DarwinKoala: I usually resign when I feel I've no chance left; not just with backgammon variants, also with other games. I don't go out of my way to calculate the chances, so I may play on for a move or two "too long", but whenever it's obvious, I resign.

And I greatly appreciate it if my opponents do so as well.

DarwinKoala: Me too. For instance I often continue play to see if I would have beaten the gammon, had it mattered. Although totally irrelevent to the score, I find it satisfying and also instructive (for future play) to see about beating the gammon.

playBunny: If the scoring of the game is such that gammon or not doesn't matter (for instance because the dice is not being used) playing on to see whether you could avoid the gammon doesn't make much sense. Your play might be to avoid th e gammon, but since gammon or not doesn't matter, your opponents play will not take gammon considerations into account. With other words, you would be both playing a different game. Even if you avoid the gammon, it does not mean you would have avoided the gammon if the gammon had mattered (because your opponent might have made different moves).

AbigailII: Ditto

AbigailII: your opponents play will not take gammon considerations into account.

Is that really true? Do you start playing doolally moves if your opponent has already lost or do you continue playing consistently? If you continue playing consistently, how many times are the moves the same between gammon go and merely winning? It's not zero percent, is it?

It's fun when playing a bot to see if you might get a backgammon but, unfortunately, if the match is already lost then they move randomly and don't seek to avoid the backgammon. A human opponent is very unlikely to do so. They will move out of your home just because they can - because it avoids the virtual backgammon. Yet if they leave the pieces there and lose by a backgammon, it will still tend to be intentional. People don't often do random.

Conversely if a human opponent is playing on, even if they have won, there's a high chance that they will play to see if they can get the gammon, just as the loser is playing to see whether they can avoid it. It's a mini competition above and beyond the game itself. Call it fun, call it foolishness, call it what you like. Bots don't give a damn about such things, they can't understand the point. So, it would seem, is the case for certain humans. The bots, however, don't feel a need to argue that the funsters are wrong!

Even if you avoid the gammon, it does not mean you would have avoided the gammon if the gammon had mattered (because your opponent might have made different moves).

Granted, they might be making different moves. In a bearoff situation that's how likely? But anyway, if they might then they might not, and might not is more likely if you're playing a human of the kind outlined above. And if they might not then the exercise is not fruitless.

playBunny: Also, wouldnt it be to my competitive advantage to not let you know how you would have done against the gammon?

Czuch Czuckers: Also, wouldnt it be to my competitive advantage to not let you know how you would have done against the gammon?

A daft point like that deserves a daft response. Eat my shorts.

playBunny et al:  All this reminds me of the story I once read about a utopian society that had only two rules:

1.  "Thou shalt not bother other people."

2.  "Thou shalt not be too easily bothered."

playBunny: Political Debate