alanback: "The Crawford game is always cubeless; also, any game that is played when both players are 1 point away from winning the match is cubeless."

That's missing the point, or rather using the wrong perspective. "Cubeless" is a synonym for chequer play. But every backgammon game - in cubeless matches, cubeful games, Crawford and DMP games - has chequer play. However, no cubeless match has the cubing, gammons, game sequence, etc in it. It's the addition of the cube to chequer play that creates the new variation.

There aren't separate ratings among golfers for driving and putting, or among tennis players for serving and volleying;

For sure! There are no putting-only tournaments or driving-only championships. Tennis players don't play three sets of volleying. That's because these things are only parts of their game and are inseparable.

"so why should there be different ratings for cube play and checker play? "

What we are talking about is where an entire match either does or doesn't include a set of features. It's more akin to sprinting and hurdling. Hurdling requires sprinting but not vice versa. They make totally different events, ones which do have separate ratings and rankings. Cubeful Backgammon requires chequer play but cubeless Backgammon is sufficient unto itself. The two are substantially different for all the reasons previously given and are similarly justified in having separate ratings.

"... However, that doesn't mean that separate ratings should be maintained; it just means that a complete backgammon player has to be able to use the cube properly."

This actually highlights another factor in favour of separate ratings: the so called "incomplete" backgammon players! Or are you suggesting that the cube be obligatory and players can like it or lump it?

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.

playBunny: "Cubeless" is a synonym for chequer play.

LOL. Well, at least now we know why you were clueless about the subset thing.

Marfitalu: I am basically happy to win 8 points, which I did. I believe that my opponent did not realise that he/she would lose 8 points by resigning, which is why I feel bad!! I understand the rules perfectly. But thanks for your concern.

pgt: Your opponent DID realize because when you click on the "resign" link, you'll see a warning message showing how many points the winner would receive. Try it.

Fencer: Then my opponent must have really offended the dice God to have lost that confidence - or maybe didn't enjoy playing against me.

I haven't been game to try resigning so far, but I will give it a go one day soon. I hope you are right, but if you are wrong ..... (you wouldn't be wrong though!)

pgt: Now I am really scared.

playBunny: "Or are you suggesting that the cube be obligatory and players can like it or lump it?" -- Yes, in the game of backgammon. Of course, players are always free to create one-point matches, in which the cube is naturally out of play.

Fencer: Really? I've had at least one opponent tell me he was surprised at the result.

Make that two opponents.

alanback: It's not my fault they don't read the warning messages.

alanback: You yourself can click the resign button - a warning will come up saying how many points you will lose, and then you will either confirm the resign, or keep playing.

You can test this yourself - just make sure you click on "keep playing" so you do not actually resign a game.

Fencer: Absolutely right! I resigned a game myself and realized that I had clicked thru without reading the message -- of course I know better from experience than to resign too much ;-)

With all this talk about the cube, I have not given enough attention to another important feature, which is the ability to earn multiple points with gammons and backgammons. (Some folks have discovered this painfully by resigning too early.) The possibility of gammon adds another strategic dimension to the game.

It's not necessary to use the cube in order to allow gammons; in multiple point matches, it would be possible to award multiple wins for gammon and backgammon. Then we could also have separate rankings for gammonish and nongammonish checker play!

lets blame it me being blonde and dutch :)

whats 'checker play' ?

Fencer: "It's not my fault they don't read the warning messages."

I believe it is your responsibility as a web designer to follow human interface guidleines and ensure that the possibility of such occurences is minimised. I pointed out to you how this message is part of a larger body of text and can be passed over by the eyes when scanning that area. I mentioned it because that's what happened when I first saw it (though I was just testing the link rather than resigning). And it's happening again as in the case of alanback and his and pgt's opponents.

If I may take the liberty of repeating a snippet of our conversation in our test match...

playBunny: (15. October 2005, 15:08:04) No problem. [The decision not to implement a resign/accept dialogue] In effect it means that resigning is not an option and games must be finished the long way. That can be lived with. There will be those unfortunate enough to resign without realising what they've done but a few sharp slaps will teach them. [emphasis added]

I'd certainly recommend that the warning be in red and/or in the next font size up, or add to it. At the least the warning line should be separated from the text above by a blank line.

Even better, I'd use the text: "Are you crazy??? Can't you see how many points you're giving away?!!"

(I'd also suggest taking out the "according to the backgammon rules" unless you're going to make it part of your own rules, because nowhere awards gammons or backgammons in this manner.)

Fencer: (15. October 2005, 15:09:32) Hmmm, maybe "according to BrainKing backgammon rules" would be better.

playBunny: (15. October 2005, 15:16:35) Aye, that would be better. You'll get no arguments then, lol.

Fencer: (15. October 2005, 15:18:20) Done.

playBunny: (15. October 2005, 15:32:10) Super. And the bit about the warning? The "crazy" bit was obviously a joke but the highlighting suggestion was serious. I'd say the in-red idea is best, with the extra blank line being a close second.

Fencer: (15. October 2005, 19:46:50) Yeah, something will be done.

playBunny: I "testresigned" a game now and i had no problems to see the "Warning" and i suppose my eyes are older than most here So i cant understand the "noise" about it.

I created a new Backgammon Tournament with doubling cube.
Every match is completed when one player reaches 5 points using the doubling cube rules.
Limit of registration: October 24
If you are interested, register you at
http://brainking.com/fr/Tournaments?trg=11845&tri=64175&trnst=0

Andersp: Well done that man .

But you've had the benfit of reading these messages and knew what to look for. We are talking about those who needlessly learn the lesson the hard way. It's avoidable with a small change to the message.

frolind: "LOL. Well, at least now we know why you were clueless about the subset thing."

No, frolind. You think you're making sense, somewhere in your mind, but nobody else knows what you are talking about.

Please join me in the Flame Pit so that we can conduct an investigation into your mentalstate....

playBunny: 1) I am the only one who specifies my own responsibilities.
2) Reposting someone else's posts or private messages without his permission is against the user agreement.

Fencer: you're the man

The example given below was a little silly. Part of the game is to try to bear off a piece to avoid being gammoned. If you resign before going through this essential part of the game you deserve to lose the points for being gammoned in my opinion.

Fencer: 1) Sure. I may state what I believe though.
2) Yep. I took a liberty there at the risk of making you blush.
3) Does that mean you're going to ignore the opportunity to make this minor but useful improvement?

Fencer: Maybe it would help if the "warning - you will lose X points..." was 1 font bigger - and/or a different color to help make it a little more eye catching.

In this game:
http://brainking.com/cz/ArchivedGame?g=1123600
TC resigned and I received 4 points (gammon x 2). But, I think I should have gotten 6 points since it should be my pieces, not his, that should be counted as to whether it is gammon or backgammon in the anti.

playBunny: LOL. Was it really that painfull for your super-sized ego to realize that you were wrong?

How is it possible to score gammon or backgammon in anti-BG under the current rules?

Pedro Martínez: I would suggest that rules be writen just for anti-backgammon since it can be confusing.

Well the rule for anti is the object of the game is opposet.

So the rules for regular backgammon are:
# Single game (1 point) - the winner's opponent has borne off at least one piece.
# Gammon (2 points) - the opponent hasn't borne off any pieces.
# Backgammon (3 points) - the opponent hasn't borne off any pieces and still has some pieces either on the bar or in the winner's home area (the six pipes where the winner bears off own pieces).

So i would almost have to say that instead of the "winners opponent", it should be just winner.

So I guess what the "program" should do is calculate how much it would normally give to the opponent (or the person who removed all their pieces first), then instead of giving them the points - the other player should get them.

= = = = =

Another suggestion:

Would be nice if the tournament section that has 0 for loses and 1's for wins - if instead of 1's, it lists how many points were won for that game. Would make it quicker to see who is close to winning & losing.

frolind: I enjoy a good debate. "Good" means that I have someone worth debating with. Redsales, Alanback, Grenv, Walter, Abigail, ... all these and others people are worth debating with. You have yet to go beyond single-sentence abtract utterances. Please explain your reasoning and how I'm wrong.

Alternatively, given that I don't think you're interested in actually debating anything meaningful, let us continue this conversation in the Flame Pit. There is a message waiting for you there.

playBunny: It's all here. No need to repeat it, especially since your royal highness can't be bothered to actually read a message before responding to it.

Please stop it. This is the Backgammon board to talk about Backgammon issues.

Fencer: This is very true, and it was my fault for not reading the warnings when I proposed to resign. What I didn't take into account was that my opposition would not be presented with the resignation and have the ability to reject or accept. I didn't realize that the computer had full responseability with the decision making.

BIG BAD WOLF: I agree 100%...and if people cant see the resignwarning, simply ask the translators to add <font color=#ff0000> then you have it in red..you dont need to be a software engineer to do that!

BIG BAD WOLF: problem with multiple point maches in anti-backgammon is that there is a much higher percentage of backgammons(3 points) than in regular backgammon

Here is my first cube match against the #3 ranked player... a nice 9 to 1 trouncing in a 7 point match! Seems like a lot of work for only one little win though....

http://brainking.com/en/ArchivedGame?g=1125288

I noticed some players with high (about 2100) ratings playing 12-19 on the first move with a 6-1.

I think this proves the ratings are bogus.

These players will get trounced in a long match, which argues in favor of separate ratings I think.

grenv: Ratings are an approximation and are no better than the data on which they are based. In backgammon, random factors dominate the early ratings, so a player's rating is really reliable until they have a few hundred games behind them. The ratings aren't bogus, but unquestioning reliance upon them is. They are only an indication of ability, not proof. As you have observed, playing style is the ultimate proof of ability; not even won-loss record is better in that regard.

alanback: "Ratings are an approximation and are no better than the data" ... and formula ... "on which they are based."
;-)

playBunny: Of course :)

alanback: I don't really need a lesson in mathematics or statistics, I was pointing out that the ratings appear to be meaningless. Of course the more games it is based on the better, but only once the general population has reliable ratings.

I suspect in cubeless backgammon it will take years for the ratings on this site to start meaning something.

grenv: Your original post certainly gave the impression that you DID need a lesson in statistics ;-)

alanback: Nonsense, perhaps you need a lesson in English?

has anybody noticed that there is at least one tournament with the cube that is set up to play 2 games at once. Does this make any sense? couldn't a person drag out one of the games that he is loosing in and if he has more vacation, win by default?

Vikings: Just more games - people who like to play games should like it.

The chance of someone holding up a game is the same if it is 1 game or 2 game tournament.

BIG BAD WOLF: I don't think you understand what I mean, lets say that the game is tied, and one more point wins, and one player is winning one while the other is winning the other, I know of a couple of people on this site that would figure out if they have more vacation time than you to stall the game they are loosing just long enought to win the other and thus the match.

Vikings: 2 different games will be 2 completly different matchs.

What happens in one of the games has nothing to do with the other game.

So for example a tournament is set up for the 2 game match backgammon, with the 5 point cube.

Player A will get 2 games - both worth 5 points each with player B. If they are in danger of losing one, and winning the other - there would be no advantage to just slowing down on one.

Vikings: I don't understand your point. They can postpone making their play, but the opponent will not use any vacation time while waiting for the player to move. The same would be true in the other match.

BIG BAD WOLF: you are right, duh, I'll pretend I was drink'n

Vikings: You can do what I do. Avoid people that do this. It makes no sense, but I've seen this behavior a few times. Losing is part of the game, just like winning is. So why the sudden change in playing speed? I guess it means that much to them to not lose, and way too much to them to win.

Vikings: It's especially bad when you have two games with a person and they play in one, but not the other and the circumstances are as you say.