I feel bad about getting 8 points when my opponent resigned in this http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1119818 game. I would happily have accepted a win, without a gammon, and proceeded to the next game. I think that this should be fixed as and when possible.

Since I was on vacation when "cube" backgammon was introduced, I have not had the opportunity of saying that I WILL renew my membership now that the cube and the Backgammon bugs have been fixed. (But it would be nice to enable a resignation at the "cube" value, rather than current board position)

One thing about separate rating systems: "Cube" backgammon rewards gammons and backgammon (in accumulating points) but the "cubeless" rating system does not recognise the "quality" of the win, which is frustrating - very annoying to win or lose the same number of points for a lucky final throw versus a comprehensive win with a gammon or backgammon.

lukulus: Funny! I just counted 192!

alanback: Yes, I've begun to do that with some of my regular opponents - we even play 10 wins matches. (It would still be better with the cube and a decent rating system though )

Andersp: Well we have two of the four problems resolved, but until there is a more realistic rating system, people who chase ratings will clsuter at the top and play each other rather than risk losing a lot of points in a single game. But once this is fixed and the cube is implemented, ther will be a lot of very happy people, I know!

Fencer: Thankyou for this enhancement. I look forward to seeing a game in which it applies. This will save a lot of unnecessary discussion about poor sportsmanship and the like, I'm sure.

Marfitalu:

Nevertheless is has been acknowledged a couple of years ago that problem will be fixed "soon". "Soon" the whole point of this discussion will be GONE FOR EVER!!!!

Walter Montego: As usual, Walter has made another well considered and valuable contribution. But it is a real pity that this subject has cropped up yet again, as it has at least half a dozen times in the past couple of years. I offered to try and fix the problem a couple of years ago if Mr Fencer would send me the source code, but he assured me it would be fixed "soon". I think "soon" has now well and truly passed, and that there has been sufficient discussion on this board to elevate correcting this "bug" to the top of the list. If that is not possible, then my offer still stands, or alternatively Walter's suggestion of renaming Backgammon should be seriously considered.

Chessmaster1000: Having played 2-off the game is over, so there is no question of using the other die. When it;s over, it's over! Surely you are not serious!

Czuch Chuckers: I could not figure out why you were playing so slowly! It was Ok when all four games were running, but way too slow when it got down to the last two, and I left the computer to read the paper for 5 minutes between turns - and still had over 30 minutes left in each game. Maybe we need "Web TV" and "Computer" variants so people don't get bored!

Czuch Chuckers: Good tournament format - would be happy top do it again some time! Thanks to all the players.

Czuch Chuckers: well I have the firewood in now, so we won't freeze tonight! I'm ready!

Czuch Chuckers: Well I'll go out and do my jobs now and hope I am back in time to play - this is probably the best solution.

Czuch Chuckers: When are we starting? I have to go out in an hour, and we seem to be 5 minutes late!

grenv: Don't worry - I'll represent us

AbigailII: Where's this bank that gives 10% interest? Please tell!

alanback: You need to read to the original post on the subject - the peeve concerned players achieving a high rating and then refusing invitations to continue playing. Hence the "elapsed time" suggestion.

BIG BAD WOLF: Why not change the ranking so that only games completed in the last 6 (or maybe 12) months are included in the rankings - then we would get a better idea of current form, scores gained "learning" games would eventually be eliminated, and the peeve would eventually disappear. (anybody without sufficient completed games in the chosen period could revert to a provisional rsnking)

grenv: I've run it on a laptop with XP SP2 with no problems.

alanback: I deleted my post and apologise for bringing personal disdain into a public forum.

http://brainking.com/game/ArchivedGame?g=702081
36 moves

Blackadder Mr K: She does! Just take a look at my BG graph

grenv: I agree - it would be nice to get the rules of BG implemented first!

Hrqls: I've already written the first three chapters, available at $4.99 per page (each chapter is 500 pages) If I thought I could get away with it I'd ask you all to leave your credit card details here for me, but I'll just ask the gullible this time.

Zorro: You name the price. I'll write one1

GeGe: Hi Georgia - Read the email I sent you - this is not the place for chatting between two people! (But glad you've started to play!)

grenv: The "spirit" of the games is the Dice God up in the sky who watches over all the games, and (sometimes) favours the bold and sometimes doesn't

Or if you REALLY want to confuse everybody, can you just select a counmtry at random and change it every week? :-)

1. "for me the whole online backgammon is plain humbug."

Seems like you are wasting your time here then.

2. "it's a game with dice ... important, k ?
and I dare demand to be rolling them myself ... "

Well come over to my place then! Happy to play, according to the published rules, any Friday evening. Please let me know when. I'll be home.

3. "it's against the spirit of the rules known to me that somebody else rolls
- and least a so-called random-generator with a scheduled agenda "

See response to 2 above

4. "preaching again - no arguments ... who would follow stupid rules voluntarily ? :D ... that's why smart people have their own ... not to mention sensitive people who want to sense the dice period ( and roll themselves = not a rule??"

See 6 below.

5. "haven't I bidden 'feedback without iyt-bs welcome' ??"

What on earth is iyt - some sort of mumbo-jumbo to which we normal mortals are not privvy?

6. "next candidate please ... intelligent prefered"

Well I guess that would make at least half the converstion meaningful.

I agree with both of Grenv's points. Claiming victory when unable to be beaten wouold certainly have sped up his own "Grenv's Backgammon Challenge". But implementing the doubling cube would achieve the same result, and make a 5-point or 9-point match a really attractive option.

SdRaWkCaB eTiRw UoY fI dAeR oT rEdRaH nEvE eB NaC sIhT

Hi berengeria,
I took a look at your game, and it seems you have a piece on the bar - you have throwen 6-1, and you can't move it 6, so you first have to move the piece on the bar to the 1 column. Maybe it is because you are playing balck and you can;t see the piece on the bar??

There is a bug in the Backgammon logic which I think should be corrected.

I threw 3-5 and had one piece on 14 which could move from 14-11 or 14-9. Had that been the ONLY piece I could move, I should only have been able to move the 5 die, 14-9. I also had two pieces on the 4, so I should have been forced to move from 4 to 1 (the 3-die throw).

BK actually allowed me to move my 3 first, which I moved from 14-11. I was then able to submit my move, as no other moves were then available.

This bug actually breaks two of the rules of Backgammon - first, it allows me to move the number shown on only one die, when there is a legal move which can be made with BOTH dice. Secondly, it allows me to move the 3 die, when the rules of Backgammon require that, if only one move is possible, it must be made with the HIGHER number if possible.

It would be nice (in my humble opinion)if these errors implementing the rules of Backgammon could be corrected before implementing additional variations on the game.

I have monitored this conversation for some time, and now that I have achieved a respectable ranking in Backgammon (as played on this site), and payed a modest subscription, I feel qualified to add my opinions.

I think it is a GREAT pity that the rules of Backgammon are not implemented fully on the site. The cube is central to Backgammon, as is scoring for gammons and backgammons, none of which is implemented by BrainKing. I know enough about computer programming to know that correcting the errors (like using the higher-numbered die when only one die can be used) and implementing a doubling cube and (say) a 5- or 9-point game would not be an arduous programming task for somebody who has developed what is already implememnted.

I am not a great fan of the various variations (Race, Nackgammon, Crowded, etc) and therefore I choose not to play them. I have absolutely no objection to other people playing these variations as long as I can be excused. If Fencer wants MY vote as to priorities, I would vote VERY VERY strongly (can you vote VERY VERY STRONGLY in a democracy?) to implement Backgammon according to the rules as a priority over implementing new games or new variations. I don't see a lot of merit in arguing the pros and cons of the rules - the rules published and well known. I would LOVE to play Backgammon according to the rules!

Having said that, I enjoy playing the Backgammon flavour which is already available. I would like to congratulate Fencer on an excellent site, and also say what a great bunch of people play on the site. I have now played with over a hundred people, and have only met two with whom I would rather not play again. That's not bad for a site like this.