pgt:  In fact, it would be useful to be able to turn off the cube altogether, so you wouldn't have to choose between rolling the dice and doubling on each turn in situations where you know you won't be doubling.

AlliumCepa: The problem is with the way fencer has implemented 'auto pass' here is that it is not only used when there are no possible rolls that will make a move possible, but also when the dice rolled has no possible moves associated with it.

AlliumCepa: Not when you have the cube.

pgt: I agree with you, autopass (or the lack of it) is still the #1 weakness of BK.

pgt: No, the biggest weakness is that tournaments don't progress once all the meaningful games are complete, but having to roll the dice when you have no legal move does come in second. ;-)

Plleae Please Please Please can we have an option to say "skip all my turns until I can make a legal move." It is so frustrating having to roll the dice (for absolutely no good reason - whatever you throw, you can't move) and then pass. This is the biggest weakness on this site. It needs to be fixed!

alanback: The thing that is so stooooooopid is that you have to roll the dice. The choices should be double and autoplay the turn. Then you wouldn't have to click twice. I know clicking twice is no big deal, but it's the dumb implementation that irritates so many players. Fixing that needs to be done.

You know that little grinning face on the button you click to get the smileys?  Well, on my display, when my opponent doubles, that little grin comes up right under the word "double"!  Boy is that annoying!

Thad: I welcome the idea to play backgammon with different dices, but I wouldn't choose those ones. As playBunny pointed out, the fact that the sum of the two dices is the same as with ordinary dices is not very relevant in backgammon, and I don't like the fact that it would be impossible to full-prime the opponent (it would require 16 checkers).

I would welcome new dices such that
1) There are less doubles. This sounds nice.
2) There is a higher probability to hit a direct shot - which would favour the positional plays vs the racing plays.

A possibility would be one die ranging from 1 to 5, the other from 2 to 6. It would require some testing to tell how it would work.

"An unusual pair of dice. One has sides 1,3,4,5,6,8. The other has sides 1,2,2,3,3,4. ..."

The piece says that the odds of rolling any of the totals is the same, and I'll take their word for that, but it also says that "any game that you can play with a normal set of 2 dice can also be played with a set of Sicherman Dice, with no difference in the outcome". That's only correct for games where the total is used, not the individual dice.

Allowing that we want the different doubles behaviour, there's also a marked change to the odds of single dice - an additional 3 and the loss of both a 5 and a 6. That, along with and the appearance of an 8, no less, would affect the game more than the changed odds of doubles.

I think it would make quite a difference in the way that the game was played. For instance, in the home table, closing the 3-point would be more important than before due to the three 3s - odds of 16/36 instead of 11, while the 5-point would be slightly less useful because the odds of re-entry there would be 6/36 instead of 11/36. (The change would only be slight because the 5-point has other considerable strategic value)

Jumping primes would be harder with the loss of a 5 and a 6 so the value of smaller primes would go up - except that the 8 would make even a 6-prime escapable!

The increased long-arm potential would make for some very unexpected hits - an opponent's backrunner that escapes to your 9-point could be knocked back by one of your own backrunners with an 8-6 from your opponent's 4-point!

I propose a version of backgammon played with Sicherman dice!

The outcomes and odds of any particular roll are the same as with a 'normal' pair of dice, but the chances of doubles are lower.

Link about Sicherman dice:
http://www.grand-illusions.com/acatalog/info_35.html

pgt:  I think I would support pgt's suggestion too, though there would be a small chance that one might miss a desirable double that way.

I'll add my support to this idea.

joshi tm: I made a similar suggestion about a year ago. Rather than a "permanent setting", I suggested a check box on the specific game which allowed something like "ignore doubles at this time, and autopass until I am in a position to actually move a piece."

Andersp:  Oops, sorry, fixed now!

Andersp:  Thanks, friend :-)

joshi tm:  Well, I was tempted to suggest that, but I don't think autopass is appropriate where the player has a perfectly legal non-pass action available to him.  I think it's just the price we pay for the cube.

alanback: Maybe it would be a better idea just to have in the settings page an AutoPass-when-all-you-can-do-is-double-checkbox.

alanback: That's a brilliant idea, my friend !

There are certain situations in which autopass is not appropriate even though a player will want to pass 999 out of 1000 times.  In particular, when a player is on the bar and has the opportunity to double, the theoretical possibility of a double means that the server must give him that opportunity even though he will almost never exercise it.

At present we have two choices in this situation -- "Roll dice" and "Offer double".  If the double were not available, the server would roll the dice itself and determine whether autopass should apply.  Since the double is available, however, the player must click on "Roll dice" and then submit.

Would it be difficult to add a "Pass double" button and program the server to treat this as a situation in which no double is available?  In other words, after a player clicked "Pass double", the server would roll the dice internally, and if no move was possible, immediately pass the game back to the player's opponent.

I know the second click is not a big deal, but it would improve the smooth operation of the game interface to eliminate it when it is not necessary. 

fakar10: That's partly why I posted it here. It's so blatant that it's almost amusing.

He was involved in a previous occurence. I guess it's an irresistible game to him.

And what an intelligent choice of name for the other account.

playBunny: Best thing to do is PM the information directly to Fencer since he may not read all the public message boards - or the message gets buried before he read it - since there is nothing any user can do - only Fencer.

playBunny: well spotted. Let's get rid of this user shall we?

http://brainking.com/en/Ratings?tp=23&bms=0


http://brainking.com/en/BKRGraph?df=1&mf=8&yf=2007&dt=25&mt=8&yt=2007&submit=Submit&u=43955&tp=23


Finished: http://brainking.com/en/Profile?op=53326&u=43955&p=1


Yet to come: Iana Florin

I'm a backgammon addict. If anyone would like to play, please feel free to send an invite.

Andersp: You rolled 1-1, 5-5, 5-5 and 2-2 in a row and later 1-1 and 3-3. Anyone who knows the "Law" of Averages knows that to have such doubles can only mean that you're cheating. Either you're doing better sacrifices to the Dice Gods (which is unfair) or you've got Fencer in your pocket or you've got a hacker to make BrainKing roll whatever you like.

Oh hang on .... HE was the one with all those doubles .. and he still didn't win.

Vikings: I always accept a challenge...especially from 2250 players and higher LOL

Andersp: well then it's obvious,.... you accepted!

Vikings: I didnt challenge him, he challenged me

Andersp: maybe he felt cheated because of the way that stairs games can start without accepting the challenge before the timer starts since he timed out on the first one. just a thought

Andersp: Well I don't disagree with you - tougher stance on private chat would be nice, but that is not my call - so only thing I can do is give advise on what I would do - and the "Blocked users" lists will block everything that user will say to you again... if you choose to use it.

Andersp: No, BKR is not that important to me - but I would not let someone talk me into giving them a free win.

Andersp: I don't say I speak to Fencer often - but what I see is someone who talked his way into a win by getting you to resign. Did they cross the line? Well I'll let Fencer decide that - but if some people know they can get an easy win by just pushing a few buttons, they will.

Again, not saying that is the right thing to do - but if someone does that to me, I just simply put them on ignore and continue to play my game in piece.

coan.net: I won the first part/game...then i resigned the rest, dont play players who call me cheater and nazi...ive sent the game to Fencer

Andersp: You were probable playing better then they were, so for some - they consider that cheating.... but kind of looks like you resigned the game after that point - so apparently by calling you a cheater, it got him the game win.

... That is one strategy to win that some take - get into your opponents head.

7 Point Match with Cube - for 12 players 2100+

Thad: That's definitely bizarre.

Thad: "Unknown bug" is the best explanation I could think of.