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 ;-)

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

Make that two opponents.

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.

playBunny: 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.

This debate reminds me of when nackgammon was introduced on Dailygammon (there's that name again!). DG doesn't have separate ratings for Nack and Back. I was concerned with this and actually played nackgammon under a different name for quite awhile. Ultimately, I realized that my ratings in nack and back were essentially identical, and stopped using the nack name.

Now, that won't necessarily happen with cubeful and cubeless. Nack and back really are the same game, except for the starting position; the strategies are identical. Cubeful backgammon does require an entirely different skill set. 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. There aren't separate ratings among golfers for driving and putting, or among tennis players for serving and volleying; so why should there be different ratings for cube play and checker play? The cube seems strange to people here now because it is unfamiliar; but in a few months' time, we will all be wondering what the big fuss was about.

grenv: Of course, the remedy for that is to fix the rating system. And for clarification, by "real" backgammon players I mean serious tournament players, offline as well as online.

Playing cubeless is not silly, because it happens all the time in the course of tournament play. It's good practice for checker play.

rod03801: IYT doesn't have ratings, does it?

rod03801: If this site adopts separate ratings for cubeful and cubeless matches, it will be the only site to do so. "Real" backgammon players will consider the whole idea silly.

You two are both much smarter than you are making yourselves appear ;-)

frolind: LOL - how very unfair to playBunny!

skipinnz: Right, except that you would also have to have exited all your checkers from my home board in order to avoid a backgammon.

On some servers, it is possible to specify what kind of resignation you are offering. On Dailygammon, for example, one can offer to resign a single game, a gammon, or a backgammon. If the resignation is for the highest possible number of points based on board position, it is automatically accepted. If not, then the opponent may accept or reject. There is a lively continuing debate over the ethics of resigning less than the maximum possible result. For example, if you can still be gammoned, should you offer to resign a single game? Most people consider that to be rude and unethical.

See the latest posting at http://www.dailygammon.com/bg/forum2/main/read/8697#3

skipinnz: I beg to differ -- the cube was on 2, and you had checkers in my home and on the bar. So, when you resigned you were charged with a backgammon, which is worth 3 points multiplied by the cube value. The report of the match shows the final score as 6-0.

Also -- just to get the terminology straight -- A "match" is a series of "games" rather than vice versa -- hence 5-point match, Crawford game, etc.

skipinnz: I think that option exists -- but it appears to me that the concession is based on the board position at the time. In other words, if the game ended with your checkers in the positions they currently occupy, what would be the result? If you haven't borne off, you are resigning a gammon, and if you have checkers in the opponent's home or on the board, you are resigning a backgammon. Readers, please correct me if this isn't consistent with your experience.

skipinnz: I think that option exists -- but it appears to me that the concession is based on the board position at the time. In other words, if the game ended with your checkers in the positions they currently occupy, what would be the result? If you haven't borne off, you are resigning a gammon, and if you have checkers in the opponent's home or on the board, you are resigning a backgammon. Readers, please correct me if this isn't consistent with your experience.

Hrqls: I second the motion regarding displaying match info adjacent to the board.

Never mind, I was confused.

Don't double early in the game unless you have an overwhelming advantage.

A bad double:

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1118690&i=4

Why not double early?

When you double, you surrender ownership of the doubling cube to your opponent. When you double, then only your opponent can double later. The ability to double is an important strategic advantage. You should not give up that advantage without a clear reason to do so. In money play, you should not double unless the odds are 2-1 in your favor. In match play, the doubling point varies depending upon the match score.

As frolind says, cubeless backgammon is just a subset of the rules of backgammon. There are many situations in backgammon where the cube is not in play. Having separate ratings for cubeful and cubeless backgammon would be like having separate ratings for chess and for chess endgames.

On all backgammon sites with ratings, the length of the match affects the number of points awarded for wins and losses. On the one hand, a longer match between two players of equal strength is worth more points than a shorter match between the same two players. On the other hand, a longer match between players of unequal strength may be worth more points if the weaker player wins, but fewer points if the stronger player wins. This is because the stronger player's chances of winning increase as the match length increases.

frolind: That should be the default selection.

Fencer: Please include me in the test!

pgt: I have a different solution to the ratings problem: play 3-wins matches. It would be good if we could hold tournaments of such matches.

Andersp: Ah, I don't think that issue will go away!

I've been known to introduce a new bug without fixing the old one ;-)

Fencer: Hats off to you, you must be quite a programmer!

Whoah, real-time troubleshooting ;-)

WhiteTower: I'm sure you're right :-)

I'm not sure which big one you are referring to, but I can't say the present situation is an improvement if the reports below are accurate.

Not uncommon, but it needs to be fixed!

Fencer: Thank you, Fencer. I interpret this to say you have changed the software, not just the published rules?

It doesn't seem to be possible to create a tournament of multiple-point matches. That is, one in which each player would play the other a 3-point match, for example. Am I missing something?

grenv: In any event, because Fencer is recalculating the ratings from the beginning, we will be able to tell tomorrow whether we all wind up with the same rating!

Walter Montego: I agree with Walter that the differential between winning and losing appears to be overstated -- the new system is better than the old one which effectively didn't recognize ratings differences at all (unless you were playing outside the 400-point band on either side of your own rating), but I think it represents an over-correction. I think we should give the new system a chance to operate before making judgments about it. We are used to playing under the old (flawed) rules; now we high-rated players are going to have to work hard to maintain our positions. I have suffered, too, because the change in the system coincided with something of a slump in my games; still I notice that those behind me are also suffering a decline. I expect a significant compression of the ratings spread, and I think that is a good thing. Why shouldn't we have a system under which a player can reasonably expect to climb into the upper echelons in a relatively short period of time? I think it should make the site more competitive and interesting.

The only thing that puzzles me is how you can call this "Basically like regular backgammon";-)

Vikings: I can't find the message this is a response to.

The clock is ticking down to the fateful reshuffling of the rankings . . . any guesses as to what the new top rating will be? I'm guessing around 2200.

redsales: They're generally sponsored by local clubs, or are self-sustaining. There is a so-called American Backammon Tour, but it's just a series of locally-sponsored events.

http://www.chicagopoint.com/abtexp.html

There is no world governing body for Backgammon, just as there is none for poker. We're all anarchists at heart.

Vikings: That should be a real feather in Fencer's cap.

You fellows are enjoying yourselves, to me you're wasting my time and space on the board.

playBunnyWell, as any programmer knows, a small bug can make a big difference. I like your description of the ELO formula, and didn't realize the formula used here was so different.

I can't wait to see what kind of ratings world I wake up in tomorrow ;-)

I just had the odd experience of having the dice change on me in the middle of a move. This has happened to me on other sites, but not here. Probably a cache issue locally or on the server. It was disconcerting, though -- I saw double fours and after the first click, they changed to 5-1! Thought my mind was playing tricks and so I hit the back button, and there were the double fours again. However, the server insists I move the 5-1. Such is life :)

grenv:

The results of the new system still don't look right to me, as the win/lose differential is very large. This might be appropriate in a game like chess, where the better player should usually win. However, in backgammon, even against a weak opponent, a strong player will lose a significant number of games. For example, I would probably lose 10-15% of my games against a beginning player just because of the luck of the dice. But even against opponents close to my skill level, I currently stand to lose much more than I stand to gain. For example, in a Nackgammon game I am currently playing, the ratings are 1925 and 2208. The win/lose differential is 3-13 or -10 against me. This implies the odds of my winning are something like 13/16, which I think overstates the probabilities.

It would be interesting to see if one could devise a ratings system that more closely reflected the actual likelihood of winning based on a given rating differential.

playBunny: First, let me say I have insisted before that there was a bug in the ratings calculator, and I'm glad to see it being addressed.

Prior to today, if I played anyone whose rating was within 400 points of mine, the result was either +8 or -8 -- nothing in between. As a result, assuming that I won more than half my games and only played people whose ratings are within 400 points of mine, I was pretty much guaranteed an upward trend (with random dips, naturally, but the overall trend should be upward). If you will look at your game pages now, you will find that your expected BKR gain from winning against anyone lower rated than yourself is less than the expected BKR loss from losing. This is the way the ratings system should work, and it should have the effect of squeezing the ratings closer together. It should also get harder to improve your rating the higher your rating goes, which is now the case. I suspect the bug that previously existed was the reason that Fencer felt the need to remove the 2700 ceiling on ratings.

Looking at my games, I stand to lose many more points than I stand to gain in each one. Since backgammon is a game of both skill and luck, I will certainly lose a significant number of games -- probably at least 35% against all opponents, very likely more. This is why I expect my rating to go down.

Moreover, as I interpret Fencer's announcement, he is going to recompute all ratings from the beginning, using the historical database of results. Thus, current ratings (like mine) that have been inflated by the bug should decline. It remains to be seen what the relative changes will be.

From what I remember about FIBS, it was said that your rating reflected primarily your last several hundred games -- i.e. that your rating wouldn't be too different if you applied the FIBS formula to the last 400 or so games than it would be if you applied it to your entire history. If that is the case, I may come out of the process in good shape, since I have been rather fortunate lately.

It's been a fun ride at the top, but I won't be upset if the recomputation leaves me somewhere in the middle of the pack.

playBunny: It did occur to me after my initial post that debating might also be a form of relaxation, like martial arts to some folks. What disquieted me was that there seemed to be quite a bit of acrimony involved in the debate, but I may have read more into it than was there.

On a totally different point, I am very interested to see what happens when Fencer re-runs the BKRs tomorrow. I am betting there will be huge changes, not just slight ones. I have noticed the difference already, and I doubt I'll ever see 2700 again! It wouldn't surprise me if we had a different #1 player after tomorrow.

WhiteTower: At the risk of descending into semantics, I might argue that anyone approaching the game so tightly wound is not likely to find relaxation in it. However, different strokes for different folks!

playBunny: Don't despair. There are many worthwhile activities that don't require a frontal assault on others' ways of thinking!

I have worried a great deal about utter trivialities in the past, so I speak with some authority when I say that it really doesn't make a bit of difference to anything that matters who moves what in this silly little game. It is a game, after all, and if you can't manage to relax about it, then by all means find some way to use all that energy to make the world a better place.

AbigailII: Oh, I guess I picked up the string in the middle, never mind then.

AbigailII: Of course :-) For game n, the first n moves are moves 1 thru n of the infinite game. You then pick the shortest sequence to finish the game. Call the (n+1)th move X. X may or may not be the (n+1)th move in the infinite game. However, there will be an infinite number of values of n for which X is also the (n+1)th move in the infinite game. Therefore, the shortest sequence that finishes game n will also be the shortest sequence that finishes game (n+1).

WhiteTower: The question in my mind is how much trouble should be put into a ratings system for a recreational website. I might even agree that I would rather have no rating system than the one we have now; not because win/loss is a better measure of ability, but because I don't really care how precisely my ability is measured. Maybe if I were a better player I would care more :-)