In this game http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1131636 my opponent offered a double right as soon as the game started. I have the cube. When my turn comes up, I'm not being given the choice to double. Is this a bug related to the implementation of the Crawford rule? When the score was 3 to 2 he doubled and I doubled him back. I went on to win that game making the score 6 to 3 my favor. We're playing first player to seven game points wins. In the following game, the double choice was never offered. This is the Crawford rule, right? Anyways, he won that game making it 6 to 4. We are now playing the next game. As I said he doubled immediately and I accepted. The double cube indicator is now on my side of the table showing a 2, but when my turn starts I am not given the choice to offer a double. I don't want to double in this current position, but I should have the option to, shouldn't I?

Walter Montego: You definitely should be able to double. Report it to the BugTracker.

Pedro Martínez: I asked my opponent about this and his reply would seem to explain why I don't get the option.

Since I only need one point to win the match, doubling does nothing for me and that's why I don't get the option. I guess winning extra points is meaningless as far as playing a match goes.

Pedro Martínez: It's not a bug, it's Fencers choice (which is common on the other backgammon servers I play on as well):

(from the rules)

If a player is 1 point away from winning the match, he won't be given an option to offer a double because the reject would always won the match for him.

When a doubling cube value reaches the point where it would win the match for the player, the system won't show more options to double the cube value because it wouldn't make sense to increase it anymore.

frolind: Oh, OK then, thanks for correcting me...:)

Walter: It's called a dead cube.

Is it possible to get the match length and the current score of the match posted towards the top of the screen? I am constantly scrolling down to find out what the score of the match is.

SueQ: I agree, in big bold and colored writing.

Also I'd like to see the current score in the tournament screen (instead of a dash if the match isn't over yet), kind of like the team tournaments.

I'll probably get the usual "please make post of this nature on the BG board" type of reply/post on the FR board... so I'll repost it here, so I don't tick the moderators off for posting on the wrong board.... :o)
http://www.bkgm.com/variants/Chouette.html
another link about 'chouette' variant... those interested should look at the bottom of the page and find many more variations of 'gammon games and maybe direct the powers that be on BK in this direction. if BK ever wanted to cater to their gammon players, as they do to their chess players, this would be a good place to get some ideas... :o)

Hello,

I created a new Backgammon Tournament for all players .
This tournament is addressed to the players who can play at least a
move per day.

Limit of registration: October 28

If you are interested, register you at
http://brainking.com/fr/Tournaments?trg=11934&tri=64781&trnst=0



Greetings

jolat

jolat: I think you have made a mistake in the creation of your tournament. It is not 3 points with double cube tournament. It is 2 games each player. The 3 points with double cube only applies according to your tournament page if the tournament ends in a two way tie.

Walter Montego:
OK, thanks!
I corrected.

Im sooo confused!!

I think I have too many people telling me different rules to the cube..

I thought if I was losing and I got a double offer that I could reject it an continue the game and If I lost i lost points. But I just refused a double off an I lost the game.. arggggg

Rose: It's quite simple. The object is to get to some number of points, for example 9.

Games are worth 1 point each to start with.

If you get doubled and accept, the game is worth 2 points, meaning whoever wins gets 2 points.

If you reject the double your opponent will win the game but get only 1 point.

Once you accept the double, ONLY YOU can double again. In this example you would be doubling the game value to 4, and if your opponent rejects you would win the game and get 2 points.

Is it a bug that forces us to roll dice even if we are trapped in the bar and the whole "home" is blocked? Doesnt make sense to me to roll the dice when no diceroll can help me out.

In fact I've seen some very strange behaviour.

I doubled one opponent when I had only a few pieces left and he still hadn't borne any off (but there was no way I could gammon him, before anyone asks).

Not only did he accept but doubled me right back next turn to make it an 8 point game (in a 7 point match). Of course I won easily.

I urge people to read and understand the rules. Ask for clarification here if necessary.

Andersp: the question isnt if you would want to roll the dice ... but if you want to double . if you are stuck on the bar you might still want to double ... just to scare your opponent i guess ;)

Andersp: It's not a bug, it's a feature!

grenv: Is that feature called "opposite autopass"

Andersp: lol :)

Hrqls: Like Hrqls - there might be a time like the 1 piece you have on the bar is your very last piece on the board, and you even though no dice roll will help you, you may still double since you think you can break lose and move your pieces around the board before your opponenet can get all their pieces in. At least I would probable double if I was in that situation.

BIG BAD WOLF: Yes, this can easily happen. And also when your opponent has still a backward man blocked by six consecutive squares. Then the fact of not being able to move is an advantage, and you just have to wait for your opponent to break his board, so you will almost always win. So in that situation the only reason not to double would be to try for a gammon.

Rose: For cube beginners, I like to think of a person who doubles as saying "Hey, I think I can win the game - would you like to make the game worth twice as much?"

Then the opponenet can then either say (Accept) "I think I still have a good chance to win also, sure lets make the game worth twice as much and continue to play.

or the opponenet can say (reject) "I think you are right and will win the game also. I will give you this game and lets move on to the next" (with the value of the game at the cube value before the double offer)

At least that is the basics of it. As you play, there are many other little tips and tricks which will help as you play on. (Like if you think you are going to win with a gammon/backgammon, you should not double - or if it is past the crawford round and your opponent is 1 point away you should always double right away, etc..... things which will help your game, but not as important to learn how to start using the cube.)

BIG BAD WOLF: In a way it's like poker, but every raise doubles the stakes.

Marfitalu: Yes, and there's no bluffing in backgammon (it's a "perfect information" game). My point was that the mechanics of doubling can be compared to a raise in poker: The other player must agree to play the game at the higher stakes, or drop and forfeit the current stakes.

alanback: I disagree with your assertion that Backgammon is a perfect information game. There are unknowns in it and that means that it isn't a perfect information game. Chess or Checkers are perfect information games. Dark Chess is usually not. As for whether or not one might be able to bluff in Backgammon, even with the cube in play, I don't see a way for that to be done. You either go for it, or you don't. It is true that your opponent can see the whole game, but he doesn't know what the dice will roll and lacks information on exactly what the coming rolls will be. A player may take an anti-percentage stance, but that's not the same thing as bluffing.

Walter Montego: Backgammon appears to satisfy the definition of a "perfect informatio n game" at http://www.gametheory.net/dictionary/PerfectInformation.html. Of course, your point is valid that there are unknowns in the future, but the definition focuses on information about moves that have already been made.

Walter Montego: Arguably backgammon is not a game of "complete information" as defined at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_information; however, that definition may be broad enough to include games where all the possibilities are known, even though the outcome depends upon a random element.

Walter Montego: See also http://www.thegamesjournal.com/articles/DefiningtheAbstract.shtml (backgammon is a perfect information game, but not an "abstract strategy" game due to the random element); http://www.boardgamegeek.com/geeklist.php3?action=view&listid=9930 (confusion between perfect information and complete information)

alanback: I think it is perfect information. I know exactly where everything is as well as all future possible outcomes and their probabilities.

grenv: In any case, we all have "perfect information" about the game of backgammon, we're just discussing labels

alanback: Apparently you are correct in your assertion. I found a number of sources calling Backgammon a perfect information game. Perfect information games are divided into two categories. Those with no luck in them, which are called predeterministic, and those with luck in them, which are called either non-predeterministic or stochastic.

The definition seems to be if you can see every move made in the game and know where every game piece is and what they can do, the game is a perfect information game.

Thank you for making me learn something today. :) Now I know.

alanback: "there's no bluffing in backgammon (it's a "perfect information" game)."

It may be perfect information in the game theory sense but bluffing is most certainly an option because backgammon is rarely a perfect opponent game. Grenv's example below illustrates this. An opponent who accepts a cube offered in order to terminate the game and who then redoubles? That was not a bluff but it shows how a cube can be taken under the wrong circumstances. The converse is also possible. The weaker player knows they're up against someone much stronger and drops the cube as soon as it appears even though it was offered too early (ie, a bluff).

Another form of bluff, perhaps, is the offering of a blot when you know that hitting it will likely cause the opponent more trouble than letting it go. I've been on all four sides of that one, lol.

playBunny: I never meant to imply that psychological factors are irrelevant :o)

Rose: I think the wording should be changed, with "Drop" instead of "Reject". It's much harder to misunderstand as it works for both the cube and the game. Drop one you've dropped the other. And "Continue" would perhaps be better than "Accept" (although the usual term is "Take").

playBunny: Accept and Reject is what I've used my whole backgammon life. Drop doesn't make sense.
Why not change "check" to "I can take your king next turn" ?

grenv: 'Drop' makes loads of sense and it's well established as part of Backgammon terminology, but I take your point. Once you've got used to the words, whatever they are, it's second nature and you can't see what the fuss is about. I'm still cautious with these BK buttons, don't want to go the wrong way, but I'll get there, as will Rose and everyone else... I suspect that I'll eventually not go to the word but will learn that left is take/continue and right is drop.

At Vog the words "Take" and "Drop" are used. perhaps because they are short and fit onto the board in the area that's provided. When playing GnuBg I don't read the words (Accept and Decline) as they're are rather small on my monitor, but hit the green tick or the red cross as appropriate. I think such icons would go nicely with the indistinguishable grey buttons here.

Why not change "check" to "I can take your king next turn"?
They could at least spell it properly - cheque.

Andersp:
I agree Andersp This issue has been a thorn in my paw on every game site...but every game site seems to do it. If you were playing live with a live person across the board you would not roll. No one does live. The fact that we have to roll here under those conditions absolutlely changes the odds in the game...to what extent I can't say. But it just bothers me

I am talking about having to roll when you are on the bar and the home field is full by your opponent. Irrelevant of the doubling cube.

ajtgirl: The fact that we have to roll here under those conditions absolutlely changes the odds in the game

How?

frolind:
If one is due for doubles, which happens all the time, and they throw them when they are on the bar, the roll is useless and reduces the odds of them occuring again at a favorable point in the game. I am not a technician. I just like to play and have noticed this glitch for some time.

What do you think?

ajtgirl: the dice are determend by random, what your opponent rolls is irrelevant

ajtgirl: The number of doubles you roll when closed out does not affect the possibility of doubles later in the game. The dice does NOT try to make a fair amount of doubles which you risk using up on the bar, it simply gives you two random numbers from 1 to 6 whenever you need it.

frolind: aren't they determend by a random generator based on a time sequence?

Vikings: I have no idea, but whichever method is used it's purpose is to deliver 2 random numbers from 1 to 6 per dice roll. :)

frolind: agreed

frolind:
But the fact that one has to roll the dice here when barred out CHANGES the odds. In real life, a player does not roll the dice if he is barred out. That's what I am talking about.

ajtgirl: I understand what you are saying, but I disagree that the odds are changed.

frolind:
The odds change with every throw of the dice. There are only so many times one can get a 6-6, or a 5-5, or a double anything in one game. I think the odds are that any combination of dice thrown will be equivalent to a 7, but we all know that backgammon, winning at backgammon, can turn on the doubles. So when a player has to throw the dice and cannot move anyway...IT CHANGES THE ODDS!

ajtgirl: your roll is determined by what time you click on your turn,what number someone else rolls has ablolutely nothing to do with is

Vikings:
But why should we have to roll when we can't move anyway? That is the basic question I propose to you. In real life tournaments, correct me if I am wrong, players who are barred out do not even get to TOUCH the dice until there is an opening in their opponents home board.