joshi tm: That was the point of my last sentence. Some points of rating matter even less when one knows that every rating must be taken with a grain of salt. Or maybe they don't matter at all :-)

alanback: Ooops, you are darn right, for the rating system to take this type of tournament into account, a gammon should also multiply the rating won/loss by three !

Imho triple gammon is a different GAME than backgammon anyway, so it is probably recommended to make its tournaments unrated. Or create a different rating list for it...

All that is, if one really wants an accurate rating system for backgammon, as we have already seen that the current one isn't accurate anyway :-)

alanback:
This is not a phenomenon that is limited to games with a luck factor, however.
Yes, that was exactly my point, but I never manage to say things in a concise way !

alanback: By the way, a heavier object does fall faster than a lighter one of the same shape, because the force caused by the air friction does not depend of the mass. Air friction is not something you want to factor out when you are a paratrooper ;-)

alanback: I thought I was describing your very problem, that if you play single games against a lot of lower rated players you will lose a lot of BKR points. If you were to play 21-points matches against the same bunch of players, you would probably take #1 position in the BKR list :-)

coan.net: It is very true that the BKR system is not accurate when applied to backgammon, but it is a common mistake to think that it is because of the luck factor. In fact, as alanback stated, it is because of the multi-game matches (cubed or not) that are counted like if they were one game.

There is no such thing as an absolute measure for skill. What the rating system can calculate is the "winning expectation", and that defines the skill difference. If I win more than 50% of the games against someone, then I am defined as stronger. If I win 90% of the games, I am defined as much stronger.

Now, and in a non quantifiable way, in some games the weaker player has more chances to win ; but these are not necessarily the ones where pure luck (e.g. dices) are involved. These are usually the short games, and the games that have a lot of forced moves. Less moves to think about mean less occasion to make mistakes for the weaker player. Of course the luck factor plays a role too, but it is one factor amongst others.

What will happen in games which offer good chances to the lesser player is not that ratings will be inaccurate, but that the rating scale will be shrinked. For instance, instead of scaling for 400 BKR to 2400 BKR, it could scale from 1200 BKR to 1600 BKR. The only undesirable effect is that as one game still carries the same BKR change, there will be more variation of the positions of the players. E.g., if I lose 10 points, I will lose 10 positions in the ranking list, because the players are all very close to each other.

If wished, this can be corrected as there is a "rating scale" constant in the BKR formula. But you can see that it is definitely not the problem in backgammon, where top players do have a lot more than 1600 BKR !

The real problem in backgammon is that matches count the same as single games. But if player A beats player B 60% of the time in single games, he may beat him 90% of the time in a 5-point match. Or whatever, I didn't do the math :-) Hence, rating-wise the matches favour the better player and the single games favour the lesser player. This is a real distorsion in the rating system, and you can indeed see that good players who play a lot of single games are considerably underrated - AlliumCepa comes to my mind, although he plays matches as well. On the other hand, people who play only matches are overrated. For example, me (but not for rating reasons, I just don't like playing without the cube).

The good news is that one knows a very simple way to adjust the BKR formula in order to take the length of the match into account. Basically, in a n-length match, one should just multiply the rating difference by the square root of n. As you can notice, this changes nothing to the way single games are counted.

This is not a specific backgammon formula, because it is not perfect for taking cubed matches into account, but perfect for taking "first to n points" matches of any game into account. In fact it should be applied to all games. If I start a rated 10-games chess match against a lower rated player, I am just getting some undue rating points. Of course, this is much more often done in backgammon than in chess, because the doubling cube can be used only in matches.

The bad news is that I told Fencer about that quite some time ago and while he didn't say no, he did not sound too hot about updating the rating system. Indeed I understand pretty well there are more important issues to settle first. After all, rating are just numbers, what is important here are the games !

Fencer: After it has been tested in tournaments, will Triple Gammon be available in matches ?

Fencer: OK, too bad, but I can live with that :-)

AbigailII: Yes, 0,1,3,5 what Thad proposed in this thread and what I relayed. It is indeed exactly the same game as TTT. But actually I would like 0,1,3,3 even better because it changes only the gammon value, and the backgammon value is pretty irrelevant anyway.

Hrqls: I checked on the French Wikipedia, the name is usually spelled trictrac. The game is played on a backgammon board, but its rules and especially its scoring system are awfully complicated. There is a whole chapter on the various penalties which should be applied when one of the players did a scoring error :-)
For it to be a good name, I think it would require something more mind-boggling than upgrading losses to half a point. Or maybe I missed the inventor's idea ?

whirlybabe: "Tric-Trac" and "tournoi" are French, but we would say "Tournoi de tric-trac", not "Tric Trac Tournoi". I never heard of remotely similar rules in the old game of tric-trac, but I am no specialist of game history.

Fencer: In my version, "Triple gammon" sounds like a straightforward and self-explaining name.

AlliumCepa: You are right, it is completely compatible with cubed matches. Indeed, it should be implemented a scoring system, not a tournament system.
Now as Thad pointed out, the half point for a loss is not very natural and it would look better and be completely equivalent to have loss = 0, single = 1, gammon = 3, backgammon = 5. But I propose even better : single = 1, gammon and backgammon = 3. Simpler, closer to normal backgammon, and counting backgammons has always been quite irrelevant anyway, it occurs so rarely that it count for virtually nothing in the equity calculations, except in the 2-3 last moves of some games.
As a scoring system and not a tournament system, I support it.

Hrqls: I would welcome new tournament formats, but as for backgammon they should include the doubling cube to be of interest for me. So this one doesn't appeal to me.

Cloning Backgammon is a nice variant, but it seems to suffer from the fact that the reborn checkers often lead to very long games, especially when the end result is obvious. I propose to start the game with only 13 checkers, one less on each of the two 5-stacks, like in Nackgammon but without the extra back checkers.

Not only would it reduce a little the probability of a very long game, but the lack of front ammunition would probably also make for more interesting decisions in the opening. In the current state, I have a feeling that in the opening one should pretty much do everything for building one's own board as fast as possible. With less checkers, such a strategy is less likely to be successful.

A possible drawback is that it would give even more importance to hitting checkers early in the game, because 13 checkers are not really enough to play with when trying to prime the opponent. I say drawback because hitting a blot is a matter of chance, but of course the game is to take this chance into account.

alanback: IMHO a player who times out in a multigame match should forfeit the match, not just the current game.

I agree with that, at least with backgammon cubed matches, which should really be seen as a whole and not as separated games. So if timing out is currently worth a backgammon, it is still a low price to pay.

As for resignations, it is true that ideally one should be able to state what type of game one should resign, but I don't find it too serious that one cannot. Proper autopass / autoplay would save a lot more time !

Andersp: In your opinion, what would make Fencer implement complete auto-pass and auto-play ? More black rook subscriptions ? Testimonies from users who say they went to play on DailyGammon only because it had those features ?
We know that we are right to ask for it, so there must be something working :-)

AbigailII: I don't know exactly what was the promisses done, so it is difficult to speak. But you are probably right that the implicit meaning of "autopass will be implemented" should have been "you will be able to use it in all your games".
Excellent point about autoplay, I didn't think about it ! And actually, in some games like Ambiguous Chess, this feature is a real playing help. Sometimes I click on a square thinking that only one piece can go there, and then the system doesn't move it there, making me see that another piece could move there too (and that it would be very costly). We indeed have half an autopass and half an autoplay.

AbigailII: So the only thing which is really unfair is the name of the feature (and maybe the promisses done). Now I 100% agree that "autoplay" would be the logical and useful sequel of "autopass".

grenv: I agree with you, I am just not sure that the pressure from the players will be enough.

Rose: You must use both dice whenever possible, so 7/11/12 is the only move.

Hrqls: Hehe well done Abigail :-)

AbigailII, fakarten: Thank you for the help. By counting I found 2, but I am all but sure, and I can't see any difference in the images either.

Still waiting for the race checkers display...
In Backgammon de Clonage (nabla contre Mirda), how many checkers does my opponent have on the bar ?

Czuch Czuckers: Thank you !

If I hit a checker with the first part of my move, can I enter the extra checker I get on the bar as the second part of my move ? The rules seem to point to a positive answer, but I would like to be sure.

LionsLair: Cool ! I had thought a bit about how to make a backgammon variant where one has more than 30% of chances to hit a direct blot, because it is likely to add strategy and substract race character to the game. I had considered some solutions, but yours seems much better. Again a game that I would definitely like to try.
However, doubles are a problem and I don't like the solution of allowing a limited number of them - it requires to remember the number of times you used it, and 3 is a completely arbitrary number. Maybe playing a double as only two moves, but a triple as four moves ? Or any better idea ?

Czuch Czuckers: And what about gammons ? Replace them by being 50 pips up ? This would sound very arbitrary.

Czuch Czuckers: By the way, if I use both my dices to break contact, it sounds fair that my opponent would still be allowed to roll one die.

Czuch Czuckers: I also think that your proposal deserves to be tried. It is true that the doubling cube adds skill even to straight races, but it is not very difficult to learn the basic cubing strategy in races, so when both players know it there is again few room for errors and it is 99% luck all the same.
What you would really like to test in your variant is the type of positions where contact is almost broken, for instance both sides still hold their midpoint. Those positions would turn from quiet almost-race positions to extremely volatile.
The only thing I don't like about your proposal is that for playing over the board, it requires taking the exact pipcount into account while playing, which is tedious. Online, having the pipcount shown would be a must.

Fencer: Apart from the geometrical shape, what is the common point between a die and a doubling cube ?
But I agree that the doubling cube makes less sense since no luck factor is involved.

joshi tm: I agree 100% with what you said and with returning to the standard scoring system. For the few games I played, CG looks like a great variant to me. Only could it benefit from a good auto-pass feature :-)

Fencer: What about the display of the "race" checkers vs the checkers on the bar ?

Marfitalu: Yes, Shogi / Loop Chess are good comparison points. But for me, about anything distinguishable would do it.

Now that Cloning Backgammon is out, we should *really* have some way to distinguish standard checkers on the bar from "race" checkers. Background, highlight, different place, but something !

Request #3 :
This request is of the nice to have type, I expect that it would concern only the most involved players. But maybe I am wrong and this would be helpful to many people.
In chess, with each finished game there is a link allowing to download the game in standard format (for chess that is called PGN format). What about having the same for backgammon matches, with one of the standard formats (e.g. .mat) ?

That would allow us to import a game in a backgammon software and having it analyze the game. Not only is it a very easy to use and helpful tool to analyze one's own mistakes, but it could also help assessing the strenght of one's opponent, and even to detect people who use computers for playing their moves - although I reckon that there are probably very few of them here.

grenv: That sounds like a good policy to me, that I will adopt immediately. But then, maybe the textbox would better not be there.
BBW, about #1 : Sure you can't cancel your cube decision ! It would be a different game if you could decide whether to cube after seeing your dices.

Request #2 :
In Crowded Backgammon and Backgammon Race, some checkers on the bar are them from the beginning and don't need to be played. Other checkers on the bar are sent there by the opponent and must be played before any other checker can be played. But the graphical board doesn't show any difference between those two sorts of checkers on the bar.
When it concerns one's own checkers, try and error can tell. But when it concerns the opponent's checkers, it can be painful to have to go down the game score in order to find out which is which.
Checkers which are on the bar since the beginning of the game should show differently, e.g. on a different background, or elsewhere on the screen.

I have some backgammon feature requests and would like to discuss them here before sending them to Fencer.

Request #1 :
Having to do two clicks instead of one when accepting or rejecting a cube offer. It could be a "are you sure?" question, but I think that the simplest would be a radio button or listbox selection "accept/reject", and then a button "Send the cube decision".
The reason is of course that I sometimes accept by mistake cubes that I intended to reject. I found out why : I make my decision to reject the cube, and then want to drop some lines to my opponent in the text box. After I am done writing, I click on the left button below the text box thinking it is a "send" button, like with many text boxes on Internet forms.

Or am I just dumb, and does it happen only to me ?

Hrqls: Now I re-read my message and it really reads too much mysterious, sorry, I'd better said nothing. But after the game is finished I would with pleasure discuss the position with you in a clearer way !
Yes, nice example we had, I thought that at the beginning you were wrong not to double, but it surely turned very much in your favour as it is now a very probable gammon.

Hrqls: In this precise example I think that your analysis is missing an important concept, the one of "market losers". But I don't want to comment too much on an ongoing game, and anyway I will try to put some cubing concepts together in an article for brainrook.com :-)

grenv: Of course you are right ! Theory says that if White has beared off all checkers except his last which get hit, then he is a 92% favourite to win the game. It is probably even worse with an open 6-point and 5 checkers on the 1-point. So it is very clear that Black would have had to reject any double by White. I was just imagining the case where Black would have taken the double !
Agreed with alanback too, the double should happen just after that gammon was not possible any more.

Hannelore: LOL, and that with 5 checkers on the ace point ! Too bad your opponent didn't double as he sould have done :-)

alanback: I too would have hit without hesitation

Starting August 1 : Open cubed tournament

grenv: Maybe the math is that it defines what is a completely superior player !

alanback: True, that is also a possible factor.

pentejr: I don't think so. It is rather considered smart than new people have a higher coefficient than people who have played a lot of games, and it could even compensate an inflation caused by people entering the rating list with a too high score. When there really is inflation it is likely to be caused by a too generous policy regarding first ratings, when the new overrated players inflate the rating pool.

Czuch Chuckers: Because of the Crawford rule, after the leader gets one point away from the match, one game has to be played where the trailer hads no right to double. So at 5-0 the trailer needs four wins, not three.
As for doubling strategy, the case where the leader is one point away from the match is about the only simple one. That is what makes cubed backgammon great !

alanback: Maybe there can be a rare other exception : the trailer who needs an even number of points and gets a fantastic first roll could try for some moves to go for a gammon, and double only when these chances vanish, hoping that his odds won't yet have dropped below 50% (otherwise he would have done better to double at move 1).