An initial rollout of 1080 games shows the Back position to win 56% of the time (providing equals are playing). That's about -.120 for the Nack side.

In a money game (gammons and bg's counting), the eqiuty is even worse at about -.280 for Nack.

As I stated earlier, it would be intersting as a teaching tool or as a handicap to get a weaker player to play ( I might see if I can get my boss to play ), but the Back side's race lead is a huge advantage.

It might also be interesting to learn backgames as well.

Vikings: It might be interesting as a handicap match, but the Nack opening position is severely behind in the race. True, the Nack position has positional compensation, but I don't think there's enough and would take the race lead any day.

If you want proof, fine. I'll BG Blitz the position and post the equities tonight.

pauloaguia: Right after you sign up for at least one game, because you will have looked at the remainder and taken your decision.

tonyh:
a) even if it is invitation only I like to know they exist. I can allways try to ask the owner to invite me.
b) I usually use this page instead of my profile page to check up on the tournment list before it starts. But then again, being a pawn, I can only enter one tournament at a time :). Besides, when should it disappear from the list? When you sign up for all game types in the tournment? Right after you sign up for at least one game in the tournment?

We have a Battleboats Board which would be a great place for this discussion on the game.

Battleboats Discussion Board

Go back about 10 post in the room (Oct 25th), we currently have 4 different "variants" which some would love to see here (Bonus Battleboats, Outline Battleboats, HexBoats, and Dark Battleboats Plus)

When you display Tournament sign-ups at the top of our current games, please could you omit those:
a) where it is invitation only;
b) where we have already signed up?

Electronic Handheld has the fire till you miss...
I would like to see anti-Battleboats

Walter Montego: Regular Battleboats here? Get ready for a long winter's night. LOL.

This "new" version that you're talking about is the only way I've ever played it, not counting playing Battleship Salvo style where you launch five shots at once. Are you guys telling me that Battleboats is played by taking a shot and whether or not you hit something, the turn passes to the opponent? I've never heard of anyone playing it that way when playing it one shot at a time. When I was a kid and before, I think Milton Bradley started marketing Battleship, we'd play the game on pieces of paper. After we got a Battleship game for a present we'd use it to play. The Salvo version is faster. You get a shot for each boat of yours that hasn't been sunk yet. No extra turns for hits though. Another version we'd play is to announce when a ship is sunk, but not what kind of ship it was. With strategic placing of your boats, you could sometime mislead your opponent into thinking he'd sink a different ship and get him to try elsewhere on the ocean.

Perhaps I'll have to check out the Battleboats here and give it a try.

Purple: Right now you could take a shot and miss and then know it was a miss and then back out and try another spot until you get a hit. It would be easy to cheat. By submitting your move you avoid someone from cheating. Without a method to have your turn bounce back to you on a hit it would take forever to play a game. It is like the backgammon deal. If your opponent is stuck without a move you cant continue to play until your opponent passes. With autopass instituted into the battleboats concept, you wouldnt have to wait to continue your turn.

You would make the same argument for backgammon i believe. Since it isn't consistant on the site the argument could go either way.

Right now in BB Plus you are allowed consecutive moves until you have used them all and then the turn goes to the other player. He then gets the same chance. So why can't your move end with the first time you miss? Nothing exotic there.

Yeah but it doesnt scare me enough to continue to show another reason to have it. I will not end my pursuit of this concept.

we all have LOL

I believe I got shouted down on that point already.

no diferent from forced multi jumps in checkers really though is it :o(

The current setup would require the player who has just been hit to click the submit button (as in BG when you cannot move). Obviously this is stupid but there you have it.

I was the one that has suggested it for months now. However to avoid cheating you would have to submit your turn after each shot which means adding an autopass feature so the turn would bounce back to the player who got a hit. This game idea will not be brought here because of this necessary step. We all know Fencer ignores the autopass concept even if it means not having a great game added to the site. By the way I called it Bonus Battleboats though I am sure it has a more official name.

Purple: Its been requested before, I think fencer asked for a link to a site that already has it. I like it cos played it before but on a trial demo version

New game idea. Both players place their boats and then one player takes one shot..if he hits something he takes another and keeps on shooting until he misses. Then the other player gets his turn to do the same. The turn ends with a miss. We could call it Purple Battleboats. LOL. Good idea?

To show what tournaments the fellowship is currently playing in.
Similar to the one on our profiles.
But to save it from making the fellowship large like the profile ones do... maybe just a link on the fellowship page that links to a new page like the won tournaments one on profiles.

lol

I suggest we move the rest of this to the Backgammon board since it's beyond a Feature Request.
By the way it's a weak start. A week start is that employed by people on auto-vacation.

You only capture in home when you can cover, otherwise its a week start, where the advantage is, is the weekening the moves that would go into 3, because mathematicaly, the ods are that the strength would change hands, thus making the backgammon opening weeker

it would certainly change some of the starting moves. Not as good to leave builds etc, but you're still playing catch up. Basically you're starting with 2 pieces captured, if that wasn't bad then why capture?

not necesseceraly, the nack set up weekens the opening move of the back set up,

Regardless of you liking it, it is an inferior opening position and would lose way more often than it would win.

not necesseceraly, I like the Nack start, when I knock you off you fall back farther

i don't get it. Clearly the Nackgammon postion is inferior.

Vikings:

Awesome Idea

I was just making moves in one of my backgammon games and I realized that I knocked my opponent back so it looks like heis playing nackgammon whick gave me an idea for a new version called Back-Nack where one player is set up like backgammon and the other player is set up like nackgammon,to play fair, I think players would have to play 2 games at a time, alternating colors

thx fencer, but I like Rex's explination better,,Happy New Year, and may your site be crash free

Because it's the end of the year. Strange events usually happen is this time, it's safer to disable timeouts.

Vikings: It got caught smoking in the boys room.

Why is game time suspended

Fencer: Thank You! I looked & read somewhat the rules of the game. I saved the site for further reference. It looks like an interesting game

Brian1971: unfortunately, Fencer's final answer was 'No, and because he doesn't like the feature'. (If my feeble brain recalls correctly.) Many may not like it but he's the BIG big boss. lol!!!!

MagicDragon: See http://www.renju.org

whatdidyousay: I don't mind not having the dreaded 2 word feature. I can always look at the board to figure out my next move but the spell check sounds like a very good feature tho..I know I need something like that when I post sometimes :o)

Fencer: That is great but I never heard of the last game before. I love what you have added w/ the reply part. Now I won't be able to get confused of who is talking to whom!

Brian1971: I didn't know that your issue was the autopass feature. I was just using it as a recent example becuase it is perfect given Cariad's most recent response below:

[cariad, Wales, Brain Golden Rook, Female] cariad (hide) 29. December 2004, 07:41:39
Duw, I get the short straw!
Ok, gentleman and Stevie [] , the autopass issue has been flogged to death and now you've given Fencer more food for thought and told him you're not giving up on the idea.
Your point has been made and Fencer has, I'm certain, read your posts so please drop the subject from this board... for a few weeks at least!
Reply

I don't think that answers your question, but instead it says the management is reviewing each of the new arguments and may change position on it.

As for your discussion of the management, I would not be here if I had not been treated in a very poor manner recently by another site's current management. At least this site lets there be a discussion of issues. Apparently given my recent experience elsewhere, sometimes that is all you can hope for.

That said, I love so many of the features here - I can't tell you how great I think this place is. To be able to start a tourney and have almost no work - to not have to fill out wiki's, not have to arrange players. It's incredible. So, kudos to the management here.

I would quit editing my posts if I could learn to spell "the" the first time...jeez - how bout a spell check to help us ignorant folks?

rabbitoid: That would be cool.

permit to mark the opponents' stones still on board. for example, permit me to click on an opponent '?' piece and mark it (with a special colour) as a '1', '2'...
the piece should, of course, be permanently marked as soon as it is positively identified through a spy.

The only problem with that argument is that you are still paying here and not elsewhere. iyt was so bad I stopped paying them and came here. If you find a site that is as good as this AND has autopass you could let us know and maybe that would have an effect.

i hear what you are saying brian1971 , i agree with you that some things could be added like "autopass" , but i dont think people will go elsewhere if if didnt come here ,because there is nowhere else as good as this site

whatdidyousay: Yes the truth does hurt and I would be open to your suggestion as well. However the problem started off as an autopass issue but as the arguement continues on the debate club board, it is more of a customer service issue. I wont rehash all that has been said there. However as a restaurant manager if I picked and choosed which issues to address and which ones to ignore I would not be doing my workers or my customers proper service. People choose to bring their money to my place of business. If I dont treat them right, then they go to my competition. Likewise if I dont treat my workers right, they will find employment elsewhere and I lose good help which weakens my service to my customers. Bottom line is I just want a feasible arguement why my suggestion is not a good one and if it is a good one, why we cant implement it. The reason this is a tough issue is because it has never been properly addressed. It has been argued but never given a good final answer.

i like the way you surreptitiously put in Autopass without actually asking for it. As I just did of course!

Brian1971: Ouch.

I understand what are you trying to say and although I don't agreee with your direct sentiment, I think it is a fair statement to say that a two-way give-and-take needs to be addressed on this board.

First, if a basic idea has already been addressed and rejected (auto pass, for example), it may be a good idea to develop a faq for this board. That way, if someone unknowingly opens a can of worms, the moderators can just refer it to the faq and if something substantively new or different from the faq is addressed by the comment, it should be welcome. In other words, in the faq, an option can be addressed as a question ("What about autopass?"), the answer can be filled with arguments for and against and the final resolution. If someone comes up with a new argument, it should be allowed and responded to.

Likewise, if someone just wants to rehash old arguments, they can be referred to the faq.

In the faq, you can even address improvements that you are working on.

Timely responses are important on this board, but in the limited time that I have been here, I have seen many things responded to. I don't know why some things don't get directly responded to, but I feel like they will in good time (maybe I am just being naive, after all, I am new here ).

BIG BAD WOLF: I have one more. Address all ideas directly as opposed to blowing off ideas you dont wish to address or are afraid to address.