coan.net: Its okay, no apology necessary

Just try to be more distinct as to when you are posting as a moderator compared to other posts

coan.net: The discussion has been moving close to being an argument which is not wanted here. Thank you.


As a moderator that was all we expect.....

The condescending, sarcastic, and mostly annoying rhetoric lead us to believe that you werent acting as a moderator, but just plain ol BBW

rod03801: I think I remember hearing the same idea about video poker and one arm bandits in casinos too.

That the exact time that you push the button or pull the lever determines what the outcome will be.

playBunny: In auto pass games I know that my opponent has rolled something that lets him back in from the bar, but since I am not shown what the roll is, i wonder if maybe the program has determined that he will get back in but doesnt determine which, of a combo of possible rolls that let him back in, roll to give him.

i know, you dont have to say anything, but i just wish, since the roll is already determined, that it was also displayed

playBunny: Ditto

alanback: It just makes sense to me, that if the dice are already rolled, then they should be shown, or they should be rolled only when the player goes to the game.

Now i have made myself wonder.... if a player goes to a game and doesnt move and then i go look, are the dice shown or hidden?

alanback: Maybe so, but my paranoia could be eliminated if after the dice are rolled , they are also shown!

Thad: Only better because we would not have any wonder if the dice rolling is completely random and fair, I dont think its not, but it makes me wonder when the dice are rolled but not shown.

playBunny: Dont you mean the harms of postponement vs the benefits of immediate gratification?

I believe that is more the point here?

alanback: There is obviously not any real need to see the dice, rather a desire to see them, except where there is a concern that the dice are less than random, and seeing is believing.

Showing the dice just takes away any concerns, whether founded or not.

Anything else is just dumb.

...waiting patiently for playBunnies response to this

alanback: In an auto pass it is okay to see the dice first, and since they are supposedly already rolled, why not show them?

Why are the dice rolled and then hidden until my opponent checks the game?

It makes no sense, and only adds unnecessary mystery

playBunny:
There's an attitude which I truly and wholeheartedly despise and it's the traffic-warden mentality that "It says so in the rules therefore I don't have to think or exercise any judgement at all. I can act just like a robot and be correct according to what it says here". If you take that position in anything where human judgement could be employed you have thrown away any chance of my respect.

Nobody is trying to say that if asked to do so, they shouldnt comply to the request to play out their moves.

rather, that there is nothing wrong with not wanting to comply either!

Thats where I am coming from, and i am also along for the laugh

playBunny: I happen to agree with Grenv that you do understand our point of view, and probably even agree with it, but just enjoy a good debate?

But I dont understand how you can defend someone being offended or upset over someone else playing within the boundaries of the rules?

playBunny: Thank you, I was beginning to think you had blocked me

playBunny: So there's no possiblity that someone else could find backgammon to be anything other than a contest which has a rigidly defined ending point?

When someone is playing a rated game, yes that is correct!

playBunny: Answer this then.... Do you think it is rude for someone to use their whole allotted time limit for every move in a game, even if they have the ability to play them faster? What if I asked them to play faster because I prefer it? Does that make a difference? If they are asked and still refuse, would you defend my right to get upset about it?

playBunny: Political Debate

Andersp: the game is over so why go on clicking?

Because they want you to, and because they may become upset if you dont!

playBunny: Yet someone getting upset about your viewpoint is wrong.

I think it is wrong for someone to get upset about me doing anything within the rules of the game!

playBunny: Also, wouldnt it be to my competitive advantage to not let you know how you would have done against the gammon?

AbigailII: Ditto

playBunny: But the point of this discussion is not about what's the "proper" way to determine the end of a game, it's about whether you would deliberately go against the wishes of your opponent.

Okay, so my point is that it is not unreasonable or impolite to resign a game whose outcome has already been determined, even if my opponent doesnt like it.

playBunny: Who are you or grenv to say that this viewpoint is ridiculous?

I am not trying to say that their view point is rediculous, its their getting upset about my view point that i find wrong.

But back on point... on Brainking their are several proper ways to determine the end of a backgammon game. One of them is by resigning, and it is just as proper here as any other method for determining the end of a game.

alanback: if an opponent asks me to let the game finish, I will.

You could also remind them that the game already is finished.

Andersp: I guess that not too many people will disagree with you.

But if someone asks me too continue a game and to not resign, even though I have already lost, well I might do it, but I cant honestly see that ever happening.

alanback: Well then, tell me what the purpose for playing rated games are?

grenv: I dont really care where someone else derives their pleasure from.

But when you derive pleasure from making moves in a meaningless game, it doesnt matter to anyone else but yourself, and should not supersede the one and only purpose for playing a rated game.

playBunny: Like putting the final piece in a jigsaw before breaking it up and putting it in the box, it's logically unnecessary but it has a tangible psychological value.

Poor example....

A puzzle is not completed or finished until the last piece is in place, but a backgammon game is completed or finished as soon as someone wins it, not when the last checker is removed.

not Indulging someone to derive pleasure from a meaningless activity is not rude.

Winning is the ultimate objective to any game. Most games are finished when the outcome is decided.

Anyone who is interested in getting pleasure from removing checkers in a meaningless game can play games that do not count and are not rated, otherwise it should be assumed that one is playing to get pleasure from winning.

Thad: I kind of lean towards blocking rather than a quick run, but it also depends on the opening roll of your opponent as well, but again, I like the block move over the run.

Thad: Sorry, that wasnt very helpful

Anyway, here are the accepted opening moves
http://www.bkgm.com/openings.html

Thad: You cannot roll doubles on the first roll of a game....

anyone for a quick backgammon?

alanback: Thats because doubles can end games with one, two, three, or four pieces remaining.

Where non doubles can only end a game with one or two pieces remaining.

Thad: It seems to me like more doubles are rolled near the ends of many of my games. I

LOL... I thought the same sometimes. I always seem to get doubles on my last turn when I dont need it

Andersp: I saw 3 double ones in a row followed by 2 double 4s

No it was actually 4 double ones followed by the 2 double 4s

Hi all, im back... sorry if anyone missed me, and sorry to anyone I offended by using the letters U and F in an inappropriate manner, it was meant in a good natured way, but apparently some global didnt take it that way, and anyway, if anyone else besides them was offended I apologize!

See.... how can anyone risk be beaten like Vikings here Backgammon (Vikings vs. Czuch Czuckers)
When they are up 4 to 2 in a 5 point match?????

pgt: ***** You just prove my point about unlucky dice even more!!! :) hahah

grenv: yeah, you had me scared for a moment there!! But I was definitely down 4 to 2!!! So it must be her lucky game playing you were referring to?

grenv: I was actually down 4 to 2! wasnt i?

pgt: Obviously you did!! hahah That makes a great point, we only remember our bad beats, and not the other way around!
Thanks for the reminder!

So it seems that the double cube is good to get you a win in a race, but bad if you are a better player overall? Since if you get ahead in a match, your opponent doesnt have to win as amny games to beat you!

grenv: ahhh, no more crawford rule then? That makes more sense to me now then. What about the possibility of a double gammon?

jryden: Thanks... I didnt resign it though, unless I did it on accident?

I know it can and will happen in backgammon. It has just been my luck lately, and I like to whine!

But one thing.... I think it is different in a cubed match.... when you are up 4 to 2 , why would you risk getting sacked for 2 points when you dont have to risk it? Any way you look at it, it takes a lot of luck to get your home set up right, first, then have your opponent leave one open to hit, then on top of all that they have to hit the roll!!! I think it is too much luck to risk when you are up 4 to 2 in a 5 point match!

Not to mention that she could have run a long time ago and been guaranteed of only losing one point, and it ends up that she may lose it anyway, even after all of the luck she had! I think I am more inclined to take the one point loss. than risk being gammoned (which could have easily happened!) Unless maybe, your opponent is so good that you dont like yourself even in a 4 to 3 match to 5!

alanback: I like a quote that heard from a famous poker player.... "I guess if it wasnt for luck, I would win all of these!"

alanback: Thanks, I will try to remember that!

skipinnz: Yeah, I guess my strategy for being way ahead is a loser! I will have to try going way behind, then hoping for my opponent to get very unlucky doubles and then getting the exact roll I need to take advantage of it! That must be why I cant break the 2200 barrier!

Andersp: I thought that auto pass was moved up to a priority status? Maybe now that the "10 new games" January priority is finally finished, auto pass will be soon?