough, it seems, that you would deprive those who might enjoy that benefit.

danosham: Still hiding my posts, eh, chum? Would someone tell him he's dribbling again? Or if he wants to waste "air space" with personal remarks (like I'm doing, he he) then the word he's after is "imagination".

danoschek: Sorry to disagree with you, but what's "fantasy" is a draw in backgammon, like Chessmaster1000 said... whatever may be the operational requirements that make such an abomination allowable...

The bottom line is: the GAME of backgammon does not allow for draws. It's the ENVIRONMENT of playing backgammon that allows them, and some people disagree with that. Fact.

Chessmaster1000: lacking fantasy is
bad enough - but iterated it is just boring ... ~*~

Draw at Backgammon......? That is one of the most ridiculous things that Brainking has.......
Since the game itself CANNOT be draw in any way (this can be easily proven) i completely support that players should not be able to agree on this.......

Chess offers the draw as an option for a player to offer, but that is because the game itself can be drawn by some rules (50 move rule, 3-fold repetition,...,etc).

WhiteTower: because EACH GAME counts, towards statistics and final ratings.

No. Non-rated, non-tournament games don't count toward ratings or standings. And often, tournament games don't really matter for standings either - if for instance in a 6 player section, one player already has 5 out of 5, and you have 2 out of 4, it doesn't matter whether you end up with 2, 2.5 or 3 points - you're not making it to the next round anyway. Furthermore, in a N-wins match, draws don't count at all.

Finally, there's a tactical element. Suppose you're in a 6 player section. Your current score is 4 out of 4, your opponent has 4 out of 4 as well. There's one other section, and it's already know there's a single winner there. Suppose you, your opponent, and the winner of the other section are all equal in stength, so you estimate a 50% chance of winning any game between any two of you. If you play for a win, you have a 25% chance of winning the tournament - 50% chance of beating the current opponent, and 50% chance of beating the other winner. But if you go for a draw, your chance of winning the tournament increases to 50%! (25% of being a solo winner, 25% of joined winner). I guess offering a draw is the closest you can get to making a cube decision on BK. ;-)

Agreeing a draw is rather the obvious answer, especially with that link that says Offer draw, lol. Admittedly few would realise it but at Vog there is no option to draw; it's win, lose or resign. As I was unable to see the matches referred to, I was unable to determine haow they were drawn and was wondering whether I was unaware of some quirk of the game that that made a draw possible through play.

WhiteTower: One possibility is that the two players are more in it for the sociability, and the friendship outweighs the competitive aspect. In the holiday case, or any similar, they might agree a draw because a timeout win would be taking an unfair advantage.

Another, perhaps, is if there is a strong competitive aspect and the draw is agreeable because they want their matches to reflect only their playing and not spurious wins. In the latter case the overall rating would matter less than the match history between them.

Then I imagine there's a whole bunch of players who don't really care about statistics or ratings. For them it might be as simple as "Draw?" "Okay, why not."

One reason for drawing that I have: I occasionally give backgammon lessons at Vog and when the main points of the lesson have been given, or my student's reached the brain-full-need-to-digest stage, lol, then I will resign the game or match. (It's just a politeness and doesn't affect my rating because we play unrated). If there were a draw option then I could use that.

WhiteTower: Who says a win is only a few moves away? Besides, against some players, a few moves takes a few weeks anyway. I don't understand your shouting of VALID. If there is a draw, then the players of their draw had, for them, valid reasons to make it a draw. Don't assume that if you wouldn't agree on a draw in certain situations that noone else would.

so you are excused too - I for my part enjoy
players with a bit more of fantasy though ...
have a blessed week ... ~*~ . -- silly

danoschek: ... which of course, brings us to the silly way one gets a SINGLE win for multi-game matches... that's another's day work. See, wherever you turn with my question, you ALWAYS end up in a silly situation. In the real world, and specifically in 1-point matches here on BK, there is NO ****ING WAY a draw is reasonable... because EACH GAME counts, towards statistics and final ratings...

the point could be in an 8-games match when you
won 5 already, why bother on, rest draw over ... . ~*~

So... my opponent is going away on a holiday and I have to give up a probable win... or my opponent WANTS to have a draw and I have to cheerfully give up my win just like that...

Are you all guys serious??? I mean, beyond money games, which I have no care whatsoever about, please give me a VALID reason why I, having a possible win in a few moves, should give it up for a draw!!!

a draw is very acceptable and senseful. e.g. your opponent offers draw,
you accept because you forsee to lose this set in a bg match - half a point.
for players with a bit of fantasy that effect is half a cube too ... . ~*~

WhiteTower: In money play, agreeing a draw is common. This usually happens in a close game, where the outcome would be decided solely by the luck of the dice. In tournament play, I think the situation is different and a draw is never really acceptable.

WhiteTower: To finish a tournament round? Because you're about to start a three week vacation? Because your opponent offers a draw and you're behind in pipcount? Just because you can? Because a draw finishes the game, freeing a game slot, so you can participate in the next tournament?

e.g. to win a tournament when the other has no chance anymor hence just wants out ...
and in matches with a fixed, even amount of games a draw will always be possible -
taking a draw in a set of a bg match may even gain the thrill of the lacking cube ... ~*~

Mike UK: Maybe the question really is: why WOULD you agree on a draw, when a draw is impossible?

playBunny: By agreeing one.

Putting Abigail's explanation of why a win and a loss is not equal a different way (for those who see 0 q, p r s and find their eyes glazing over and their mind going blank, lol): The points per game is based on the difference between the two players' ratings. After the first game that distance will have changed and thus the second game will be worth a different amount.

The backgammon formula gives a match a maximum value equal to the square root of the match length. Whether that's the "correct" function to use or not, it makes sense that longer matches earn more beans; more effort/risk, more reward/loss.

I've often been puzzled by this one. I've seen it in player's profiles at Vog but not been able to retrieve any match from the archive. How can you have a draw in backgammon?

AbigailII: Where's this bank that gives 10% interest? Please tell!

because it enables you to create staged handicap challenges
in those gametypes with one clearly advantaged colour ... ... ~*~

alanback: think I have noticed that a 3-wins match counts the same as a single game win -- is that correct? Seems like it should count for more.

Why should it count for more? Is a 2-1 win, with 15 draws a bigger win than a 1-0 win with no draws?

Hrqls: as those matches are calculated as a draw i would expect 2 games with the same player, directly after another, win and loss, have the same result as the 2 game match which was a draw

No, that's not what I expect. There is a difference between two one-game matches, and a single two game match, and that's the fact that in with the two matches, there's a rating adjustment after the first match, and unless there was no rating adjustment, the ratings of the opponents at the start of the second match differ from the ratings of the opponents at the start of the first.

Compare it to interest on a bank account. Say you have an account that gives 10% of interest a year, you have $1000 on that account - and you keep the money in the account for two years. How much interest have you made in those two years? $200? (10%/year of $1000 for 2 years) Or $210? (10% of $1000 for the first year, 10% of $1100 for the second year). Or even $215.50 (interest added every 6 months)?

alanback: you noticed right ... but why
change ? else a match would make no difference ?
appointing amount of points/games provides liberty ... . ~*~