Czuch Chuckers: Why should the 8th ranked player have to play the toughest match possible?

playBunny: I dont know.... playing the number one ranked payer is always the toughest match possible no matter what your ranking is, if you are the nuber 2 ranked player playing against number 1 is the toughest possible match for you, why should number 2 have to play number one first, or anyone sle? Somebody has to play against number 1 first!

playBunny: Why, when the merit of the system is so obvious?

Czuch Chuckers: "the toughest possible match for you

Sure, but a tournament isn't set up for "you" it's set up for "you all". The matched halves method means that the spread of rating differences is more even. That is surely fairer than the 8th player getting hammered by the 1st while the 4th and 5th have a balanced match?

alanback: It's only obvious to lawyers, and, perhaps, notorious presidents.

Seriously, the traditional method seems primarily designed to ensure that the top two seeds meet in the finals. Thus, if the higher rated player always wins, the top seed will have the easiest game in each round, the second seed will have the second easiest, and so on.

Another way to put it is that the system is designed to permit the round of N players to consist of the top N seeds, which does seem obviously correct to me. However, if you assume that the higher seed always wins, then as long as the top N/2 play only the bottom N/2 in each round, it doesn't matter how the opponents are chosen.

There's an interesting article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-elimination_tournament which suggests that I may have led a sheltered life. Another article at http://www.tcnj.edu/~curley2/Tournaments/Tournament.htm

The latter points out that it's not necessary to seed all players according to skill; it suggests seeding about the top quarter of participants by skill and the rest randomly.

alanback: Thanks for those. External links are worth $150 so I'll tear up that invoice.

So it looks as if both methods will work (with the highest-seed-wins assumption) as long as it's done correctly at each stage. Sadly that's not the case at Vog. If the top two get byes in the first round then they play each other. :-/

playBunny: when i play in a squash tournament (racketball/whatever its name is in english) we always play acording to the second link alan posted

playBunny: Because they're the 8th rated player. Out of 8, in this example. I'm with alanback--I've never heard of any system but this for a single elimination, bracketed tournament. I think we have different definitions of "fair." In a tournament where one loss puts you out of it, those with higher ratings should be protected against one another in the early rounds. Just as in multi-section tournaments, the same thing is accomplished by "balancing" the sections (#1 overall seed is #1 in sec. 1, #2 is #1 in Sec. 2, etc...)

Hrqls: It's called Squash here too, I've just started lessons Hrqls and would eb grateful if you've got any tips to share :o).

furbster: There are 2 games, squash is played with a dead ball about the size of a table tennis ball and a racquet with a small head; racketball is played with a larger, lively ball and a racquet that resembles a short-handled tennis racquet.

alanback: ok, I got to ask. What's the difference from a dead ball and a live ball?



And does the Prevention to Cruelty of Live Balls, approve of this game?

Eriisa: Live ball bounces much better than a dead ball.

furbster, alanback, Eriisa: dead balls needs to be warmed up to bounce at least a little, but even when quite hot they will still bounce less than live balls (hmm this almost sounds like a post which could get me banned ;))

tips for squash :
- know your strength: either speed and putting pressure on your opponent, or steady play and let your opponent take bad risks
- when your game is a game of pressure/speed then hit the ball from the air before it bounces, this will increase the pressure and speed on your opponent
- sometimes play the ball where your opponent just was, its often far more tiring to turn back than to continue his run
- balls along the wall, straight to the back, are quite nasty
- when you are in front or just had a tough ball, dont hesitate to place the ball high in the back, this will gain you some time to get back to the center point (the T)
- sometimes (rarely, but sometimes) place a serve through the middle to confuse your opponent. this doesnt work with good players though, so test it once first :)
- i like to hit a cross boast, this confuses the opponent sometimes, but a ball along the wall is usually better, or a drop
- use the corners, never hit a ball through the middle :)
- never despair!!! and have fun :)

Hrqls: I like racquetball too (never played squash). I also play tennis and bowl. None of these fun pursuits ever struck me as particularly relevant to backgammon...

pentejr: uhm ... ... hmm ... maybe because there is some tactic in it and you try to force your opponent into a position where you can finish him ? ;)

I'm ranked 6th on this site in pente.

Rating difference between myself and the #1 pente player: 136 pts.

I'm ranked 62nd on this site in hyper backgammon.

Rating difference between me and the #1 hyperbackgammon player: 130 pts.

Woohoo!!!

pentejr:Play enough games and you can end up further down the list LOL

ok,
So I caught up on all my games tonight and was waiting for someone to move. LOL!!!!


RandomGammdon #1
Random Gammon games,
1 day moves. NO days off. 16 people needed~

Single Elimination Backgammon #3
Backgammon only,
1 day moves. NO days off. 16 people needed~

Really REALLY fast backgammon
Backgammon only,
8 hour moves. NO days off. 16 people needed~

More Gammon Tournement
All gammon games
1 day moves. NO days off. 5 players per section

*edited links*

pentejr: "In a tournament where one loss puts you out of it, those with higher ratings should be protected against one another in the early rounds."

I've never heard of (noticed) this bracketing method, let alone the rationale, so this in a new idea. You're saying it's about protection and the top half are the ones who are getting protected and the bottom half pay the price, as it were. #1 gets the most protection by playing #8, and the #4, being the least important of the protected, therefore gets the least protection by playing #5.

If that's the aim then it makes sense to me. Certainly it would work in my favour in tournaments, lolol.

"I think we have different definitions of "fair."

I wouldn't call it "fair" at all because it's deliberately designed to ease the passage of some at the expense of others. Nothing fair about that as I see it (showing lack of favoritism; in an evenhanded manner; free from favoritism or self-interest or bias). But if that's not a priority, that's, er, fair enough.

playBunny: I dont know the true rational, but in all of my sporting experience it is the most common bracketing that I have encountered. Generally in these situations though, the teams get their ranking by playing each other as part of a league or conference or the like.

For example NCAA college basketball tournament getting ready to start soon here, takes the top 64 ranked teams (basically) and pits #1 ranked vs #64 and so on down the line. Tennis is international and does similar in their tournaments. It seems to be quite common, and the ratioonaol seems to be that if you have earned the highest ranking to begin with you deserve to play in the finals against the number two ranked payer unles someone is able to upset someone along the way.

One point, in college basketball for example, your ranking is not in jepardy if you get upset as it is the last game of the season for you. In backgammon tournament here, your ranking is effected by an upset from a lower ranked player.

I think for a backgammon tournament here, set up likie this, it should be a 7 or 9 game match to make it more likely that the better player will not get upset.

Anyone want a good laugh? Am I the only person who loses games like this? Can someone give me the roll out odds at this point? Thanks!

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1449343&i=55

Czuch Chuckers: GnuBG says that at that point, the probability of your win was 94.17%. After your 52 roll, your chances dropped to 85.23%. GnuBg also says that you made two very bad moves, two bad moves and two questionable moves while pgt made only two bad moves. Moreover, GnuBG evaluated the luck factor in the following way: pgt: None, Czech Chuckers: Go to Las Vegas immediately.

Pedro Martínez: hahahaha... thanks pedro!
I never said I was any good, but because I got lucky to be in such a commanding position in the first place, means that there was no luck in him winning this game????????? Anyway, I feel better now! Btw, Im going to vegas!

Czuch Chuckers: LOL...:)
That's what the program said...

Run this through your program... open with 61, 65, 55, how many times do you lose?

Marfitalu:
I don't know. Seems logical that you should earn 6 points but you only earned 2. Seems like a bug to me....

Yes if a gammon is awarded then why not a backgammon too?

Marfitalu: it is a bug, it will only give you the 6 points if the opponent resigns

It is already fixed for future games.

Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper Hyper

I just recently noticed while looking at my finished games, that I am showing 2 draws in anti-backgammon...
I have neither offered a draw or accepted a draw, so I looked a little further... the games in question were part of a stairs match that my opponent and I split( a win, and a lose)...so why does it count as a draw? because it is part of a 2 game match? ...seems a win and a lose would be sufficient for the record books(bkr ratings) ...I think a draw would only count in a game where there is no clear winner...

...pardon to the powers that be if they feel this should be posted on the stairs board :o) ...it was perplexing to decide where to ask a gammon-stairs question...

Marfitalu: I believe the question was "why is this a draw and not a win and a loss?".

I think this is a question of definition on this site. A match is considered a single game no matter how many games are involved, dubious but probably easier to implement?

i am not sure if i want to double, i am just missing the option

is there a reason why i am not allowed to offer a double in this position ?

Hrqls: You should have been able to offer a double - up until the time you hit "roll dice", which after that you would not be able to - but before that, you should have had the option.

BIG BAD WOLF: ah! yes of course :)

i started to play at work, i guess i clicked on 'roll dice', had to leave, and now i check back when the dice are already rolled :)

thanks!!!!

(just showing me being blonde ;))

shoud i have taken the doubling offer in this position ?

Hrqls: I don't know any stats about a position like that or not, but in my opinion - I would not have taken the double either.

Your opponent could easly close up your only opening (even with a 7 - which as I understand the most common dice roll) - or at the very least, moved his piece so you could not land on him.

You would have needed luck, too much lunk in my opinion to accept it.

Hrqls: Of course not -- resistance is futile ;-)

Seriously, it was a dead drop, I only cashed because I didn't see a serious gammon possibility.

alanback: I disagree, I think it was too good to double.

alanback: :) i know ... but you know the dutch .. they are like that knight on the bridge in monty pythons :)

BIG BAD WOLF: hehe *nod* somehow i forgot the fact that i still have to come off from the bar first ... i was thinking 'can he send me back to the bar' and 'do i think i can hit his single piece there' :)

now i realize he could easily close it down i am glad i didnt ponder too long and declined quickly :)

grenv: do you really think he could have gammoned me ? how far away does someone have to be to have a chance to be gammoned ?
i would have 5 pieces out, 4 which i could move in with 2 moves, 1 piece which could take longer. i suppose i would be out when there are 2 positions free, leaving my opponent with at least 8 pieces, which means about 5 rolls .. hmm .. calculating out loud now ... 5 rolls .. thats about what i would need to get my pieces in my home and 1 out :)

i think i could have been gammoned indeed with just a little luck for my opponent, but not as much as i thought it would take :)

Hrqls: on the other hand though ... i still had a chance to hit alan back .. and by taking this 1 point we entered the crawford game in his advantage

so i think it was a nice thing to do double after all :)

Hrqls: hmm on the other hand .. if i had accepted i would have had the option to double back making this the final game in the match

argh! doubling questions at the end of the match are tougher than at the start :)

Hrqls: You had almost no chance to hit back, all he needed was a 7 or 8 on 2 dice, or a 1 or a 3 to block you entirely.

grenv: *nod* but when he was bearing off i had a little chance ... not big enough to worry about though

but i wonder if that chance is lower than the chance of me winning 2 more matches (as the first is the crawford game)

so far alan won 6 out of 6 games against me, so him winning at least 1 game in the next 2 is about ... hmm 100% *fear* ;)

grenv: If this were a game of backgammon, I would probably agree with you. But I think in Crowded it takes a bit longer to bear off fully after opening the 6 point, so I thought the chance of a gammon was negligible. It is always necessary to consider the risk that I could be forced to leave a shot during the bearoff, a risk I prefer to avoid!

alanback: lol, i didn't even notice it was crowded. Just looked really quickly.

grenv: I thought as much

I'm going to say this one more time and then shut up. There is a basic flaw in the ratings system as applied to backgammon games. It simply should not be possible for a player to rise to the top of the ratings in fewer than 100 games. Yet the top 3 rated hypergammon players and 2 of the top 3 backgammon players have fewer than 100 games behind them. Any system that allows this is broken and needs to be fixed.