Fencer: New tournament forms are always cool, now just add the Champions League tournament (first the group phase of n players in the 8 groups, first 2 go through (for a total of 16) then Double elimination with random setup)insert for n any number.

Hrqls: I would welcome new tournament formats, but as for backgammon they should include the doubling cube to be of interest for me. So this one doesn't appeal to me.

nabla: the doubling cube isnt there .. but gammons and backgammons are still counted

its all single game matches though

(the luck factor is still bigger than in a tournament with a doubling cube though)

Hrqls: Should be possible for all points games too, the difference in points is added to the winner's total.

Sounds really cool. Then we can see who's best at Cheversi. (of course double games)

Fencer: It's "Tric Trac Tourno". TTT is just a handy abbreviation, not the name of the format. As a purposely designed format, I think it would be appropriate to honour the name that the inventor gave it and unseemly to change it.

joshi tm: yes ... would be nice somehow to add to the bkr the difference with which a game was won (nice for froglet :))

this Grand Gammon Tournament has that .. but the main purpose is to let the players focus on gaining gammons .. its a nice training :)

(at least it helped for me :))

nabla: That's sounds like of someone who's afraid of pure checker play! You shouldn't hide behind the cube! lol

AlliumCepa: the TTT i refer to exists of single game matches without cube .. its nice for its aggresive play and the gammon training

a tournament with another scoring system as you describe would be fun as well :)

playBunny: TTT might be handy in English but not in other languages. What if I say that it would be implemented only with our own name or I don't see a reason to do it?
Unlike some other site owners, I always think multilingual.

Fencer: you dont change the name of backgammon either though .. so it might be correct to call it TTT as its probably based on tric trac ?

Hrqls: But I don't like it. And I don't want to work on something I don't like.

AlliumCepa: You are right, it is completely compatible with cubed matches. Indeed, it should be implemented a scoring system, not a tournament system.
Now as Thad pointed out, the half point for a loss is not very natural and it would look better and be completely equivalent to have loss = 0, single = 1, gammon = 3, backgammon = 5. But I propose even better : single = 1, gammon and backgammon = 3. Simpler, closer to normal backgammon, and counting backgammons has always been quite irrelevant anyway, it occurs so rarely that it count for virtually nothing in the equity calculations, except in the 2-3 last moves of some games.
As a scoring system and not a tournament system, I support it.

AlliumCepa: Don't scare me again.

Fencer: Tric Trac isn't actually an English name. *4* If it were me I'd change "Tourno" to the nearest equivalent in the target language but keep the "Tric Trac" that Mike gave it.

Fencer: In my version, "Triple gammon" sounds like a straightforward and self-explaining name.

nabla: That's much better.

whirlybabe: "Tric-Trac" and "tournoi" are French, but we would say "Tournoi de tric-trac", not "Tric Trac Tournoi". I never heard of remotely similar rules in the old game of tric-trac, but I am no specialist of game history.

Hrqls: By the way, have a look at BrainKing in Turkish, backgammon is translated to tavla and I am sure there are more languages which don't keep the English name.

Fencer: hmm .. just the name ? the rules remain the same .. we could even come up with a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious name which could be abbreviated to TTT :)

Fencer: ah ok .. i thought tavla was slightly different .. but thats my mistake as i did leanr backgammon on here and all my 'knowledge' of backgammon comes from this site ;)

Hrqls: I checked on the French Wikipedia, the name is usually spelled trictrac. The game is played on a backgammon board, but its rules and especially its scoring system are awfully complicated. There is a whole chapter on the various penalties which should be applied when one of the players did a scoring error :-)
For it to be a good name, I think it would require something more mind-boggling than upgrading losses to half a point. Or maybe I missed the inventor's idea ?

nabla: i dont know the inventor's idea either
i am playing trictrac on a dutch site now (i didnt know of the game before yesterday) and its different from, backgammon

i dont know why mike named it trictrac .. but to me it feels 'not-right' to change its name (at least not without contacting him ..which i dont know how to do as he seems to be on a long vacation)

AlliumCepa: hmm .. the capital S gives me away .. i have to admit i copy&pasted it :)

> And I don't want to work on something I don't like.

And that's what keeps this site from being supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!!

(although it's pretty good) ;-)

And I don't like the idea of giving 0.5 points for a loss. Is there a logical reason for that?

Fencer: mentallay : it makes seem that losing isnt that bad .. although i think the outcome would be the same with 0 for a loss, 0.5 for a single win, 1.5 for a gammon win, and 2.5 for a backgammon win

i didnt do any maths for it yet though .. giving 0.5 for a loss will make it possible for the scores for a win (single, gammon, backgammon) to be the same as in normal games .. i think thats why they chose to make a loss 0.5 points .. it requires less changes

Hrqls: And to get rid of fractions, 0, 1, 3, 5 as scores work as well as 0, 0.5, 1.5, 2.5.

It reminds me a bit of 'streetsoccer' as played on littlegolem and mastermoves. There the winner/loser scores can be 5-0, 4-1, 3-2 and 2-2. (5-0 for a win without overtime. 4-1 for a win in overtime. 3-2 for a tie with goals - winner is the person scoring last. 2-2 for a goalless game).

AbigailII: That seems to be a good solution. I don't like fractions, 99% of BrainKing code is based on integers, not floats.

Fencer: 1% of the code deals with draws? ;-)

AbigailII:  I made the same proposal on Dailygammon, which fell on deaf ears.

alanback: deaf ears as in mute (no) responses or did they offer an explanation ?

Hrqls: No reaction.

AbigailII: Yes, 0,1,3,5 what Thad proposed in this thread and what I relayed. It is indeed exactly the same game as TTT. But actually I would like 0,1,3,3 even better because it changes only the gammon value, and the backgammon value is pretty irrelevant anyway.

nabla: 0, 1, 3, 5 is the final approved version.

All right, test it.

FencerWhere can I set up a game of trple gammon?:

Fencer: OK, too bad, but I can live with that :-)

Fencer: Questions: 1) How does Anti-Backgammon in triple gammon score? 2) I just created a triple gammon tournament - and (as standard) it sets the final game to be a three win match. How does that work in triple gammon?

skipinnz: Nowhere, of course. You can set up a tournament.

AbigailII: That's a visual bug. The final game will be a normal one too.

GREAT!!!! thanks :)

i created a tournament .. at least 8 players should join .. and a maximum of 20 .. so join fast! :)

Triple Gammon

i thought i would be first .. but AbigailII beat me to it

Fencer: After it has been tested in tournaments, will Triple Gammon be available in matches ?

Fencer: will the games in a triple gammon tourmanent have a different color or something to show it to the players that they should go for gammons and should care too much about losing a game ? ;)

Fencer: the total tournament should be 1 section ..

in this tournament it shows a maximum of 8 players per section .. could that line be removed and the total tournament be 1 section ?

Hrqls: No because the tournament system hasn't been changed yet. After the triple gammon is tested, I can add an option to make bigger sections.