Kipling: Which is why the http://brainking.etc is inserted, making the url invalid.

BIG BAD WOLF: if you use the edit button on my post...you'll see there is no http://

Pythagoras: You have to be kidding me? Math?

I have a math degree as it turns out, but this is a question of the english language.

If you have borne of many checkers it is also true that you have borne off a checker. If I ask "Has player x has borne off a checker?" the answer to that question doesn't switch to being "No" just because I bear off a second!!!

If you want to ask about one checker you have to use the word "one". i.e. "Have you borne off one checker?". This is probably ambiguous enough to warrant the word exactly being inserted.

The use of "Else" is simple to understand and needn't be complicated by the use of set theory in my opinion. In this case there is no intersection of sets, you can't be gammoned and backgammoned at the same time.

Kipling: Your link does not work for me - for some reason it is inserting an extra http://brainking.com/en/ before it - giving me an invalid link.

BIG BAD WOLF: (my link works)
and there is nothing regarding resignation in the cube rules.
Thanks to everyone for clearing this up for me.

Kipling: Link: http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1260088

Yes, tonyh resigned when he already had 1 piece off the board, meaning the value of the game is what is one the double cube (2 points)

playBunny: so...is this right?

alanback: I've never been to the former Dailygammon so I'm referring to the procedure that BBW was talking about.

playBunny: I think you mean the former Dailygammon procedure?

BBW: It doesn't protect people who don't realise that they don't need to lose those 6 points. Just like Dailygammon doesn't protect those who don't realise that they don't need to accept only a single.

Yet, I'll say it again. The Dailygammon procedure is open to "abuse" by a subset of players, those who would take advantage of that ignorance. The procedure here always "takes advantage" of the player's ignorance. (And given that cubes and gammons are so new here and resignations in Backgammon have only had consequences for that game and not the match, that ignorance is rife!)

Oh in that case the current way protects newcomers or not enough knowledgeable people from losing points with the aforementioned way....
But of course this doesn't make the current system of resignations good. The system Playbunny described is far superior.....

Pythagoras: Well the protection is that the system told him that he would lose 6 points if you accepted the resign, so that is already in place. (resigning right away without that second screen to tell them what they will lose would be unprotected.)

Pythagoras: LOL. I have the same response to maths as I do poetry and song lyrics - my eyes jump right to the end! I have to force them to go back in and engage. Gimme logic and prose!

.. So the equivalence of the 2 ways is obvious. The "problem" with the second is that we don't have immediatelly the several discrete cases, although the procedure of the second way is good for programming as we gain some time by not re-checking cases....

Grenv and I are both into programming. And I dare say we both like efficient code, too.

BIG BAD WOLF
Speaking about newcomers or beginners:
An opponent of mine lost 6 points because he resigned a match with cube at 2. He would by all means NOT lose any gammon or backgammon and he would just lose 2 points. But instead of 4-2 the score went to 8-2!!!!
I don't know if you call this protection of the newcomers!
Also if you will say that he may not knew this and now he knows, he would resign hopeless positions ONLY after he bears off some checkers, i have to say that this would bring another already mentioned problem: Why to wait to bear off a checker to resign? A resign offer of a single game, would be much better and FAST way!

grenv: Since you are being pedantic I will have to disagree with your pedantry.

You are welcome....


If you've taken 3 men off, then you have taken a man off. No need to add words like "at least"

Well English is not my native language but i thought "a" = one". That is "here is a pencil" = "here is one pencil". Even if we agree that "a"="one" the problem is not solved. The problem occurs to the different ways we see the "if a man is born off then...."

You are taking the statement:
"If you take a checker you will not lose a gammon" as:
"If you take at least a checker you will not lose a gammon"
while in all mathematical papers and general papers is:
"If you take exactly a checker you will not lose a gammon"

So by "a" what we mean? "Exactly" or "at least"?
Meaning "at least" would make no sense since a single "a" can't mean something more than the number of the object it describes. So why it should mean "exactly"? It doesn't! But in all papers i have read so far the word exactly is used silently to describe that "a man" means "exactly one man".
You may not agree with that but it doesn't matter anyway since it is a matter of different interpretation of statements so it's a subjective matter....

"and you haven't borne any off" is not needed since you would have passed the first test and not gone to the else

Correct! That's why i inserted To show that the word "correct" is not accurate to describe what i did. It was not a precise correction but just a better way to make things more readable.

You are correct. I will say the reason:
Suppose we have different assumtions A,B,C, with B = (D∩A') with D another assumption and C = (A'∩B') and with A∪B∪C = Ω, that from each one we assume X1,X2,X3 respectively, with the following easy way that i tried with my correction to show:
A=>X1 , B=>X2 , C=>X3
So if we have a f that belongs to A then:
-if f belongs to A we have that X1 is correct.
-if f belongs to B we have that X2 is correct.
-if f belongs to C we have that X3 is correct.
so we list this as:
1)A then X1 occurs.
2)B then X2 occurs.
3)C then X3 occurs.

Playbunny used the other equivalent way:
-if f belongs to A we have that X1 is correct.
-If f doesn't belong to A and some other things independed from A occur, we have that X2 is correct.
-if f doesn't belong to A or B we have that X3 is correct.


and we list that as:
1)A then X1 occurs, else
2)D then X2 occurs, else
3)A'∩B' then X3 occurs.

It is equivalent since if 1), that means A, is not correct then it is correct the A'.
So since D is valid then D∩A' is valid too. So X2 would be valid also.
If both of the A or B are not valid, so the A'∩B'; would be valid, then the X3 would be valid also....

So the equivalence of the 2 ways is obvious. The "problem" with the second is that we don't have immediatelly the several discrete cases, although the procedure of the second way is good for programming as we gain some time by not re-checking cases....

grenv: Yes, I like that wording. It's longer than most implementations would use but I like it, especially the embolding.

grenv: I think it works pretty well right now, but not because it would be poor sportsmanship or any of those terms, just because it seems pretty fair.

But I too would like to have games completed more quickly, and the way it is currently set up does not lend itself to ending a losing game more quickly.

alanback: Automatic resignations would be great!! As soon as one ending is guaranteed. Bring it on.

grenv: To be frank, I like the present system. It is clear and unambiguous, and we don't get into tedious arguments about players offering to resign a single game in order to avoid being gammoned.

Dailygammon has just implemented a system in which the server forces a resignation in clear cut situations, and resignations are otherwise not allowed (except for match resignations). That works well also.

In short -- the less complication and the fewer opportunities for individual choice, the better, in this context.

playBunny: If the resignation text in the application was clear:

"Your opponent offers to resign giving you 1 point. If you feel that you would rather continue and play for a gammon or backgammon you should refuse the resignation offer. If you accept the resignation you will be awarded 1 point."

or something like that.

Pythagorus, Czuch, BBW.. ah, what the heck, anyone: That's a good point (P & C), I'll happily offer a cube early than I should to a player who is liable to be scared by it and drop the game. That's taking advantage of a weakness in their understanding of cube use and may be worth 1/4 a point, for example.

It's only a small step to offering a resignation of a lower value in the hope that the opponent will misread the position and accept. If accepted that's a gain of a full point (most usually).

Earlier I called such a resignation action "unscrupluous" and have reconsidered it in the light of the above. But - and maybe because it's too new a change of perspective, maybe because the magnitude of the gain is so much greater, I don't know - somehow it still feels wrong.

BIG BAD WOLF: Not bad sportsmanship either.... maybe "taking advantage of", but isnt that the goal of any game? To take advantage of a misplay by your opponent or to take advantage of a weaker strategy etc.?

You seem to support the idea that we are responsible some how for protecting people from their own ineptness.

grenv: Thank you grenv, I considered "at least" but decided that it was redundant and I also didn't repeat conditions that were carried forward by the "else"'.

Pythagorus: Yet, for absolute, no question of doubt, clarity, I would use your form with the redundancies.

Czuch Chuckers: Sorry, not really "cheating" - but "taking advantage" or "bad sportsmanship" would be beter words I guess - and I have seen plently of people who are not afraid to do that.

grenv: Chess is not really a good comparason since there is not different levels that you can win by. That is if you got more points by capturing a queen first or something like that. It is either win or lose.

BIG BAD WOLF: I applaud your concern for players who lose points that are "rightfully" theirs. And, indeed, it's the less advanced players who suffer.

The reason I dislike this implementation of resignation is precisely for that reason. Unwary players are losing points that they shouldn't. I've had people throw away entire matches because they resigned a Backgammon when a single was appropriate. That's why I used the word "harsh". Backgammons are extremely rare yet they are awarded routinely by the resignation logic.

When I've sent a message giving much the same info as the post below, informing them of how resignation works and stressing cautious use of it, I've got back "Thanks, I didn't know" responses.

I dislike it that in the standard situation a player can be duped by the occasional unscrupulous player. I deplore an implementation that systematically does so!

BIG BAD WOLF: Does that mean if I play a beginner in chess I am cheating by taking advantage of his or her blunder?

BIG BAD WOLF: Good point but:
-Since they can handle doubling cube they should also be able to handle resign too. If you find that resign procedure PlayBunny described, is tricky and bad for newcomers, then you should find doubling cube tricky and bad also, since it's very easy for a newcomer to be confused and accept a double in a bad position.

BIG BAD WOLF: There is no logic to the point that I am cheating because my opponent doesnt understand the game....

Pythagoras:

Since you are being pedantic I will have to disagree with your pedantry.

If you've taken 3 men off, then you have taken a man off. No need to add words like "at least"

"and you haven't borne any off" is not needed since you would have passed the first test and not gone to the else

"if none of the 1) or 2) occurs" is implied by the use of the word "else"

grenv: I understand that it can speed things up, but (at least in my opinion) when you weigh that against that this is a game site that is full of backgammon players who possible does not know all the rules and could easily be cheated by others that do - I would rather see it how it is then to have the option of people trying to take advantage of others by trying to resign for less points then they should.

again - just my opinion.

I'm back to the Backgammon discussion board!

playBunny:
Well you are correct on this.... The procedure you described is the only one should occur! Resign single,gammon,backgammon and then ask the opponent if he accepts that. The current way is bad.....

This is quite wrong as far as I'm concerned but the rules are that 1) if you have taken a man off the board then you'll lose a single, else 2) if you have any men in your opponent's home table or on the bar then you'll lose a backgammon, else 3) you'll lose a gammon.

Let's modify all these to be correct(added things are with bold letters):

The rules are that 1) if you have taken at least a man off the board then you'll lose a single, else 2) if you have any men in your opponent's home table or on the bar and you haven't borne off any men then you'll lose a backgammon, else 3) you'll lose a gammon if none of the 1) or 2) occurs.....

BIG BAD WOLF: The advantage of being allowed to suggest the points is that it speeds up play considerably (rather than waiting to get a piece off for instance).

I know that isn't a consideration for some, but for me it is HUGE. I hate games that drag on..

.. and I can't stand it when people continue to roll when they can no longer mathematicaly win... RESIGN please and get on with the next frame.

playBunny: Just to throw my opinion in, I do not think that the implementation is incorrect just because other sites does it differently - I actually think how Fencer does it makes it easier for users not to try to cheat others.

I know on DailyGammon, some will offer a single resign for less points then what they will probable lose to newer users in the hopes of cheating people out of points.

How it is here, it automaticly looks at the "worse case" of how many points you could lose (gammon, backgammon). If you are so far behind that you are in the backgammon position, it would be silly for the other person to accept anything less then that. And if you are close to getting one of your own men off, then it only takes a few more moves then offer your resign for the single points.

(hence, as a more advanced gammon player, I like how dailygammon does it since it allows users to have more control on what is offered - but at the same time, some of the things that dailygammon does "scares" away newer gammon players, which is why I personally like how BrainKing does it.)

Kipling: This is the result of Fencer's implementation of resignation, (which is incorrect when compared to any other house of Backgammon in the Universe).

When you resign you should be asked whether you want to resign a single-game's worth (1 point), a gammon (2 points) or a backgammon (3 points). This is then multiplied by the cube and gives the number of points that you'll lose. Your opponent should then be asked whether they accept your offer of resignation (because they may want to continue play in order to win a gammon, whereas you might be offering just a single-game loss).

Fencer hasn't implemented this dialogue and thus had to make different arrangements. His answer is to examine the position and award points on that basis. This is quite wrong as far as I'm concerned but the rules are that 1) if you have taken a man off the board then you'll lose a single, else 2) if you have any men in your opponent's home table or on the bar then you'll lose a backgammon, else 3) you'll lose a gammon.

You must have had men in your opponent's table or on the bar and hence were set to lose a backgammon. Multiplied by the cube this would have been 6 points.

When your recent opponent resigned they would have had already taken a man off the board.

The important aspect of this ruling is that You must never resign a game until you have made every effort to take a man off the board, because while your opponent can make a judgement about whether a backgammon or gammon is feasible, the automated logic is rigid and harsh in its interpretation.

Kipling: When a player resigns a game with cube then the winner gets the number of the points of the cube multiply by the number of the points of the current position of the pieces of the losser (i.e. 1,2 or 3 points). When a player rejects an offer for doubling then the winner only gets the number of the points of the cube.

If you received that warning then the reason was you hadn´t taken any own piece out and all your pieces are not in the oponnets´s house (2 points) multiply by the cube (4 points). Are you sure the cube was at 2?

When you gained 2 points, then there are two possibilities: 2x1 or 1x2.

a few days ago...I went to resign a losing game...but a warning came up stating I would lose 8 points.the cube was at 2.
I just had an opponent resign a game, and I gained 2 points. the cube was at 2. how is this possible?

Always welcoming new Backgammon Players.

http://brainking.com/en/ShowFellowship?fid=16

Don't be shy - ask for an invite.....

alanback: *nod* would be the same for me :)

Hrqls: It was fun for me when I did it . . . when it started to be a chore, I quit.

alanback: it will be fun ... i just need to make time .. although probably less time than i would need by doing it by hand .. or at least less time than doing it by hand 3 times :)

Hrqls: Yes, I just realized you're not talking about collecting every game, just the ratings pages. That should not be a problem for anyone. Probably not worth the trouble of writing a program :-)

alanback: I did a test for someone on the Computers board to see how much bandwidth I used. It was a consistent 100k per minute just by making moves. I have 100 messages per discussion board page so if I'd added that to my activity it would perhaps have doubled.
I'm currently using a program to download match pages and create a .mat flie for GnuBg analysis. Because Fencer doesn't show the dice in the moves list I have to visit every page when one of the dice can't be determined from the move, so it can be 40K+ just to get a dice roll! This is easily the most bandwidth-rich gaming site I've seen.

alanback: *nod* i will contact fencer if i would do something like that

1 automatic check wont be a problem though as i would have done the same by hand otherwise .. it will be different though if i run the program every hour :)

Hrqls: I still wouldn't do that without Fencer's permission, because it will be a drain on his bandwidth (Of course, given the autorefresh feature, he may not care about bandwidth). The only reason I did it on IYT was because they denied my requests for access to the database.

TC: you can also grab it from the page itself .. insert a webbrowser control in your program .. make the control go to the page (which can even be done with a guest account on this site) .. download the complete page, filter the data, go to the next action :)

playBunny: *nod* thats how i had it in mind as well :)

playBunny: For fetching datas to web pages, you must have special user/pass to reach SQL database and column names! If The Big Boss gives the mentioned datas, it can be solved online and updated.

playBunny: they should have a rating system in place at IYT but they don't . . . that's okay! Fencer will reap the benefit of IYTs faults.

ColonelCrockett: alanback. This happened years ago, I used to have a webpage with ELO ratings for all the games played on IYT. Got to be too much work, and then they shut me down anyway.

alanback: LOL. That site annoys me. Good for you!