Thom27: i always am fond of your second reason :) ... but you probably also know that humans tend to remember bad things more than good things .. therefore there always seem to be more bad rolls than good rolls

your third reason: i think i was the one who came up with that, and i did come up with it by counting all games and record in which the bug happened and also in which games it didnt seem to happen, after that i let some friends on here know about it to verify my thoughts, and after that i posted it on the board to ask for more statistics ...

to claim any random number generator is bad you need to collect statistics, without statistics you will only have your second reason and that one doesnt really count

so, could you please write down your games and keep the statistics (all games on this site remain here forever, so you can show it at any point in the future to everyone) .. once your have the right statistics we can discuss it for real

Thom27: Thanks for that. Overall I find the dice on Brainking to be quite natural, they feel random and honest enough; it would be nice to always win but that's not the way it goes with a dice game, however good a player one is. The only truly dishonest and unnatural backgammon dice on the web is found on DailyGammon: Play there for a week and you will come to cherish the odd dice idiosyncrasies on Brainking!

playBunny:
Аз не използвам никакви средства за влияние върху числата, които ми се падат на заровете, но веднъж на този сайт хвърлих поред първо дюбеш, а после дюшеш в края на играта и противникът се разсърди за това, че съм такъв късметлия. Разбира се, това може да бъде и просто случайно, макар и само с вероятност 1/1296.

Aganju: if the randomness is not good, it slowly makes a different game out of Backgammon - for example, if there are less doubles, or incorrectly often two doubles in a row, you can adjust your strategy to take advantage of it.

I suspect that any such effect would have to be quite sizeable for it to change people's strategy. Their strategy can be highly resistant to change even when you teach them to improve their game.

Aganju: It is still a fair game, but it is not 'standard' Backgammon anymore.

Aganju: However, I found a high chance of reproducing your opponent's roll by clicking in specific sequences. So when the game comes up, and he had a 5-5, and I want one too, I do that sequence of clicks, and have a higher-than-1/36 chance to get it too (it does not work all the time, but maybe 1:3; still, pretty useful feature); whereas if he has 1-2, I will not do that typically.

I'd say that if you're doing that then it's still standard backgammon but it's no longer a fair game. :-/

playBunny: You are right of course. It does not make it easier to win, if you cannot predict the 'bad' rolls. However, if the randomness is not good, it slowly makes a different game out of Backgammon - for example, if there are less doubles, or incorrectly often two doubles in a row, you can adjust your strategy to take advantage of it. It is still a fair game, but it is not 'standard' Backgammon anymore.

However, I found a high chance of reproducing your opponent's roll by clicking in specific sequences. So when the game comes up, and he had a 5-5, and I want one too, I do that sequence of clicks, and have a higher-than-1/36 chance to get it too (it does not work all the time, but maybe 1:3; still, pretty useful feature); whereas if he has 1-2, I will not do that typically.

Thom27: How, exactly, have you taken advantage of these issues with the dice?

moistfinger: The first reason is: there seemingly is still the bug causing to repeat the same dice roll with too high probability, when you go from one Backgammon game directly to another (with "submit and go to next game of this type").

Second reason: many players have the impression that the dice "just feel wrong" on this site. Me too. (That can be mistaken, of course; it is difficult to tell without statistical analysis.)

Third reason: there have been other bugs in the past, concerning dice rolling. At least one was proven by statistics: the first and second roll in a game have too often been equal. This bug is removed, however, but it shows that the implementation of the dice was erroneous from the beginning, and it still is not ok yet (see first point above). That thing seems overly complicated or inherently bad and therefore difficult to fix.

Fourth and most important reason: the random number generation is not documented, so that the players don't know what they are using. It is as if someone brought a bag full of self-made dice to the Backgammon world championship and claims these are better than any other existing dice (or at least not worse), and the tournament director decides to use them without testing. I think you agree that this would be a bad idea.
It is possible (and not very difficult) to create a cryptographically secure random number generator to roll the dice, that uses for every game a secret key which can be published after the game is over, and the generator code can also be public, so the players know the mechanism and can test it for it's general quality and as well for it's correct implementation, because once the key is known, the dice rolls can be re-calculated with own implementation of the generator. The rolls are however not predictable as long as the key is secret.
Such a method would IMO be required for serious online play of games with random.

Thom27: 'Serious play of Backgammon - or any other game with dice - is not possible here'
Why is that, in your opinion?

Aganju: You are right about the match length. There is a reason why serious BG tournaments go for, typically, 21 points.

But the dice rolling of BK is questionable, to say the least. Serious play of Backgammon - or any other game with dice - is not possible here.

Aganju: Not only do one pointers have a large luck element, the rating system grossly penalises the stronger player. Players who value their rating should avoid them unless they are the underdog.

As for whether you're alone in the opinion, here's one player who agrees and takes it to the other extreme. ;-)

Aganju:
И аз мисля, че късметът в таблата е доста важен и затова е желателно мачовете да са по-дълги; дублиращият куб също увеличава вероятността да победи по-добрият, а не по-големият късметлия.

It seems the majority of people create Backgammon tournaments with the setting '1 win match', be it in round-robin or 1-1 play. That may be the best way for most games, but for BG I think the better choice would be at least '5 points with doubling cube' or even higher.
The reason is that BG has a significant factor of luck, and even as the world champion, you could lose a match against Joe Schmoe if the dice roll unlucky - but not so easily a match for 5. Whatever, anyone who seriously plays BG, knows what I talk about.
For me, this discourages me from joining any of those tournaments, especially when they are 1-on-1, as it is mostly luck deciding who wins the tourney.

Here my question: Am I alone with that opinion, and all others are happy with how they are offered?
if yes, then fine. I can always make tourneys the way I prefer them if I want. No hard feelings.
If no, then I wanted the tournament creators to know that; so they can create them as '5 point with doubling' (or more) and get more players. Maybe they are just not aware of it?

Aganju: Hmm, it seems some of what you say is true. I've known that he is less interested in Backgammon, or at least appears to me to be.

I think the pieces on the bar at the start of the game in Crowded Backgammon and I suppose Backgammon Race, though I've not played that game, that do not have to be brought in on the next turn should be marked or segregated in some manner so as to differentiate them from pieces hit later in the game. This would facilitate playing the game as it would be obvious when returning to a game that you have a piece hit, instead clicking to move and wondering what's wrong with the site or game.

And a piece on the bar no matter how it got there should give you a backgammon if you can bear off all your pieces and your opponent has not taken one off.

Walter Montego: oh, and Fencer has mostly stopped caring about issues and bugs (and wishes) on this site. He might fix it if he feels in the mood, but chances are small. A lot of people have already discussed that and attacked him for it, but well, that is his decision, and this site is not a priority for him.

Walter Montego: both games have in common that there can be pieces on the bar that you don't have to insert immediately, but can whenever you want. Those are the ones that have the bug.

Aganju: I am not familiar with Cloning Backgammon, but it sounds like it is a completely different kind of Backgammon. Crowded Backgammon is supposed to be exactly as regular Backgammon except for the extra pieces added to the game.

So it is a bug. It should be a simple fix. So what's the deal Fencer?

Walter Montego: it is a known bug. If the pieces on the bar are 'extra' pieces and not pieces you hit earlier, the system does not consider them for backgammon (not even for gammon).
The same happens in Cloning BG, when you hit someone and get an extra piece on your bar - it does not count against backgammon or gammon.

I have taken all off my pieces of the board in a game of Crowded Backgammon. I was awarded 2 game points for a gammon. I am wondering why I did not receive 3 game points for a backgammon instead of a gammon, as my opponent still has two pieces on the bar. Nowhere can I find that having pieces on the bar, whether sent there or from the start of a game, does it say that I do not score a backgammon and get 3 game points.

So what gives?

CurrentRiver: Guess i'm going blind.I [..] never did see the one piece.

You're not the first to not see pieces. Still, you can always change the board to a friendlier colour scheme. Oh, hang on, there never was one. :-/

But you can make the board bigger, if that would help :-)

Thanks, I went to my game just a few min. ago and made my move. Guess i'm going blind.I tried to make my move several times yesterday and never did see the one piece.

Have a good Thanksgiving!!!!!

CurrentRiver:


you are referring to this game : Backgammon (WHY - CurrentRiver)

i think you missed your back piece at 24 ... as Vikings says your only possible move is to move that back piece forward

normally ongoing games wont be discusses, but as there is only 1 possible move here i think there is no problem :)

CurrentRiver: You have only one option for moves 24-18,18-12,12-6,6-off

I need some help and didn't know where to go. Please could someone look at this Game ID# 6463275, and tell me the problem ?? It's my move and I have double 6's.

Thanks so much to anyone that can help.

Орлин: Yes, it was most probably a bad (automatic) translation of my original message.

You're welcome. ;O)

That was actually the corrected translation. ;-) I would have gone further but I wasn't sure whether you meant Crazy Narde or not and hence wasn't sure what to do with "pairs"..

I used to play Crazy Narde at VogClub as well as Narde and Tapa. From what I remember, I found that the craziness - the sequence of doubles to be played or given away - often resulted in a game that came down to whoever was luckiest in the bearoff at the end, no matter how much of a lead the lead player was. I preferred ordinary Narde.

rod03801:
Yes, it was most probably a bad (automatic) translation of my original message.

Hrqls: I assume Playbunny was translating the other post for us. And I would assume pairs=doubles.

playBunny: i am not sure wether i like the extra doubles ... it seems to me that it favors luck more than just the normal doubles play?

what do you mean by 'for pairs' ?

Hello!

Do you think it is the same strategy for Fevga and Gul bara (Crazy Narde). I think pretty much because the difference in the rules is very small.

And which of the 2 games do you like more? For me Gul bara for pairs that make the game more dynamic and intriguing. Fevga is perhaps more cumbersome.

aaru: thank you aaru

speachless: It is 5 wins match, game No 2.
If you accept the draw, it will be still 1-0 inthis match. Without change in BKR.

hi everybody
someone offered me a draw for a game. i'm not sure now what is gonna happen to my bkr if i would accept, cause it shows me i would win OR loose 6 points... do i now loose 6 points if i accept or do i gonna loose them?

Cloning Backgammon (speachless vs. Pappy)

Здравейте! Според вас еднаква ли е стратегията на февгата и гюлбарата. Според мен горе-долу да, защото разликата в правилата е доста малка. А коя от 2-те игри ви харесва повече? За мене гюлбарата заради чифтовете, които правят играта по-динамична и интригуваща. Февгата е може би по-тромава.

playBunny: ah yes .. i forgot .. its not the first time i fell in that trap :)

Hrqls: (and how come flake won at that position?)

He didn't. BrainKing helpfully shows the final score rather the current score (which nobody is ever interested in).

Pedro Martínez: eh?

Hrqls: I am not too skilled at rolling the dice. I just create useless primes. :)

Pedro Martínez: really ?why ?

(and how come flake won at that position?)

Hrqls: No, but I will resign this one:
Stíhací Backgammon (arpa vs. Pedro Martínez)

Pedro Martínez: did you resign?

Sylfest Strutle: Good. Thanks.

Pedro Martínez: Yes.

Is it possible to lose a game from a position like this?
Stíhací Backgammon (Pedro Martínez vs. Flake)

furbster: I had one of those a while ago, we agreed on a draw. The system does not recognize that neither party can make moves anymore.
Of course, nobody can force them to make a draw, and old age will decide the game one day.

pgt: Have you tried to join another tourney yet? BrainKing may still say that the Lucky 13 is your one and only. You can't divorce it until it divorces you!

Walter Montego: I was a Brain Rook when the Lucky 13 tournament started, and vowed to renew my rook membership when a decent autopass feature was added. Sadly it hasn't happened yet. I can only play one tournament now, so I resigned all of my games in Lucky 13 second round - didn't feel like having that as my only tournament for the next nine years.

Walter Montego: Slow play might be within the rules, but for me it is not in the spirit of the game unless explicitly stated in advance.

I couldn't agree more.

When I did the "I like it fast" tourneys, complete with the motorbike icon, I was on the alert for slow people to remove. Somehow I never had to. Maybe something to do with the name? ;o)

The Thirteen tourney that Furbster brought up is an auto-pass tourney; says so right at the bottom of every page. So why do I have to wait for my opponent's clicks when he's stuck on the bar?! :-S

Hrqls: Lol. I'm tempted. ;o)

playBunny: This is why I will use the Fischer Clock if I ever organize another tournament, or simply remove the slowpokes, or since we have the option now, ban certain individuals from joining tournaments I organize. Slow play might be within the rules, but for me it is not in the spirit of the game unless explicitly stated in advance. I am so leery of joining tournaments for the same reason. I don't know why, I am after all a life member of the site, but I want a conclusion to a game within a shorter time than five years or a decade as this tournament linked below seems to be taking. A few months seems more than long enough for a round. I usually create a game with an initial 7 days, and then make the speed about 3 moves per week with a limit of a week and a half or two weeks. There used to be a fast movers club on this site, but I suppose it is no longer used much.

And if I must rant about something, why is it that someone can shut off the "auto-pass" in a game that I have created? I still don't understand why Fencer likes it like that. It took him many years to even add the "auto-pass" and with much resistance on his part, and then he must have listened to the wimps and whiners that aren't even Backgammon players and made it for them unless, that is, he is one of them and I know he is not a Backgammon player, or at least he wasn't back then when I stopped playing Backgammon over the not having an "auto-pass" at all.

The game creator should have the choice. If the person joining doesn't like it, then that person should not play that game with that person. Simple. Just as if I create a game and only take one color and the other person doesn't like it, then don't play with me or send me a message and let's talk about it. I used to only play single games of Backgammon. In those the "auto-pass" happens regularly, but in match play, it is a lot less frequent as it is set up on this site.