playBunny: errr . . . hmmm . . . isn't backgammon great. lol ;)

ColonelCrockett: LOLOL

Does anyone have any particularly memorable games - because of something spectacular, or very unusual, or that seems like a good example of some strategy or tactic. Examples of the former would include incredible dice, games where all of your blots get hit but none of your opponent's. Examples of the latter would include blotfests (early fights which result in a Nackgammon-type situation), blitzes, prime building, back games.

I'm going to add a section to the Backgammon Links for such games. The more the merrier.

playBunny: hmm i had a nice game in which my opponent had a lot of pieces off already and me trapped .. but i still won the game .. i think i showed it on here .. but i dont remember with whom i played the game or when .. i will see if i can find it back :)

Hrqls: It might be easier to remember what you said here about it and use the search box.

playBunny: lol ... remember what i said ?? i dont even know what i am about to say 10 seconds before it rolls out of my fingers ;)

how can i search through more than 10 posts ?

Hrqls: how can i search through more than 10 posts ?

There's a search box to the right of the message box. Stick in a keyword - something that you're likely to have said and hit the button. (In fact it takes regular expressions if you want to get fancy - and that probably really confuses people who use RE characters without realising!)

playBunny: lol! i never noticed that box :)
thanks :)

i declined the offer to double in this game

any opinions about my drop?
(and any opinions on the offer of the double at that position?)

Hrqls: Taking the double would have been a major mistake.

Looks like he's going to win a single anyway, very little chance of a gammon. Some small chance you could come back and win though so doubling is probably correct.

Hrqls, grenv: I agree. You accept a double because you have reasonable chances of winning more than you lose by dropping. Very unlikely in this case. You'd have had to hang on while he emptied his table and meanwhile you'd be destroying your own. You wouldn't have been able to contain any blot that you might have hit.

grenv,playBunny: ah! just what i thought, so far in 1 out of the 3 which i posted here i acted like the pros would have done :)

i wasnt sure about the power and chance of a backgame yet .. so thats why i wondered

I need some advice- as a new player who wants to improve my game asap- should I play with a doublong cube or not on those sites where I have a choice?

DragonKing: Given the choice I'd recommend without. Get a good understanding of chequer play first. Part of the use of the cube is to terminate games so that you don't risk the percentage of losses that exist at that point unless you opponent is willing to pay the price. Without the cube you'll be playing into those situations and thus learning about them.

I spent 12 or more months on chequer play alone before I took on the cube. It worked for me. Others who did both, well it'll have worked for them, too, lol. But I'd say the ASAP aspect precludes the cube. I'd imagine that overall progress will be slower if you're advancing on two fronts.

everyone always plays 24-13 when they get 6+5 as opening roll, and all roll outs show that to be best as well

but what about 24-18, 13-8 ? that way you can develop your backmen a bit, make sure there wont be a block around 18, and you have a nice setup at 8 and 6 in case you roll a double or just to block your home

Hrqls: Aye, you get all that and it's still not as good as gettin' th hell out of Dodge.

It's your choice, really. The difference in the rollouts is -0.039. The factory settings for GnuBg don't even classify it as an error. Doubtful moves start at -0.040. But for me, given that I start Doubtful moves at -0.008 and Bad ones at -0.050, it's clearly a weak move.

playBunny: 'dodge' is the possibility to being trapped in your opponents home ?

what if you try to play for a gammon .. dont you like to hold your backmen back a bit and build in your home first ? would that increase the possibility of 24-18, 13-8 ?

i still try it once in a while though as i dont like standard openings all the time :)

Hrqls: "Gettin' the hell out of Dodge City" is a cowboy expression for getting away from trouble, in this case it's Marshall Opponent packing a loaded 6-point.

I always run with the 11-roll. It's a banked asset compared to stopping at 18 where the blot sits trembling in fear of being clobbered. When going for gammon you want to avoid a prime vs. prime game and escaping your men is part of that.

Variety is an excellent reason to try all the different openings and the robots will probably take 100 years to understand that one. ;-)

playBunny: whats a prime game ?

a blot on 18 is bad, but what if my opponent rolls 6+1, he will make the 18 point no matter what, so missing those 7 steps and being send to the bar with his home open isnt that bad, but i will have a chance to grab the 18 point if he doesnt roll 6+1 (or 3+3) and i will roll a 6 (or 5+1, 4+2, 3+3)

i dont understand much about going for gammon or gammon save .. the only part i see (so far) is that with gammon save you have to escape with your backmen, and with gammon go you will have to block your home :)

Hrqls: Grabbing your opponent's 5-point or barpoint is a strong defensive move but escaping is generally better.

That's about it at the start for GS and GG. but throughout the game you'll be thinking about the blot, preferably blots, that you're wanting and you'll be prepared to take greater risks to obtain those blots, unless that strategy become inapplicable.

A prime game is where both sides have a blockade, preferably a 6-prime and each has men trapped. The loser tends to be the one whose blockade crumbles first so timing is very important. If you get big dice and establish a prime but without having escaped your backrunners then find that they're boxed in, you'll also find that your opponent has got midfield blots to soak up a few dice rolls while you have none and must crush your prime.

playBunny: will test out escaping and defensive moves, and pay attention to the results :)

i will have to make a mental list of which blots are important and which arent :)
i know the 5 and 4 point in my own home are very important, i like the 22 point in my opponents home, i like the barpoints close to my home.
but thats about it :)

i will also have to learn the differences between playing GG and GS as i only play it as defensive and offensive, but i play most often too offensive, so even in GS i might be offensive :)

Or to play an opening 6-5 any way but 24-13!

alanback: lol .. i will let my mother read that ;)

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1412606

Will someone take a look at this game and tell me about Sergeys last move here?

He is ranked quite high so I assume he knows what he is doing, but to me, since he doesnt have to gammon me why would he take such a chance on this move? It seems to have worked out for him, but I was surprised he didnt just cover up and go from there? to leave me with a chance to hit him back and even get a 6 1 seems really risky to me. But maybe thats why I dont do so well at this game? Thanks for your input!

I have moved to the top of the Hypergammon standings . . . I am amazed to find myself #1 in Hyper and Race, #2 in Back and Nack, # 10 in Crowded -- and I know I'm not that good!

alanback: We know it too, but hey, these things happen.

To the man who must be doing something right...

     Congratulations

alanback: Ha! not that good???? Remind me of that next time we compete.

Congrats!

alanback: congrats!!! be prepared to receive some invites/challenges .. everyone wants to beat the #1 ;)

you will have to wait until after my holliday though before i will send you any .. so be sure to stay there for at least 2 more weeks :)

congrats!

http://brainking.com/en/Tournaments?tri=85132#1

As the #2 seed in this tourney, shouldn't I be on the other half of the draw from alanback?

Sorry, alan. Others may want a crack at you while you're on top, but not me.

pentejr: I'm flattered. I wasn't aware there was seeding in these tourneys.

You are not the num,ber 2 seed....

Where does it tell us that there is seeding in these tournaments, and if it exists, how is it determined? I would guess that Czuch is telling us it is based on rating at the time a player signs up, rather than at the time the tournament starts?

pentejr, alanback: The way they work is that the players are ordered by rating and the list split at the midpoint. The players on the two list sare then matched against each other. In an 8-player tourney, for instance, it would be 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8. This prevents the lions from killing each other too early in the game.

At Vog, where any number of players are allowed into these tournaments, not just a power of two, there is a bye for the top 2^whatever players and the very lowest rated must play to get through to the second round. Because the topmost players have had this bye and are in the second round they will then be paired 1-2, 3-4, etc, even though it's their first match of the tourney. (That's just to let you know how it works elsewhere should you encounter it. There are only power-of-two sized tourneys here, so that situation doesn't arise.)

playBunny: And in the round-robin tourneys the method is to take the list of rated players and spread them through the groups by going down the groups and then back up and then down again, etc. Our 8 players in a three group round-robin would then be 1-6-7, 2-5-8, 3-4 (or 1-6, 2-5-7, 3-4-8).

playBunny: But you didn't answer my question, which is where to find these rules. Moreover, do you have any comment on whether the ranking is based on ratings as of signup date, or tournament start date?

alanback: "and if it exists, how is it determined?"

Sorry, sir. I thought this was the most important question, sir. I'll get to work on the others right away, sir. Sorry to inconvience you, sir.

playBunny: See that you do, I'm not accustomed to waiting!

alanback:

playBunny: The seeding in the older format "section" tournaments makes sense. The seeding in the brackets does not. It should be 1-8, 4-5 on one half and 3-6, 2-7 on the other, thereby balancing more than just the first round.

Czech, I may not have been #2 when the thing started, I think I was, as it didn't start that long ago. At worst, I was #3 and still should not be over there.

pentejr: I'm still waiting for someone to point me to anything on this site that tells me that there is any seeding system at all.

pentejr: What's this not #2 that you are talking about? You're top player on the second board. That's seed #2. (Or has it changed and changed back since the beginning of the discussion? lol)

With 1-8, 2-7, Do you think it's fair that the weakest player gets to play the strongest? I'd be very unhappy if that were me!

I don't know how 2nd and further round matches are arranged. I once vaguely investigated it at Vog but it wasn't conclusive. The curiousity with, and utility of, the knowledge was less than the hassle factor in working it out fully. So, without knowing how subsequent rounds work I can't comment on the fairness either way.

Alan: Keep waiting...

Oh, okay then.. I'll point you to something on the site that tells you that that there is a seeding system.

playBunny: I thought you would do that, but I hoped for better

alanback: Keep hopin'.

I worked out the elimination seeding at Vog and asked Fencer to confirm, when he announced the new tourneys here. I worked out the round-robin by looking at them. That's as official as you'll get until ...

An invoice is in the post. Usual fee. $100 per link.

playBunny: Thanks for your gracious response ... so it's the top of each half against each other in the first round? That's not the way it should be done, of course -- first round pairings should be top vs bottom, second vs next to bottom and so on -- and the brackets should be arranged so that, if the higher ranked player wins each match, the same pattern will be followed in each round. For example, with 8 players, the pairings should be

First Round
1vs8
4vs5
2vs7
3vs6

Second Round
winner of 1vs8 vs winner of 4vs5
winner of 2vs7 vs winner of 3vs6

alanback: "That's not the way it should be done, of course"

Why "of course"? You've then got the widest ability gap possible for the outermost bracket and evenly matched for the inner. Is that fair? What do you gain from that method?

playBunny: There are many tournaments where this is the standard method.... tennis comes to mind, top seed plays the lowest seed, and if all the higher rated players wins then the top two seeds wont play each other until the finals!

Czuch Chuckers: I would go so far as to say that this is the only method of seeding a single elimination tournament (other than random seeding) that I have seen in the 40 years I have been following such things, until this discussion.

alanback: And would you care to share that experience and justify that method, as per my questions?

I think the only objection to that type of set up would be because high rated backgammon players who try to protect their rating by avoiding games against low rated player because of the "luck" factor in backgammon, would be forced to play low rated players and risk losing a lot of rating points because of it.

Why should the 5th ranked player have to play a tougher match than the 8th rank player?

Czuch Chuckers: Don't be daft, Czuch. "high rated backgammon players who try to protect their rating by avoiding games against low rated players" would fail in both cases because the ratings loss is punitive. "High rated backgammon players who protest the stupid formula but would be happy to play anybody for any length of match if there were a proper formula" would probably not play in either tournament unless it was for players within, ooh, let's see, 50 points of their rating.