Chessmaster1000: Imagine a Chess bug that allows Castle when King is threatened.

Would that be a "bug" where the rules say you cannot move a king through chess, or with rules that allow it?

Currently, in Backgammon, the game acts according to the rules. (With the rules the ones found on this site).

Hmm. I get the feeling that people thinks that it would be right thing to do according to the standard rules, but they also think that as long as the site allows the other possibility they cannot require me to do so, because it wouldn't be fare (my opponent might have done the non-standard move)...
I agree.. And we should change the vote to the question "should Fencer change the site behaviour according to the official rules?"
I'll do the standard rule and let it be a "yes" vote to the previous question..
I could also ask Sharon, but as this move is better for her, I guess she won't resist.

AbigailII: ah sorry ... i was responding to If it were illegal, you wouldn't be able to swap the dice

its possible on this site .. so if your opponent doesnt have a problem with it .. you can make the move .. if you want to play according to the 'standard' backgammon rules .. then you play both dice

when i started to play here i had never played backgammon and it took a couple of months before i learned about that rule because my opponent told me about it when i made a move which wasnt according to that rule .. before i would probably have made more of such moves but my opponents never noticed/complained/told me about it

in the rules of this site nothing is said about this issue .. and i cant see the point you were trying to make with the combination of rules as the swapping wouldnt be illegal in other cases .. i read it as if you meant to say that the mere existence of the 'swap dice' link tells us that it is allowed to move just one die when both dice can be used .. i am not sure if you meant exactly that though :)

Personally I think this bug should be fixed immediately. It is a clear problem, and has a simple solution.

Until then serious backgammon players will not take advantage. Those not so serious are merely evening up the disparity in skill by a very small amount, which isn't so bad.

Wil: Aye, to follow the rule doesn't require Sharon's input at all. If fairness is your priority then taking advantage of the bug certain would. Respect to you, as I know that move loses you the last wee chance in that tourney. Good luck in the next one. :-)


Abigail: 1) It's funny that you brought up the dice swapping thing:
... click on "Swap dice" .. [except when] ..
    a) Both dice show the same value.
    b) The player could not make a legal move with the second die..
That's because I almost included it as a point in my own argument (too much effort at the time). ;-)

When can you not swap dice? One time is when one number cannot be used (eg. when trapped by a prime, 1-6 is rolled and there's room to move up with the one, or with two men on the bar and one's re-entry is blocked) but this is not a case of an illegal move, this is an impossible move - it's a separate class from the two mentioned in the rules (and shouldn't have been omitted).

The only other cases that I can think of are those that are the subject of this discussion - the illegal ones. Fencer has included them in the rules, albeit in a generalised way, for what does The player could not make a legal move with the second die. mean? It means that the BrainKing rules acknowledge the existence of illegal moves. They aren't described explicitly, nor is the maximise-dice-usage rule stated, but the mention of legal moves implies illegal moves, so what moves are they? Can you describe a class of illegal moves that is different to what we're discussing?

The rule is implied rather than explicit, but it is there, at least as I interpret it. The fact that the implementation doesn't detect this class of move and act according to the rules is a bug. It's not a permission to make the move.

2) You said you've not played backgammon on a physical board. Let me echo your words to Hrqls: Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? ;-)

3) It still stands with me that if someone knows the standard rules of a game yet prefers to use a site's E&O (Errors and Omissions) as loopholes then they are showing a poor attitude.

Lots of games and sports have more than one set of official rules. Major League Baseball is a well known example. How about football? Chess has plenty of organizations with rules that are mostly the same. The differences involve things besides the movement of the pieces, which are the same for everywhere. Backgammon can be played in lots of ways. Remember, some rules of Backgammon were made up in the last fifty years. Dark Chess doesn't have any organized rule making body that I know of and I've seen four different ways that it is played. I haven't played enough Backgammon to know if the "forced to use the dice rule" is the best way to play the game, but those are the common rules. I wouldn't mind a version that allowed me to control how I use the dice more than the official rules, but that's not what we have here. We have a game pretending to be official Backgammon and yet it doesn't play like official Backgammon. This is more like the arguments concerning Pente with board size and whether or not the opening moves are restricted or not.

I think this site should have the game played as is commonly played around the world. For some reason it doesn't. The rules should clearly spell out that you may play the dice as you see fit, instead of the customary way of having to play both if able or the larger of the two if only one but not the other will play. You can say what you want AbigailII, but I find the rules misleading on this point or at least not as straight forward that I would know just from a casual perusal of said rules. Perhaps you could write a clearer version and send it to Fencer? You know how translating game rules from one language to another can make for hard to read writing? I'm thinking that's part of the problem here.

Now, as for playing over the board in person, what happens if I make an "illegal" move? It's up to my opponent to do something about it, right? He has the choice of letting my move stand or making me take it back. It'd be nice to have an internet Backgammon set up so this would be how it would be played. Then it would be like playing it over the board with someone instead of having the machine enforce perfect play and remove some of the thinking involved. Even experts can miss forced moves and they should get penalized like everyone else.

Many who play backgammon may not know of the glitch. Some unfamiliar with the game rules may not even think about it.

The thing to note, IMO, is that it's not against site rules and therefore the play (even though it's a glitch) should be allowed.

What people should concentrate on is a couple of facts:

the occurances are few and far between

it will be fixed one day

until then.......breath ;)

I think the conversation would die if people would stop arguing in favor of the rule being wrong!!

Who cares about Baseball? This is backgammon, and there are not competing organizations that disagree on the rules. There is ONE set of universally accepted rules (as in chess - but NOT dark chess). Period.

<breath>whew</breath>

grenv: I wouldn't say there is one set of universally accepted rules; indeed, there are many local variations. I have a friend from Persia, which might claim to be the birthplace of backgammon, who has educated me on the rules used in that country. However, there does appear to be only one set of rules used in international tournaments.

So far as I know there is no set of local rules that allows a player to use only one die if there is a move available for both, or to use only the smaller die when there is a move available for the larger; but it would not surprise me if such a set of rules existed. Nevertheless, I think Fencer's intention was to apply the rule set applicable to international tournaments.

It's clearly a matter of individual conscience whether to follow those rules, when the server allows moves that violate them. In the past, I've waffled on this point, sometimes taking the position that my following the international rules strictly gave an unfair advantage to unscrupulous opponents. Lately, I've chosen to do what makes me most comfortable, which is to follow the international rules and forgo opportunities to take advantage of what I see as a glitch rather than a "house rule".

Walter Montego: You can say what you want AbigailII, but I find the rules misleading on this point or at least not as straight forward that I would know just from a casual perusal of said rules. Perhaps you could write a clearer version and send it to Fencer?

So, while I think the rules are clear, and you think they aren't, you want me to write clearer rules? That's absurd. If you find the rules to be unclear, you write clearer rules. I don't have a problem with the current set of rules.

playBunny: Can you describe a class of illegal moves that is different to what we're discussing?

You have two stones left, on your 4 and on your 7. Opponent has 2 stones on your 3. You roll 3-4. You can't swap the dice (or at least, according to the rules, you shouldn't be able to swap the dice) because you are not allowed to move with the 4 first.

BTW, the Czech version of the rules doesn't say "The player could not make a legal move with the second die", it says "The player could not make a move with the second die"

AbigailII: Er, that's an example of the kind of illegal move that we are already been discussing, ie. those which go against the maximise-dice-usage rule. I'm after a new class of illegal move that the English rules (lol, Pedro) could be implying, because without a new class the rules are referencing the MDU rule (even if it's not implemented correctly).

Given that it's an example of the MDU rule, isn't you saying "(or at least, according to the rules, you shouldn't be able to swap the dice)" an agreement that these moves are against the rules? I'm quite happy if so, but I'd just like to clarify that. ;-))

Pedro: That's interesting. I wonder which set of rules would take precedence. I believe the English ones should be primary with regard to the other translations but Czech is Fencer's language so I wonder whether the English set is a translation of the Czech, vice versa or are they independant? Lol.

Let me think ..... Today I'll play by the, mmmmmm, Czech rules!

there is a situation .. i am not sure which .. when you still have the 'swap dice' link .. but it wont work

i think the situation is when you have 1 piece on the bar and can only move it out with 1 die (the other die is blocked by your opponent) .. the 'swap dice' link is still there .. but when you click it nothing will change

i dont know if the first die has to be the higher or the lower to make this happen .. will see if i can find an example in any of my games soon :)

should i report this as a bug as well ? or is it cover by what is discussed below ?

AbigailII: Why can't you move the 4 first? You could move 7-3, 3-off or 7-3. 4-1.

alanback: Opponent has 2 stones on your 3 :)

playBunny: That's interesting. I wonder which set of rules would take precedence. I believe the English ones should be primary with regard to the other translations but Czech is Fencer's language so I wonder whether the English set is a translation of the Czech, vice versa or are they independant?

Even though I don't know what you mean saying that the English rules should take precedence with regard to the other translations, I believe the rules should be interpreted in connection with what the game itself allows you and more importantly, what has been declared by Fencer on the discussion boards. To answer your question - I'm sure most of the rules were written first in Czech (since the Czech ones are more comprehensive and Czech is Fencer's mother tongue). Why would Fencer write something in English and then translate it back to his own language? As for this backgammon problem, I think that Fencer said somewhere that it was a bug and would be eventually fixed. That means it's up to the players how will they play. You say playing by the Worldwide Backgammon Federation rules shows more sport, I agree with that but if your opponent doesn't I suggest to move on, maybe mention it to your opponent in the game discussion and wait for the rule to be implemented.

playBunny: those which go against the maximise-dice-usage rule

Obs! There is no such rule. That kind of rule sounds logical, but it is not part of international backgammon rules. Ie, if I have 2 pieces left, one at 4 and 5, I get 6+4, I can move the 4 first (5 to 1) and then 6 (from 5 to off). Legal move, but not very wise..

Pedro Martínez: *nod* thats how i learned about that rule .. i didnt know .. i made a move which isnt allowed according to that rule .. my opponent told me about it .. now i know .. and i play according to it and just hope my opponent does as well :) .. if not .. ah well .. its just a game :) .. its just one move in a game ... my opponent could have gotten a very useful roll as well (probably some nice doubles) instead of this one .. so it partially up to chance as well .. and might be covered again by some luck from my side :)

playBunny: Given that it's an example of the MDU rule, isn't you saying "(or at least, according to the rules, you shouldn't be able to swap the dice)" an agreement that these moves are against the rules?

No. It's just that I can't remember ever encountering the situation I described, so I don't know for sure whether the swap dice link will work or not. All I'm saying is that the rules claim the swap dice link will not work in that situation. But the proof of the pudding is the eating.

Er, that's an example of the kind of illegal move that we are already been discussing, ie. those which go against the maximise-dice-usage rule.

Whatever. Then you tell me what's meant with the illegal moves in the rule that states the swap dice link won't work. If you're going to dismiss anything as being in another class, you tell us what it means. You seem to have a good idea...

Wil: maximise-dice-usage rule

I'll explain more carefully.. There are rules that require to move both dice if possible and to move bigger one if possible, but there are no rule that require to maximise the usage of dice. The example move I gave is legal regardless of the fact that the move uses only 8 pips out of the 9 possible.

Reading more carefully, I assume Abigail referred to the 'use both if possible' rule.

It depends of how you define maximize......
The rule is simple without using the maximize word anyway:

If you can use both dice you should do it.

If you can use only one then you should use the higher one.

If you have a double you should use the maximum number of rolls possible. 4 or else if you can't use 4 you should use 3, or else if you can't use 3 you should use 2, or else if you can't use 2 you should use 1.....

And a tricky one:
Suppose you have a single checker remained at 2-point and your opponent has one at your 1-point and you have to play 41 for example.
Then is the 2-off (using only the 4) winning the game, a legal move?
Or do you have to use both numbers with 2-1 1-off ?

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!

But it's over with an illegal move (haven't used both dice numbers). We should investigate after every move if the move played was legal or not.

If we don't do that as you suggest, someone can for example in the start of the game having a 42 to play, to take all checkers claiming that he won........

So since the move 2-off is illegal the game can't be over with an illegal way.......

I'm always serious.......!

Chessmaster1000:
>Then is the 2-off (using only the 4) winning the >game, a legal move?
Or do you have to use both numbers with 2-1 1-off ?
I would say the later is correct, but what's the problem, it is also a winning move?

Hrqls: That's a separate issue and certainly a reportable bug.

playBunny: ok .. i will post it when i encounter it again :)

Pedro Martínez: the English rules should take precedence with regard to the other translations: Other translation being French, German, etc, but not presumably Czech. It was just a minor point. Why would Fencer write something in English and then translate it back to his own language? Not knowing the guy, who knows? lol. But the reason I wondered is that you've told us that the Czech version doesn't have the word legal while the English rules do, so it was a question of whether the word was lost going from English to Czech or added when going frmo czech to English, unless they were done independantly. Again, just a minor curiousity.

Quote: "I think that Fencer said somewhere that it was a bug" Lol. I don't know how many times I've declared/stated/affirmed that it is a bug, given the bug-tracker link and more ... I agree that having a bug means that it's up to the players what to do - it has to be, for the possibility to exploit it exists - but this discussion is more about what they should do; whether it is legal or not. I reckon that the fact that it's a bug means that the move in question is illegal. But I've said all this before so Ende.

playBunny: just a minor note: it doesn't matter how many times you declare it's a bug

Pedro: Lol. Return quibble: I've declared that Fencer has defined it as a bug. ;-)

Wil: Indeed; we have no disagreement. The maximise dice usage rule is about using the dice values, not the pips (which would be the nonexistent maximise pip usage rule).

I and others have already defined the rule in previous discussions (which you most likely haven't seen) which is why I use the shorthand rather than spell the rule out again and again.

For anyone who wants to know, here's a full version (see section Movement of the Checkers, part 4).

playBunny: LOL...:)

Chessmaster1000: "The rule is simple without using the maximize word anyway:". Yep, but we've talked about this rule so many times that an abbreviation is required. Try saying it with just three words or less. ;-p

Lolol re "Serious about the tricky one". Pgt is right, of course. Having legally taken the last piece off with the higher dice it is then impossible to use the other value. Impossible isn't illegal - so you have a choice with that case.

Interestingly enough (and annoying, too) is that at VogClub you arerequired to use the smaller dice first before bearing off the last man. Too strong an implementation of the MDU rule, lolol.

AbigailII: "Then you tell me what's meant with the illegal moves in the rule that states the swap dice link won't work.". I thought that's what my post did. Was it unclear? As far as I'm concerned the swap link implies the MDU situation and no other. That's why I asked you to suggest a different kettle of fish.

playBunny: Considering the rules don't define the MDU, nor does the game enforce it, I doubt that The player could not make a legal move with the second die refers to the MDU.

Note that the rule above mentions legal moves as well: If the player cannot make a legal move, he is notified about this situation by a message "You cannot make a move" and must pass this move to his/her opponent by performing an "empty" move - clicks on one of sending buttons. Such move is displayed as "pass" in the game notation.

Let's just accept that this is Fencer's site and the rules are as he wants them, pending any feedback that he deems reasonable and actionable.

If you want to play by any set of defined/accepted/fair/international/whatever rules, accept that you cannot do it on BK (for now)

I will keep playing according to what BK allows me and I expect my opponents HERE to do the same - and if they don't agree, well, then they shouldn't be playing under illusions, should they?

WhiteTower: "Let's just accept ..." Lol. Why? I'm having fun debating with Abigail and my guess is that she's enjoying it too. So are some spectators. Others are bored by it and some couldn't care less. That's just how it goes.

"Let's just accept ... Fencer's rules" I wish that people would, lolol. Perhaps you've missed what this debate is about. I'm saying that, for various reasons (see below), Fencer's rules include MDU, even if a bug prevents that rule from being enforced. So accepting Fencer's rules means accepting the MDU rule. But some folks disagree with that ....

If you play against me and do what BK allows you - ie. exploit the bug to gain an unfair advantage - when it's against Fencer's rules (and I have provided evidence of that) ... what illusions are you talking about? ;-)


AbigailII: The fact that the game doesn't enforce MDU because of a bug doesn't invalidate that rule. True, MDU isn't written into the rules explicitly, but, as I have explained, it is implied by the phrase in question. Simply saying that you "doubt that" isn't providing any additional information and so I'm keen to see you provide some inkling as to what illegal moves that phrase could be referring. This is a key point in my current argument and this is the third request for you to address it but you seem unable to provide an interpretion. Without that we cannot continue this discussion (much to the relief of WhiteTower and any one else who groans with the appearance of each message, lolol)

Note that the pass situation has nothing to do with this debate as it refers to the impossibility of making a move as opposed to there being alternate possible moves, one or more of which are illegal. ;-)

playBunny: All I was saying is that, as long as the site allows you to do something, whatever the documented rules say in favour or against it, it simply is the way it works. Maybe Fencer doesn't want to change the wording in the rules, maybe he likes the controversy :)

WhiteTower: Saying it's the way it works doesn't mean there's no issue but it can certainly be used to state that your exploration stop there. (Such action is just one of the options so no criticism is intended.)

Lolol. I reckon maybe he does! ;-)

playBunny: Lolol re "Serious about the tricky one". Pgt is right, of course. Having legally taken the last piece off with the higher dice it is then impossible to use the other value.

Q1: Do you agree that the procedure of play at Backgammon should be :
- Making a move
- Investigating if it is legal
- Investigating if this move ends the game
A1: YES

Q2: Do you agree that the game SHOULD end with a legal move?
A2: YES

Q3: Do you agree that after 2-off the move ends illegally?
A3: YES

The above conversation implies that 2-off is an illegal move.......

So where do you have a disagreement? I guess it's on the question's 1 procedure that
should be according to you:
- Making a move
- Investigating if this move ends the game and then everything else stops and we have a winner
- Investigating if it is legal


Now don't you see that the second procedure is not so logical...........?!?!?!?

playBunny: For the last time. But you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that rules should be complete, and not refering to things that aren't defined.

• The rules of backgammon (as stated on THIS site, not rules of backgammon defined by some other identity) nowhere state that if it is possible to move with both die, you have to do so. (This is your MDU rule).
  
• Therefore, the "no swapping possible if there's no legal move for the second die" isn't referring to the MDU rule, because there is NO MDU rule.
  
• Considering that you have to pass if there is no legal move available (no my words - read the rules), and you call this situation "impossible moves", it seems that what you call "impossible moves" is what the rules call "no legal moves".
  
• Again, the rules do not define any MDU rule.
  

Now, either quote the specific part of the rules that define your MDU rule, or stop using arguments that there is an MDU rule.

In other words, a "legal move" as put in the English version of the BG rules refers to a move that is allowed by the BK rules, including a move that is against the MDU rule.

Perhaps we should just rename the game to Abigammon. Then we couldn't argue about the real rules.

If we are playing backgammon then this site is not the owner of the rules. The fact that the rules are shown here is only for the benefit of people who know not how to play. He has made a slight oversight here, similar perhaps to overlooking en passent in chess. It is an oversight, NOT a rule change.

Chessmaster1000: You are arguing what is called a moot point. The game is over and there is no recourse. Both moves are legal whether or not they logically follow from your premise.

grenv: Yes, Abigammon seems like a good name for it, though I was thinking Fencer's Backgammon would be workable too. :) I think you're right, he didn't purposely make the game play how it does, it just happens to play how it does.

AbigailII: If Fencer asks, I will indeed write up an English version of the Backgammon rules as the game is played here. And it will be clearer than what exists now, followed with examples. From what I've seen of what happens in various forced move situations, it isn't implimented consistantly. Sometimes after swapping the dice you may not be allowed swap them back. If one is aware of how this game is played on this site and is going to play it as allowed, then it is wise to check out how you want the dice played with this in mind. That is why 1-6 isn't the same as 6-1 on occasion. This is definitely a flaw in the programming and is not consistant with the playing of the game regardless of which rules we are playing the game with.

Chessmaster1000: Yep, you're right about that particular conversation but you wouldn't have it with me. ;-D

With me it would go:

A1. Well, firstly, I wonder what you mean by "move"? Is that a single man moved using one of the dice values or all the moves that the user sees fit to make?

If it's the single-move-at-a-time case then the 2-off would be legal and it would also end the game.

If not then the 2-off would still be legal and it, too, would end the game. The other dice value would be deemed impossible to play, which is fine.

A2. Of course!

A3. Nope. It's a valid move with one dice value legitimately discarded because it's impossible to play once the piece is off the board.

Or:

A1. Well, that's not quite how I'd do it. Mine would be:

1 - Make a list of all the possible and legal combinations of moves.
2 - Get the User's move-combination.
3 - If the User's move-combination does not match one of those listed,
....... - Inform the User.
....... - Go to 2.
4 - Make the move.
5 - If the move ends the game ...

And step 1 would include moves that use a single dice to remove the last man from the board.

If you like, I'm saying that the MDU rule has a special case for the last man. Why? Because the outcome is exactly the same except that the rigid application of the rule requires the user to make more effort to finish the game. Allowing the single move is expedient without loss of fairness.

Chessmaster1000: I think this is very clear. There is a rule: "A player must use both numbers of a roll if this is legally possible (or all four numbers of a double)." without any exceptions. Is there any other possibility than to use the both? Using only one is breaking the game rules. Why would the last move be an exception?

If the last move is allowed to be illegal, a player might bear all pieces out at his/her first move, as Chessmaster pointed out.

Wil: For the sake of expediency because it doesn't affect the outcome of the game. Or because the last man going off the board ends the game regardless of whether there are dice values left or not.

I skipped ChessM's point about bearing off all pieces on the first roll because I didn't understand what bearing it had on anything. Care to explain?

I can't find a link to the official rules (something with lots of numbers and paragraphs and sub-clauses, lol). Does anyone have one?

http://www.wbfonline.com/startoplay/index.html

Thanks Pedro, I've seen that one but it's more pretty pictures than careful language. I'm after something like their tournament rules but for the game itself.