Aganju: I think the issue is that the routine uses the current time as seed or so.

Why do you think that? Are you knowledgeable about random number generators?

2011 - http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=2164&utf=plakoto


2011 - http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=2129&utf=plakoto


2008! - http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=1602&utf=plakoto

grenv: Although backgammon from a man on the bar is a rare phenomenon, a million games(*) suggests that it's happened more than a few times and so I imagine that it would have been reported by now if it were in the regular variant. I suspect that the bug occurs in variants which have bar pieces where entry is optional. ... but you might be right. Who can know but the man with the code.

(*) Although the scoring of gammons and backgammons wouldn't be applicable in quite a proportion of that million.

Aganju: The piece on the bar is a "race piece", which your opponent can bring in at any time. Presumably Fencer forgot to include those in the is-a-backgammon calculation.

gogul: important win‽ yes or no.

I'm not sure what the question is but it's obviously important enough for you to have posted about it.

nikos: Actually you are missing something

Yes, he's missing the link to the exact move, having posted a link to the game itself, which just happened to be the correct move at the time of posting.

you need to have no legal moves left

Fevga game 5460931, move 60

grenv: 9 rolls

Yes, and it can be done with nine 6-6s, which wastes pips, or nine rolls which bear off exactly.

For example, if the opponent starts and makes obligingly awful moves (in particular, abandoning their midpoint), the player can roll 6-6, 6-6, 2-2, 6-6, 1-1, 6-5, 6-6, 6-6, 6-6 to finish having rolled exactly 167.

Avoiding errors on the part of the player would need an extra move and an opponent who obligingly misses any necessary blots caused by bearing off with doubles. It can be done as a blitz with 6-6, 5-5, 4-4, 6-6, 6-6, 1-1, 6-6, 5-5, 3-3, 1-1 if the opponent starts with 5-2 and splits the back men.

toedder: I suspect that a few of the add-on programs that come with various distros are behind the cutting edge, especially with a product like GnuBg that is officially still unreleased yet with a fairly frequently updated development version available to the public. Bugs pop in and pop out again and a distro can end up with a buggy snapshot. I'm glad to hear that changing the version - in both directions, lol - worked for you.

toedder: g11 is a GnuBg-generated MET that has values created using rollouts for scores up to 11-away, 11-away. g11 is the default MET for that version. I think the latest GnuBg uses, the Rockwell-Kazaross MET.

Yes, METs are only for match play.

It's very curious that you have this error and I don't have it in versions either side of yours. That's assuming that I'm putting in the corretc position. Perhaps you could upload the match somewhere?

Alternatively, the problem may simply go away if you download and install the latest version.

toedder: I can't reproduce the error on any of the versions that I have (Oct 2005, Nov 2009 and July 2011). Which version of GnuBg are you using and what MET is speciied?

Anjil: Further to what grenv said, random is not the same as varied. In order for the dice to be random, these patterns have to occur every now and then.

You say that you noticed it before. I take that to imply that you've also stopped noticing it, presumably because that clustering went away .. until the next time you noticed. That's what random does. :-)

rod03801: Yes, the odds are considered in a way yet they don't get deliberately calculated for their own sake.

Lol. You can't talk about being slow when this is your introduction to a very challenging topic! I've wanted to explain something about neural network backgammon here for the last few years and have written a few lengthy posts on the topic but I've always discarded them before posting. Painting a reasonably accurate but understandable picture of how the bots work is difficult and this is the first time that I'm happy enough with what I've written to actually post it. Even so, this is more of a sketch than a picture so I'd be impressed if anyone new to neural networks gets what they're about just from this.

rod03801: But is there a specific reason to NOT consider odds?

The main reason is that doing so wouldn't add any new information. A position evaluation already includes the odds. In fact it includes the odds, and outcomes, of everything that could possibly happen from that position until each end of the game. All of that exploration into future possibilities is condensed into how much it'll win and how much it'll lose, on average, from that position.

How a bot learns is by playing a million or trillion or gazillion games through to the end and, for each position along the way, it records the outcome. If that position already has a value from one or more outcomes then the latest outcome is merged into the value. Many positions occur again and again and so the value for each of these positions becomes more and more accurate. Positions that occur more rarely will accumulate fewer outcomes and be less accurate. Also, the closer a position is to the start of the game the less accurate it'll be because a smaller percentage of the myriad possible paths will be travelled by the set of games that are explored.

However, that's an as if kind of explanation. No database can store each and every position; that would be impossible given the sheer number of possible positions. (Although it is possible with hypergammon because, with only 6 checkers rather than 30, there are many fewer positions). The neural network method that the bots use is very clever. During the explorations mentioned above, when adding in the outcome for a given position, what they do is record and merge the value for the position with that of positions that are like the given position. By recording "positions that look like <this>" instead of actual positions, the storage requirements are greatly reduced, although this is at the expense of some degree less accuracy for a given position.

In a well designed neural network those "positions that look like <this>" will be fine-grained enough to capture the subtleties of positions that are fairly similar visually but different backgammonly, such as one with a blot that can be hit directly using a 6 and a matching position where the blot is just one pip further away and needs both dice in order to hit it.

Apart from the ability to store all that information with a practically sized database, the other, and huge, advantage of the neural network method is the ability to generalise. Because it doesn't store actual positions you can give it a position that it's never seen before and it can always find a similar position whose values can be used. The mathematical "distance" from the position to the similar position will vary but often it's not so far that the accuracy suffers too much. Thus the computer can respond as if it knows the position, even having never seen it.

Walter Montego: Loadsaquestions!

Sometimes playing for a long shot is so much more worth it than playing safe. Which way will a computer decide?

You might be surprised to hear this but the computer doesn't care about the odds of a shot and never calculates them. The same goes for the odds of a leaving a blot and having it hit, closing a prime, etc. It doesn't a care. In fact it doesn't even know what odds are!

What it does is make each of the possible moves and then evaluate the resulting position. The one with the highest evaluation is the winner and the move that got to that position is the one that gets made. The computer's database is all about knowing the value of every possible position to a reasonable degree of accuracy. How it gets to any position (eg. through a long-shot hit or just by moving pieces) is irrelevant. A backgammon program is very much more a stats machine than a conceptual player.

I'm sure you've made a move that you know was not as good as a different move, but if your opponent doesn't get the roll to make you sorry for taking the chance you will win the game. So, do you go for it, or not?

Unlike the computer player, a human player will often consider the odds. That's because we don't have quite the same kind of calculating ability for comparing moves. Our intuition is the best match to the system that the computer uses but we have much, much less experience. We do know, however, that the position evaluation is related to the odds of various shots. (The computer doesn't need to know this as it can compare exact(ish) outcomes directly). The other thing that we do that the computer doesn't do (and really cannot do), is think conceptually.

I might know, for instance, that, being behind in the race, I must hit my opponent, despite the risk of being hit back. For example, hitting might leave a blot in my 5-point home table. In a case like this I'll know that the chance of being hit is 11/30 but if I don't hit then a 5 or 6, at odds of 20/36, would let my opponent escape with a most likely win resulting. I don't need to know the equities of the positions, I can compare the odds and they dictate the hit. The computer goes straight to the equities, compares those and comes to the same conclusion.

So, do you go for it, or not?

Having said the above. There are times when I don't play rationally but play "psychically", ie. I try and second-guess the dice. And hey, sometimes it works! And sometimes I might do the incorrect move just for the hell of it, because getting the luck would give me a buzz. (For some players that's their predominant style, especially cube gamblers). By and large, though, I try to play what the backgammon programs (mainly GnuBg) and my own experience have taught me over the years is the optimal move.

the rating points for Backgammon on this site. Single games seem disproportionally in favor of the player who is rated lower when his rating is more than 60 point

Absolutely. The chess rating formula used for backgammon makes a mockery of the rating system. The risk/reward ratio is totally wrong for high rated players. It's impossible to consistently win as many matches as needed to maintain your position unless you go for longer match lengths which reduce the luck element. A 60% winning ration for single pointers is very good but the chess rating formula means that you might need to win 75% in order not to be penalised.

Is a person that uses a computer to help with his moves on this site play noticeably different from someone that doesn't use it?

Anyone whose rating chart has anomalies is worthy of suspicion. The rating cheats who have opponents dropping like flies for them can be spotted by sudden streaks of wins. A person using a bot to determine their play is less noticeable but, unless they really are good, they'll progress too easily.

What would be an example of such play?

Usually you can't really tell but a good player can sometimes spot moves that are unusual or advanced. Moves that wouldn't occur to most players, such as hitting in their home table and leaving two blots. That's more risk than most players can accept but there are times when it's definitely the right thing to do.

Then there are other occasions when a bot-trained player will spot something that only a bot would do. In some circumstances, for example in a holding game or anchor game, when there will be a few moves before there's any chance of hitting action, there's time to build one's home table. Doing that efficiently might mean making a vulnerable-looking mess (that will suddenly firm up into a solid board). The bots have a particular way of doing this at times, maybe having three blots in their home table. Human players tend to be more cautious and/or neater in how they do it. Seeing a player do such a bot-style spread suggests that they're either good, and bot-trained, or using a bot.

Is it something noticeable at once, or is it much more subtle that it takes many games and certain move situations to notice or even have a suspicion that it might be going on?

Both nabla and I spotted the bot-player that I mentioned before. I seem to remember seeing some of the bot-style moves and being suspicious. I was also suspicious of the rather too perfect rating climb. nabla and I analysed some his matches using GnuBg. Initially it looked suspicious but not conclusive because there were still mistakes being made. However that analysis was done at 2-ply, which is a strong setting. nabla had the idea of redoing the analysis at 0-ply and then the mistakes vanished and the player was show to be playing exactly as the program dictated.

Since he was exposed, he plays all of his matches in private mode so that nobody can see and analyse his moves!

Does the computer ever conclude that that the winning player made the most mistakes or the worst of them?

Absolutely. Almost every time you beat a bot then you'll have played mistakes against an opponent that made none, yet you won. Similarly, good players who lose to lower rated players will usually have played better but still lost. That's how powerful a factor luck is in the game, and what keeps people coming back for more, even if they're rubbish players.

What's a mistake?

When a bot analyses a position and a roll it will create a list of the possible moves and an evaluation for the resulting position. The top move, the one with the best evaluation, is the best move and all others are mistakes. - according to that bot at that analysis level

But how do we know whether that list of moves, and in particular the top move, is correct? The only way to know is to analyse even more deeply.

Thus the 0-ply analysis, used by the bot cheat mentioned above, showed mistakes when the matches were analysed at 2-ply. As 2-ply is more accurate than 0-ply, we can assume that 0-ply's mistakes are mistakes. (or at least very probably)

However, it's important to note that the bots evaluate moves and positions as if they are playing themselves at that same analysis level. In real play, with a human opponent, you can be sure that your opponent has weaknesses. A bot will never play to exploit its opponents weakness. It can't, because it has no such concept as "opponent", let alone "weakness". The computer knows how *it* would play a given position and roll and that's all it needs to know. When I said "as if they are playing themselves" just above, what I mean is that their statistical database (ie. the neural network) has values that only reflect play against itself.

And what happens if it is the winning move despite being a mistake? A move is a mistake because on average it produces a suboptimal outcome (the lower evaluation mentioned before). But you can often make a mistake and get away with it because, in any given game, the dice are being themselves, not trying to be average.

I've many times made a move and clicked Submit just fractions of a second before realising that it was the wrong move, and then breathed a sigh of relief because my opponent didn't get the roll that could capitalise on my mistake. Similarly, when analysing a match, the computer will show me many mistakes that I didn't realise (or wondered about) at the time and the follow up shows that I got away with it.

Walter Montego: And what about luck? I get real lucky against some of my opponents and other I just get stomped.

Luck will always play a large part of success in games, matches and sets of matches. It's only when you make those sets large that you can discount the luck, because it will tend to balance out.

In talking about the advantage that a computer's knowledge can give in a given game then it's really a question of how many errors the given player is likely to make. That's a function of their skill level, the familiarity of the game type and the complexity. As you noted, some positions are easy and the move is "standard" or "obvious". The set of standard moves becomes larger the more skill a player has and the value of the computer in those positions diminishes.

coan.net: For a computer - they can look ahead 20 moves - they can easily see what the more common rolls will result (More people will roll a total of 7 then roll a total of 3.)

Backgammon computers typically look only a few moves ahead, 2 or 3 for Snowie and GnuBg, 3 or 4 with eXtreme Gammon.

However, that's something of a misleading value because even looking no moves ahead, a backgammon program will still be extremely strong. That's because the static evaluation of a position already includes the statistics of looking ahead to the end of millions of games.

Walter Montego: It depends on what you mean by "using a computer" and "advantage".

If you mean having the computer choose the moves then there's a perfect example in the top three of the backgammon rankings. That is, there's enough of an advantage that you'll get to the top of the rankings, beatable only by a very strong human player who plays the longest matches possible to take advantage of his cube skills relative to the much weaker playing pool.

Walter Montego: Can't we just have the dice to simulate a real pair of dice being toss

Actually I think that that could be exactly what's done and where the problem lies.
http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&plla=1067194

pgt: I got a response [from Fencer] "It's a visual bug. Player names should be switched in the message."

Yes, he's right.

I have no way of verifying it now!

That's true but I do. ;-)

These are your recent matches:

28. Nov 2010, 08:18:48   7 points match with doubling cube   g.            lost
28. Nov 2010, 21:07:53   5 points match with doubling cube   ennukene00    lost
29. Nov 2010, 20:36:18   7 games match                       ennukene00    lost
29. Nov 2010, 20:48:54   5 points match with doubling cube   ennukene00    won 
29. Nov 2010, 20:51:41   7 games match                       ennukene00    won 
30. Nov 2010, 10:33:57   7 games match                       ennukene00    lost
30. Nov 2010, 10:40:31   5 points match with doubling cube   ennukene00    lost
30. Nov 2010, 11:50:48   7 games match                       Carl          lost
30. Nov 2010, 21:06:34   7 games match                       tequila       lost

And, according to Fencer, that name switch means that your rating after that win should be 2264.

ennukene00: old BKR = 2256, new BKR = 2264 (+8)
pgt: old BKR = 2245, new BKR = 2237 (-8)

Which you can see here: Phil_Hyper_Nov2010.png

moistfinger: I think the site is run by complete control freaks

Lol. If you got yourself banned then that's an entirely natural thing to think. After all, why accept any responsibility yourself.

Banning is rare at DailyGammon but there are certain ways that you can help yourself out the door. Most of them involve being annoying followed by being an -------------. You do get the option to stop after the first and try to resist becoming the second.

In Pedro's case I think, unless there were events that I wasn't aware of, that it was a case of misunderstanding after Pedro made a rather clumsy entrance; one that made it too easy to interpret his joining as being for the purposes of aggression. As there is an ongoing "battle" with someone (a major ---------) who does just that, toleration for such accounts is lower than it might be.

ps. I shudder to think how traumatised you'd be if you met real control freaks. By the way, have you joined GoldToken yet?

DragonKing: There's a pip count shown next to each player's name, which has been labelled "Points" rather than "Pips". If you are doing your own pip count, a piece on the bar counts as 25.

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys

Late announcement. It starts on Wednesday

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st December 2010

DragonKing: It's entirely arbitrary. On a board in live play there will always be one player going clockwise and one going anti-clockwise. It's only possible for both players to makes their moves in the same direction if they each have a board, which is, of course, how it is on a game site.

In books it's likely to be the preference of the author. For a game site it may be their preference or it may be that they take their convention from elsewhere. Some sites, such as DailyGammon, allow each player to choose their direction of play.

pgt: ~~why ANYBODY who plays backgammon would want to play WITHOUT the cube beggars belief.

Isn't that a religious statement?

At the least, surely all that having no cube means is that you play each game to the end and have to overcome every game-snatching opportunity that presents itself to the opponent? I can't understand why anyone would have such animosity to that. Personally, I greatly enjoy cubeless play and both the challenge of maintaining the lead to the very end and the chance of snatching victory at the last moment.

On the other hand, if you'd said:

~~why ANYBODY who plays backgammon would want to play WITHOUT the checkers beggars belief.

Then I'd understand completely, for that would be sheer madess!!

tonyh: The solution is simple. First, find a Fencer who cares. Second, ....... Actually I'm not sure what comes next, we've never got that far.

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st November 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st December 2010

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st October 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st November 2010

paully: comparing a Boeing 747 compared to whale .

Didn't you say something else there? I think it got shovelled. ;o)

paully: I find it interesting you would post such a post to make people think I did some weird stuff to climb.

Lol. I find it interesting that you think I posted it for that reason. ;-)

It's an impressive climb, almost 350 points in two weeks, and a sight to behold - for those who can see it! Lol. ;-P

If I thought it was due to cheating then I'd have said so. If others want to think that, given just a graph and no comment from me, well, it's their choice to jump to uninformed conclusions. Intelligent observers look for more evidence than a line on a graph, they look for the reason for the line on the graph.

In contrast to me not saying anything about your climb being bogus (because it isn't), you have clearly suggested malice and spite as my motivation. Don't you think that such an accusation is rather incompatible with publically suggesting a phone call? LOL A good time to call? A good time is when you're not being such a flaming galah! ;O)

ps. I'll allow that using a wink smiley with the graph was slightly suggestive. ;-)

pps. Being a much under-rated player in the context of the BrainKiing Chessgammon rating formula is bad enough but, with your paranoid projection as well, I think there's good reason to boot you from the tourney!

I won't, of course, 'cos I'm a nice bunny and I like you. But only on one condition.... You have to beat me in our match at Pocket-Monkey! Do you reckon you can do it? ;o)

paully: woo hoo I made it into the tournament !!!

That sure was a fast climb!

paully: More like BrainKing's rating formula is too backgammon-unfriendly for you to enter.

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st September 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st Ocrober 2010

alanback: I described simulation in my earlier post. Backgammon (playBunny, 2010-07-18 14:28:23) If you are simulating the real dice action at the start of the game then each player occasionally will get the same dice, as they do in real life, and the roll will have to be done over. If you play GnuBg then you'll see that it does this, for example "A new session has been started --- GnuBg rolls 4, playBunny rolls 4 --- GnuBg rolls 2, playBunny rolls 4". It's not strictly necessary to go through those motions, as a binary coin toss will suffice, but that's how the GnuBg programmers did it and maybe Fencer liked the idea too.

wetware: I think humans tend to notice/remember items that appear near the beginnings or ends of lists or sequences. It's an effect seen in some memory tasks.

Yes, respectively, the latency and recency effects.

playBunny: I agree with Thad that the number generator itself is probably okay and that it's the use that's at fault.

I think that the problem is only on the opening rolls. I know that the checking of pairs of dice within games hasn't been done yet but I suspect that a high occurence of duplication, such as there is for the opening rolls, would have been noticed much sooner than now and by many more people.

I know that I'd occasionally notice that the opponent's opening dice came out the same as mine, or vice versa, but I never went beyond that, to seeing it as a pattern. If it were happening throughout the game then I'm sure that I would have noticed and other, more observent people, would have seen it sooner.

So, assuming that it is an opening rolls issue, we must be looking for code that is special to the start of a game. One obvious contender is the rolling of dice for who goes first. In real backgammon, each player rolls a dice and the one with the higher value gets both to play with. After that first move the two players pick up their individual dice and thereafter take care of their own rolls.

If I were coding a backgammon server then I wouldn't bother with that. I'd simply toss a binary digit to see who was to start and then roll the starting player's dice using the same code as every other roll. However, if I were to code a simulation of the real live start action then there'd be the opportunity for error.

What might happen then is that I use one dice from each player for the first player's roll but then re-use one of those dice for the second player, presumably the dice that they rolled to see who started.

This, if Fencer is doing such a simulation, is the prime suspect for the bug. If you look at the example matches below then you can see clearly that there's at least one common dice in the majority of games. It's somthing that should be frequent (55% - the same odds as getting one man off the bar into a home table with 2 points open) but not that frequent.

If one of the dice is always the same and the other is a fair roll then duplication of both would occur with a frequency of 1/6 rather than the 1/18 that's expected, so 3 times more often.

The interesting thing about this bug is that there are exceptions. Although there are none in wetware's matches below, there are a few in mine and more in Resher's. That must be caused by something. One theory is that perhaps when the starting player swaps the dice before moving this somehow breaks the connection between the forst and second players' dice. I can't think why that should be the case and haven't played any matches that I can test the theory with.

wetware: Are you, by any chance, recording how often the opponent gets one of the starter's dice? In the example games that I did back in November, in one of the matches that occurred with every single game

And here are the first 5 matches on your finished games page. Red denotes one or two common dice, bold black shows where there are no common dice.

Backgammon (blue sky vs. wetware)
46 ... 61
35 ... 63
23 ... 42
53 ... 53
15 ... 52
53 ... 53
63 ... 63

Backgammon (wetware vs. blue sky)
62 ... 62
41 ... 51
41 ... 51
64 ... 64
23 ... 22
65 ... 55

Backgammon (blue sky vs. wetware)
61 ... 26
34 ... 33
31 ... 31

Backgammon (blue sky vs. wetware)
12 ... 21
64 ... 64
65 ... 65

Backgammon (wetware vs. mertos)
12 ... 11
21 ... 21
12 ... 21
25 ... 62
12 ... 21
65 ... 65

And here are the first 7 hypergammon matches off mine:

Hyper Backgammon (playBunny vs. Sarah)
32 ... 31
56 ... 51
12 ... 51
24 ... 62
56 ... 52
35 ... 51

Hyper Backgammon (playBunny vs. Varazslo)
23 ... 42
34 ... 33
13 ... 31

Hyper Backgammon (playBunny vs. Petromil)
63 ... 63
16 ... 61
34 ... 33

Hyper Backgammon (sascham vs. playBunny)
35 ... 63
14 ... 41

Hyper Backgammon (playBunny vs. Ian C)
35 ... 63
43 ... 22
42 ... 32
15 ... 62
52 ... 53
63 ... 65

Hyper Backgammon (Doris vs. playBunny)
63 ... 63
25 ... 62

Hyper Backgammon (Helena vs. playBunny)
36 ... 41
12 ... 11
41 ... 41

And here's a single 11-pointer of Resher's

Backgammon (Karol G. vs. Resher)
63 ... 11
43 ... 45
61 ... 51
23 ... 51
41 ... 11
63 ... 51
34 ... 62
63 ... 52
65 ... 51
65 ... 52
63 ... 62
12 ... 52
64 ... 42
41 ... 51

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&plla=1050529 - 1st May 2010 with reference to November 2009 and as early as 2008.

The crucial question, I believe, is which standard deviation will be the greater - how far from chance the return opening rolls are or how far Fencer is from caring!

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys.


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st August 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st Sep 2010

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys.


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st July 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st August 2010

AlliumCepa: I don't think it's a "bad" for anyone, lol. In any case, I've changed my home page link to log me in without using the web subdoimain.

AlliumCepa: I am not sure if the "web" part should be there at all.

That's what I have in my address bar and it works for me, so it's legitimate. I just took the web. bit out and that worked too, except that I wasn't logged in. I'm not sure when or why Fencer created the web subdomain but, whenever it was, I updated my home page, which has links to login me in directly. It's been like that ever since.

AlliumCepa: Thanks for that. Interesting, it's the right page but you're not logged in!

It should be okay from now on. I've been doing each month by editing the previous month's post and copying it into a new one. For some reason that gives me a fully-specified url (http://web.brainking.com/en/Tourneys/...) instead of the relative one (Tourneys/...). I'll make sure that I delete the unwanted portion in future.

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys.


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st June 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st July 2010

AlliumCepa: Thanks Ivaylo.

Where does the link with "web" take you?

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys.


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st May 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st June 2010

Pedro Martínez: Awwww!!

Pedro Martínez: Lol. That sounds like fun!

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys.


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st Apr 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st May 2010

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys.


I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st Mar 2010

I like it fast, 5-point Hyper, 1st Apr 2010

Snoopy: A slow coach can block a country road but it takes two of them to block a two-lane highway.