Chessmaster1000: Yes, calculating the upper bound of possible games in GC does sound similar to what you are asking, doesn't it? :)

Chessmaster1000: About infinite or not BG games, ask Grim Reaper, he had some fun calculating similar cases for Gothic Chess :)

As for Fencer's Law - it is as you say, and ends up being in the same way that Anubis existed both as an Ancient and as a Goa'uld (for Stargate fans!)

Wil: DG is much smarter and does take care of all such cases, to the point of pre-playing moves to speed things up. But DG is only for BG, so it can afford the extra system load, whereas BK... ;)

Walter Montego: Exactly - turning to Wil> - either accept the status quo here and shut up about it, or don't accept it, shout at the top of your (virtual) voice and watch it get lost in the wind ;) (unless your stars are lucky and you make more sense than everyone else here and your request gets some results)

And back to reality now: Here there is only Law 0: Fencer's Law :)

Chessmaster1000: ...and that's because there is the element of chance in it. Can anyone tell us if there is an International Roulette/Slot-Machine/etc. Federation? :)

playBunny: All I was saying is that, as long as the site allows you to do something, whatever the documented rules say in favour or against it, it simply is the way it works. Maybe Fencer doesn't want to change the wording in the rules, maybe he likes the controversy :)

Let's just accept that this is Fencer's site and the rules are as he wants them, pending any feedback that he deems reasonable and actionable.

If you want to play by any set of defined/accepted/fair/international/whatever rules, accept that you cannot do it on BK (for now)

I will keep playing according to what BK allows me and I expect my opponents HERE to do the same - and if they don't agree, well, then they shouldn't be playing under illusions, should they?

Pedro Martínez: It's the International BOXING Federation in their less combative moods...

ArtfulDodger: and the explanation is... ?

danoschek: "How can one save time playing Backgammon without having to play each individual move one-at-a-time, especially in cases where dice rolls have obvious outcomes, e.g. closing certain positions or not playing while bar cannot leave due to opponent's full home?"

1. He's a Pawn.
2. Hyper Backgammon (as well as, possibly, all other versions of Backgammon) is poorly implemented (sorry Fencer, but... this case was ample proof)

Conclusion: Play with what you are allowed; obviously there is no rule that says "when a game implementation is faulty, try to stick to the rules of real world play"...

Maybe posts like this can make a difference in the future for the benefit of all, and make Pawns be heard for a change...

Hrqls: so, hopefully, and after the social aspects mention in your previous message, you considered the situation from my point of view, the view of a lowly pawn ;)

playBunny: It's more of a stalemate... mate ;)

Chessmaster1000: That's it then, my fellow countryman... we have just started the
NDPA on BK (Non-Drawable Players Association) :>>>

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 :)

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.

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.

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.

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...

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!!!

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

Is the formula there better or not?

frolind: Of course, that's WALTER Trice, not EDWARD Trice - one for the 10x8 board followers here to snigger about :)

... and how many "standard" backgammon boards in a mile?

Let's get back on topic, please :)

alanback: Yes, I've read Flatland, but I would consider the "extra" dimension the cube adds as the bad idea of seeing your own insides - YUCK! (whoever's read Flatland WILL understand)

Marfitalu: OK, maybe I should have used my native tongue and said Tavli instead :) What matters is the board and the piece arrangement... Anyway, there will be no Pro Backgammon, just an extra option in our regular favourite...

BIG BAD WOLF: Sounds fine. There are no financial gains anyway :)

Sorry for sounding pedantic, but backgammon started out centuries ago WITHOUT the cube and it was used purely for entertainment, not for financial gains - the latter started happening when the cube was introduced. Calling it "pro" may be ugly, but it is the truth, there is no hiding from it...