mybirthdaysoon: I can't see what kind of game this is.

Is anyone else having trouble seeing the left hand die? I can only see one die, though I can guess what the other die is by observing which moves are legal.

It took some trial and error to get this formatted correctly, but here is the 
play-by-play if you're really interested :-)

N. Nakov	alanback

1. 	12-14, 1-2 	8-3, 8-3, 6-1*, 6-1

2. 	bar-2, 12-17 	8-5, 6-5

3. 	12-18, 14-18 	24-21, 21-15

4. 	12-18, 12-14 	24-20, 20-14*

5. 	bar-4, 19-20 	15-11, 14-13

6. 	17-21, 19-20 	5-4*, 5-4, 13-12, 12-11

7. 	pass 	        11-6, 13-10

8. 	pass 	        13-9, 11-10

9. 	bar-2, 18-21 	9-4, 13-11

10. 	17-22, 19-22 	13-11, 4-3

11. 	2-8, 8-12 	13-12*, 12-6

12. 	bar-2, 2-5 	11-5*, 10-5

13. 	pass 	        11-10, 10-9, 6-5, 10-9

14. 	pass 	        9-3, 9-4

15. 	bar-2, 17-18 	3-off, 1-off

16. 	17-18, 18-19, 	6-off, 5-off 

        19-20, 18-19

17. 	20-23, 19-21 	4-off, 3-1

18. 	21-22, 22-23,  	6-off, 6-1

        18-19, 19-20

19. 	2-6, 6-7 	5-off, 3-off

20. 	7-13, 13-19,  	5-1, 3-off

        2-8, 8-14

21. 	18-24, 14-15 	4-off, 4-3

22. 	15-21, 2-3* 	pass

23. 	21-23, 23-24 	pass

24. 	3-8, 8-13,  	pass

        13-18, 18-23

25. 	19-23, 23-off 	pass

26. 	19-off, 20-24 	pass

27. 	19-23, 22-off 	bar-19, 19-14

28. 	20-off, 23-off 	14-9, 9-8

29. 	20-off, 22-off 	8-4, 4-off, 1-off, 1-off

30.           (resigns)

playBunny:sure, thanks

playBunny:  I won the match 5-0 against a higher rated opponent ... who by the way is Bulgarian, not Russian as I assumed from the cyrillic text.

Oh, I see, gammon ... a pork reference not used in my country, ha ha ;-)

What did my opponent say here?

ВЯРНО, ПЪЛНА СВИНЩИНА

The translation website that I used couldn't handle any of the words, but after a spell check returned:  "Truly, pork is full."  I think it lost something in the translation.

Had this thought while playing a tournament in which each pairing plays two matches.  What if you and your opponent played two games simultaneously, rolling two pairs of dice at a time.  You could choose which pair to apply to which game.  (Many variations suggest themselves, such as choosing two out of four for each game, etc., but let's stick with the basic idea for the moment.)  So, let's say the dice are 4-4 and 6-3.  I could use the 4-4 in either Game 1 or Game 2, but not both.  I would have to use the 6-3 in the other.  It might also be interesting to have a rule that you must use as many dice as possible, so that you could not assign dice in such a way that one or more could not be used, if there was another assignment that used more of them.

xmas is soon:  Waiting for a ruling on whether this constitutes stem cell research.

joshi tm:  I would call that more of a mutant than a variant.  I would not be pleased to see this included in the backgammon group of games.

playBunny: I didn't c heck the S-B myself, but another user pointed it out to me, so I felt it my duty as a good citizen to report it ;-)

Andersp:  If I can do that, you should buy me the Pope!

Andersp:  You're right.  Maybe we should suggests to Fencer that he incorporate some sort of "autopass" feature ;-)

grenv:  You can have that one, I'll take PB's ;-)

From: arpa
Date and time: 21. November 2006, 18:05:09
Subject: You are not the tournament winner
Tournament: Ciao from Italy # 57 - Nackgammon (1800+) cube 5 (Nackgammon)

Your final position is 2.
Winner of the tournament: arpa

LionsLair: Happens to me all the time, and I have hair!

LionsLair: I don't see how you could interpret what I said in that way. I said you must use the higher die, not the first die. It doesn't matter in what order they are rolled, you still must use the 5 rather than the 3 if you can only use one of them.

Carl: You are not required to use the higher die first. However, if you can only use one die, then you must use the higher die if possible. You also must use both dice if possible, i.e., you can't make a move with one die that makes it impossible to move the other, unless there is no possible move that uses both dice.

LionsLair: Is this what you were asking about?

http://www.geocities.com/alanback/deja/BGthoughts.htm#Gammons

LionsLair: I don't have it at hand, but I will try to dredge it up.

"Have Fun": I don't play for money on the Internet :-)

Hrqls: Good points.

The strategy of using the cube is subtle, despite its apparent simplicity. Like all plays in backgammon, it depends upon the odds of various outcomes. These are easier to illustrate if one assumes a "money" game is being played rather than a match of finite length. In a money game, the winner of each game wins an amount of money equal to the agreed stakes multiplied by the value of the cube. So, for example, if we are playing for $1 a game and you win a doubled gammon, I owe you $4. Each game is self-contained so there is no match winning strategy to consider.

Now, assume we are playing a money game for $1 a game and after several moves I offer you a double. (Assume we are of equal playing ability.) You examine the board situation and conclude that your chances of winning the current game are only 40%. Should you accept the double, or drop it (concede)?

The intuitive answer is to drop, because you are more likely to lose than to win, and accepting doubles the stakes. But surprisingly, the correct action is to take the double. This can be shown mathematically.

If you drop, you will lose $1 immediately. If you accept the double and play on, you have a 60% chance of losing $2 (net value of minus $1.20). However, you also have a 40% chance of winning $2 (net value of plus $0.80). Therefore, the total net value to you of accepting the double is minus $0.40. Since this is better than the minus $1 cost of dropping, you should accept and play on.

Accepting a double actually increases the net value of the game somewhat, because after accepting you are in possession of the cube and only you can make the next double. This turns out to be a very significant advantage in some cases.

Nothingness: You should read the rules again. If a player doubles, the other player must accept or concede the current game. If the opponent concedes, then the doubling player immediately wins the current game and receives a number of points equal to the current value of the game before the double. For example, if no player has previously accepted a double in the current game, it is worth 1. After one double is accepted the game is worth 2, after 2 doubles it is worth 4, and so on. If the opponent accepts, then play continues normally at the increased stakes. So it normally makes no sense to double when you are hopelessly behind, because you are just doubling the amount your opponent will win (and giving him the opportunity to redouble). A player who wins an undoubled game wins 1 point, unless the win is a gammon (2 points) or a backgammon (3 points). If the game has been doubled and accepted once, then a single game is worth 2 points, a gammon 4, and a backgammon 6.

Until the cube has been turned (i.e., until a double has been offered and accepted) either player can offer a double before rolling the dice on his turn. Once a double has been accepted, then only the player accepting the double can offer another double. In this way "possession" of the doubling cube passes back and forth between the players, changing hands after each accepted double in the current game.

One other doubling rule is the "Crawford Rule." The Crawford Rule states that, when one player reaches a score that is only one point away from winning the current match, his opponent may not double in the next game. After that game (called the "Crawford game", which BrainKing erroneously calls the "Crawford Round", the trailing player may double normally.

bouncybouncy:  Probably true.  Since I generally don't pick up games in the waiting room, I don't have enough experience to know whether the time limits are obvious.  I have occasionally carelessly accepted an invitation sent directly to me with short time limits, but so far I have always noticed it in time to delete the game. 

bouncybouncy:  It's certainly not cheating if both players are aware of the time limits and agree to them.  Since extremely short time limits are not "normal" on this server, I think it is good practice to call the opponent's attention to them, perhaps in the title of the game.  Otherwise, a person could accept a game inadvertently under circumstances where they would have to time out, presumably spoiling the game for both sides.  After all, we don't play games primarily to win them, but to enjoy the company and competition. 

Whether it's "cheating" to set up games without a warning is a matter of opinion.  I think it's unfair if it operates as a trap for the unwary.

bouncybouncy:  I just looked at your games from today, and the very first one I looked at (also the most recent) was a timeout by your opponent.

"Have Fun": Um ... what's the Dice?

Walter Montego:  In this case, Fencer has apparently drawn his conclusions, and I have no reason to disagree.

DARK PHOENIX:  The Bunny is mighty, but not almighty.  Only Fencer has the power of life and death over your account.

Walter Montego:  I can't imagine ever agreeing to a 1-hour game with an opponent I knew was manipulating the system.  Perhaps a 5-minute game, so there could be some assurance that the game would be completed in a reasonable time.  I don't know how Fisher clock games work, but that might be a solution also.

Of course, PB has expressed no interest in playing a match of any sort against this opponent.

DARK PHOENIX:  In my opinion inviting a player to a game with a 1-hour time limit without clearly warning him of the unusual terms is just as much cheating as is collusion over ratings.  In both cases the win is not earned by good play but by extraneous factors manipulated by the "winner".  Which is not necessarily to say that I believe you.

Pedro Martínez:  More of a euphemism ... the original is the idiom ;-)

playBunny:  That's interesting, and pitiful.  It doesn't appear that florin has been stripped of his BKR -- which is relevant to me since I challenged him when he reached #1.  I wonder what will happen with that match.

LionsLair and Hrqls:  Thanks very much.  I'm already about to drop perilously close to #6 in Nack, so success is a temporary and relative quantity!

Well, however temporarily, I have reached LionsLair's goal of being in the top 5 in all 6 gammon variants.  Despite my previous statements, I'm not claiming to be the best in any of them, but perhaps the best all-around gammon player for the moment?

LionsLair:  Come and get it!  I can tell you it's hard to stay in the top 10, let alone 5, but right now I'm ranked no lower than 6th in any of the 6 gammon variants.  If you can make top 5 in all of them, you'll certainly be the best!

My latest milestone:  BKR of at least 2000 in all 6.

jryden:  You need a macro program :)



Or, keep a notepad open on your desktop with common phrases that you can cut and paste into the message box ...

jryden:  You need a macro program :)



Or, keep a notepad open on your desktop with common phrases that you can cut and paste into the message box ...

Thad:  Great idea!

grenv:  If you have already realized that it's just a game then you get my point already.  I was speaking to my own ego and the egoic behavior I have witnessed in myself and others.

Pontificating?  I make no claim to infallibility :-)  Or are you suggesting that I put my foot in my mouth?

I wish my opponent good luck as a courtesy; I don't intend to influence the dice one way or another.  

pgt:  I try very hard to wish my opponents good luck, and to mean it.  When I'm not under the control of my ego, I usually succeed!  The important point is to recognize that the self and the ego are different, and to simply be aware when one's actions are dictated by ego.

My original post was copied from my posting on the Dailygammon message board . . . my intention is to help make the game more enjoyable for everyone!

skipinnz:  Sure it does.  But that pain is in the ego, not the soul.

I have found that the pang the ego feels when a match is lost goes away much more quickly when I type "good game :)" and sense the enjoyment my opponent will feel, not only from winning, but from being congratulated by the loser.  Backgammon being the way it is, you're going to lose a lot of games no matter how good you are.  It's good practice for dealing with the fact that the world doesn't always send us what we desire, at least not immediately.  We play to share the excitement of not knowing what the next dice roll will bring, as well as the pleasure of playing well, not to mention the camaraderie we find here on BrainKing.  There have been many occasions when I have remained grumpily silent as the last rolls of a losing match played out.  Those negative vibes I send out make me miserable without affecting my opponent much, if at all.  

Since we are all one soul, the success of any of us is the success of all.  This is one way to feel that directly!

Namaste

skipinnz:  So I see.  Will have to read more carefully.  Since the title was "BG for Experts", I assumed the cube would be used.

I'm playing in a tournament that was supposed to consist of 7 point matches with the doubling cube.  However, the matches have been set up as single games.  Is there any way to fix this?

Cardinal's BG for Experts

swordswisher:  There have been times when I was so convinced that the dice were running strongly against me that I actually went back and compiled statistics on doubles,etc., only to learn that the distribution was well within the norms for random events.  Of course, it's harder to determine who got the right roll at the right time ... some of the bg programs such as gnu and Snowie will compute a luck factor.

swordswisher:  There have been times when I was so convinced that the dice were running strongly against me that I actually went back and compiled statistics on doubles,etc., only to learn that the distribution was well within the norms for random events.  Of course, it's harder to determine who got the right roll at the right time ... some of the bg programs such as gnu and Snowie will compute a luck factor.

At some point in its development, every backgammon site has to post a public statement that its dice are truly random.  It's a sign of BrainKing's maturity that Filip has completed that necessary ritual now.  It is a universal truth that backgammon players will always, always, complain about the dice, always, always think they are treated unfairly when the dice go against them, and always, always, think they are finally  being treated fairly when the dice run in their favor.  When we play on a real board and can see the dice being rolled, we can only blame fortune for our problems.  However, when we play online, we don't see how the dice rolls are generated, and conspiracy theories grow like weeds in a garden.  It's human nature!  But that doesn't mean the dice are really fair or unfair; those are meaningless terms when it comes to random events like dice rolls.  It is absolutely a law of nature that one player will get better dice than the other in any given game, virtually all of the time.  That is not the result of hidden malevolent forces, but the operation of the laws of chance.  Everything that can happen will happen eventually, given enough time, and over the relatively short run everyone gets about the same dice.  What differentiates players is what they do with those dice once they get them!

grenv: As white I would have doubled at move 35, once gammon was out of play. As a matter of principle black must pay to play for a miracle. Psychologically, black is very likely to drop and pat herself on the back for saving gammon.

The only other thing I noticed on a quick scan is that at move 29, black should have moved a blot to the midpoint (black's 12 point) in order to give herself a return shot in the event white rolls double six.

gogul: Thanks, gogul. So there's a 2% equity swing between the two moves. That's pretty significant!

grenv: I would be interested to see what Snowie or Gnubg would say -- Snowie especially loves the 5 point. If I had not already stripped my midpoint, I probably would have made the 5 without hesitation. Consensus seems to be building for the hit on the actual situation.