-
-
Over eleven years ago this conversation happened in the eleventh game of a seventeen game match that I won 17 to 7. We have not played a game since

Walter Montego: (18. July 2013, 07:13:20) You say a lot about Backgammon, but I doubt if you're such an authority on the subject that I should pay much attention to your opinion on it. I will, however, keep in mind the things you say. If your skills can't beat such a poor player as myself, then how do you explain your meteoric rise in the rating chart these passed two months? And why play me? Are you a glutton for abuse?

I think you suffer from selective memory, as you are one of the luckiest players I play and yet you never notice how lucky you are. At least I know I'm lucky. I went up amazingly fast two weeks ago, peaking at 2410 just five days ago, and now I have lost every match in five days, though for some reason I am still leading against you in this one. Just because I make plays that are not the recommended or typical plays does not mean that I have not analyzed my options and made thoughtful consideration of the alternatives. This is especially so in how I approach the double cube offers from opponents. And speaking of that, you accepted a double offer I made in a previous game in this match. Now there's a telling indication of your Backgammon skills!

Yes, you continue to hold to your belief that I am lucky. You just can't accept the fact that some people are better players than yourself and the only possible reason that you lose to them is that they must be lucky. We've played 54 matches. I do not know how many games we have played. But if matches are an indication of skill over the long term, it would seem that the 28 to 26 score of the matches says we're fairly even in skills regardless of our technique. We both have a different style to Backgammon. Has it occurred to you that your style might not work as well against mine? If you were as great of a player as you seem to think you are, you would make adjustments in your play to take this into account when you play me. I say this on the assumption that there is enough skill in Backgammon for such adjustments to be made and that both of us are skilled enough to take advantage of such adjustments. I have beat Sergey82 decisively. He obviously did not change his playing style, but LikeWowMan2Cool and HappyJuggler0 know how to beat me. Why don't you learn from them and bring it back here when you're ready to demonstrate just how good you really are?

The Unfathomable Abyss: (18. July 2013, 04:31:39) you are to lucky. as i always said. you are not that good, you are just lucky

pgt: Well, Mr. Negativity, if you feel that way why'd you even bring it up?

Perhaps you can try paying Fencer to do it for you? I have thought of doing this just to get some changes and also add the game Jump Checkers, but my heart is not into it. I'll just play here until it ceases to exist, or I find something better to do with my time. Hopefully I'll be able to escape the confines of my house if COVID ever stops being such a large part of my daily routine.

pgt: I like your idea of having an option on your turn, though I'd let the option be available for a later roll in addition to the first time.

I know the frustration of having pieces on the bar and the whole of the opponent's home base is covered with a most beautiful prime and you have to roll the dice.

A pass button would be nice. Why roll the dice? Just have a pass button, and then it could skip until the next turn or also have an option for until a point opens for a chance to roll out.

Perhaps a "Pass this Turn" button, and also a "Pass all Turns until a Point Opens, and No Double Offer Made by Me in the Meantime" button?

pgt: Though there's other things I can find fault with in the implementation of the autopass, I have heard a justification for this. It is rare, but someone might want to offer a double from that position. I have had people do this against me. Apparently, when it has happened to me, the person didn't offer the double earlier as they were going for a gammon and I messed that up by hitting them. And there's other situations for it too, such as they forgot to double earlier. :)

Maybe you would never offer a double with a piece on the bar, but some people do it.

rod03801: Though I can see the game with the setting set to the small board, I do like this view and I am going to resign when the first game of the match is over unless it is fix before that happens.

I have the settings back to the large board. Four or so points have disappeared from my view as my opponent has covered the blots.

Aganju: Yes, the twenty second fix for Fencer. Rod's found post is nine years old. Perhaps this fix is not easy? Or maybe it has not received any attention?

rod03801: Switching the Backgammon settings to the small board setting did make the Plakoto board show the pieces. I do not like the small board. I will finish this match, and then never play this game again unless this bug is fixed.

You found this message from 2012, rod03801? A long memory you have. Thank you.

I was talked into playing a match of Plakoto. I cannot see the points on the table that have two pieces on them of both colors. My opponent (Vinkel) says the table looks good from his side. I was going to resign, but he suggested to ask Fencer. So I am posting here as I do not know where bug reports go.

I also had this problem when I was trying to review older games Vinkel had played so I could get an idea of how the game is played.

Game ID number 8679109
Plakoto (Vinkel vs. Walter Montego)

Clandestine 1:

I just lost a game and match to five doubles in a row today.
Backgammon (Walter Montego vs. DavieBoy)
It happens. I have played my opponent over 1300 matches. This match hurt since he had won eight in a row prior, and I thought I had the game for the match when it was 75 to 45.
Sure it's bad luck, as is your case, but that doesn't mean something fishy has gone on to make it happen. Supposing the roles were reversed. Would you understand how lucky you had gotten?

Aganju: Yeah, like that. :) Nice stacks

pgt: Cash only, you know how mob guys operate.

pgt: Better payments to the dice guy should take care of that problem. Try a tenner next time.

Aganju: I stopped playing Backgammon for many years on BrainKing because of that. I still think there should be a version offered here that has gammons and backgammons counting that does not use the double cube.

playBunny: I have wanted to play cubeless Backgammon while counting gammons and backgammons since Fencer added Backgammon to the site. If it does have this feature, please let me know. I'll join or create some quick moving tournaments of it. Thank you.

playBunny: Do gammons and backgammons count in these tournaments, playBunny?

playBunny: In your example, what would a single game be worth and also a fifteen game match with these same two players?

What does 4 * Sqrt mean? Four times the square root of something? The match length? Yes 4 × √5 = 8.94. OK, so for a single game it'd be 4 rating points divided up by a formula figured out from the players' ratings? Since 4 × √1 = 4? And for a 15 game match, 15.49 ratings points 4 × √15 = 15.49? Interesting, and this is a weighting scheme. I am thinking that the difference in the players' ratings is a fairly accurate way to determine the percentage of points awarded from the match weighting as it is used here, though without the match weighting. This is not quite how I was thinking of weighting it, but it seems like a good plan and is lots better than what we have now.

This method seems to make the length of a match much less important to the higher rated player than the method used here. Or am I imagining this?

playBunny: quote "The real question is: why do the same points apply when you win or lose an 11-point match or 1-point match???"

I have wondered about this. As I used to only play single games, the rating system here would discourage people with higher ratings than myself from playing me. When I started to play matches, I noticed that higher rated players were more likely to play me, but only if we played longer matches. I presume this was in part to account for the skill supposedly shown by the higher rating and the rating awarded for winning the match.

So I got to thinking, why doesn't Fencer have a weighting system for the matches? With a single game being lessened the most and then a steep curve that begins to level off as the number of games in a match increases?

An example; It seems like a 100 point difference in rating has the rating change 11 for the person with the lower rating if he wins and 5 if he loses. Seeing how even the world champion can be beaten in a single game it is obvious that such odds are ridiculous for a single game, but certainly seem fair enough in a 15 game match. How hard can it be to devise a scale for the odds and ratings to make it worthwhile to play with anyone?

As I only play on this site, I have to wonder if the other sites you've mentioned playbunny already do something along these lines?

Pedro Martínez: Wow! And a pass too.

Aganju: Hmm, it seems some of what you say is true. I've known that he is less interested in Backgammon, or at least appears to me to be.

I think the pieces on the bar at the start of the game in Crowded Backgammon and I suppose Backgammon Race, though I've not played that game, that do not have to be brought in on the next turn should be marked or segregated in some manner so as to differentiate them from pieces hit later in the game. This would facilitate playing the game as it would be obvious when returning to a game that you have a piece hit, instead clicking to move and wondering what's wrong with the site or game.

And a piece on the bar no matter how it got there should give you a backgammon if you can bear off all your pieces and your opponent has not taken one off.

Aganju: I am not familiar with Cloning Backgammon, but it sounds like it is a completely different kind of Backgammon. Crowded Backgammon is supposed to be exactly as regular Backgammon except for the extra pieces added to the game.

So it is a bug. It should be a simple fix. So what's the deal Fencer?

I have taken all off my pieces of the board in a game of Crowded Backgammon. I was awarded 2 game points for a gammon. I am wondering why I did not receive 3 game points for a backgammon instead of a gammon, as my opponent still has two pieces on the bar. Nowhere can I find that having pieces on the bar, whether sent there or from the start of a game, does it say that I do not score a backgammon and get 3 game points.

So what gives?

playBunny: This is why I will use the Fischer Clock if I ever organize another tournament, or simply remove the slowpokes, or since we have the option now, ban certain individuals from joining tournaments I organize. Slow play might be within the rules, but for me it is not in the spirit of the game unless explicitly stated in advance. I am so leery of joining tournaments for the same reason. I don't know why, I am after all a life member of the site, but I want a conclusion to a game within a shorter time than five years or a decade as this tournament linked below seems to be taking. A few months seems more than long enough for a round. I usually create a game with an initial 7 days, and then make the speed about 3 moves per week with a limit of a week and a half or two weeks. There used to be a fast movers club on this site, but I suppose it is no longer used much.

And if I must rant about something, why is it that someone can shut off the "auto-pass" in a game that I have created? I still don't understand why Fencer likes it like that. It took him many years to even add the "auto-pass" and with much resistance on his part, and then he must have listened to the wimps and whiners that aren't even Backgammon players and made it for them unless, that is, he is one of them and I know he is not a Backgammon player, or at least he wasn't back then when I stopped playing Backgammon over the not having an "auto-pass" at all.

The game creator should have the choice. If the person joining doesn't like it, then that person should not play that game with that person. Simple. Just as if I create a game and only take one color and the other person doesn't like it, then don't play with me or send me a message and let's talk about it. I used to only play single games of Backgammon. In those the "auto-pass" happens regularly, but in match play, it is a lot less frequent as it is set up on this site.

playBunny: He snared us both, did he? He's still got the touch even with the long hiatus. I've plenty of time to kill in this truck stop today, so maybe I'll check into it in awhile. If I do, I'll report my findings.

As for the question about the bug, I thought you had said a few things about that some time ago. I remember the identical roll business, but that's fixed. What's the other deal?

playBunny: It got me to check the link, and now after all these years my BrainKing.com discussion board count is zero after getting it to over 9000. Nice job Pedro! :) At least Feature requests is still at 4163.

After reading it I am not sure if Pedro is being sarcastic towards Fencer or is taking Fencer's side about the percentage of morons and miscreants on this site. With the count at zero, perhaps I will begin to read the board again, but I'm not planning on it. The linked thread is over 1½ years old.

This is why if I ever create another tournament, I will most definitely make sure it is timed using the Fischer Clock.

happyjuggler0: 13 Point match, and two of them per player? The creator definitely should have used the Fischer Clock for timing it. Even so, that's a lot of games.

I do not understand your programming code listed PlayBunny. I think if I was going to program dice for Backgammon, I would program each die separately and then display them together. And why is it that the first number generated is not random? This was something I had a teacher tell me forty years ago. It is still the case? Well then, just ignore the first number and start on the second. And why start each roll over in a game? Why not just pick say 200 numbers and store them until needed for each game. In the unlikely event they all get used up, do it again.

Um, so why couldn't I roll five double fives in a row with regular dice? It is the first time I have done it here and I play a lot of games. Seems like such a thing could still happen randomly. Long odds still happen on occasion.

I rolled double fives, five times in a row.
Turns 16 to 20. A bit of luck, eh?
Backgammon (Walter Montego vs. *HitMan*)

Hrqls: I wonder how fun it is to play? It'd sure cut down, if not eliminate, my opponents complaining about how lucky I am. :)

grenv: And the theoretical question is what I asked. You both say nine is the least amount of turns even if we give the opponent any roll we want and have him move as we please? I think I will work on this myself, but nine seems very fast. I hadn't thought of it as grenv did, just figuring out each piece from where it starts. This makes sense as you can't use the roll just by the count as the number of pips needed may not divide evenly, 7 and 13 being good examples of this. Is my fifteen move game fairly exceptional, especially considering my opponent wasn't trying to help me?

Which point is what you are calling the midpoint? Is that the point in the outer table that starts with five pieces?

I rolled six doubles in a row and nine in the fifteen moves I had in this game. Backgammon (Walter Montego vs. *HitMan*)
It's hard to imagine ever losing if the dice guy keeps the rolls coming like that.

I am curious. What is the fastest possible win in turns in Backgammon and what is anyone's best? Fifteen turns seems pretty fast and considering I've had Hyper Backgammon games last twice as long it really is crazy how a game can go. I am thinking in theory you could win in seven turns.

rod03801: Thank you rod. An interesting word for a betting action.

We used to use "beaver" to mean someone that watches you play pinball and gets so close to the action that they bother you while asking questions about the play.

What does the term "beaver" mean in this?

playBunny: Thank you for yours and other's thoughts over the last few days to my questions and comments. I'll return a few more times as I see how they fit in with what I have observed from playing.

I do have an opponent that does have the games in private. Not saying nothing about, but it seems like a strange thing to do for any game, but especially for a game like Backgammon. I can see an argument for it in Dark Chess, Screen Chess, and Battleboats, but Backgammon? I asked him about it and all I got was a smile for a reply. I do not like playing private games. It makes it extremely difficult to share a great or unusual game with anyone else that might be interested. And now I have a reason to think about it that has implications about it. This particular player makes double offers in places none of my other opponents do, and he is the only person I have seen that is luckier than I am, well one other player is this lucky, but he knows the dice guy and pays him a lot.

grenv: Does the computer ever conclude that that the winning player made the most mistakes or the worst of them? What's a mistake? And what happens if it is the winning move despite being a mistake?

playBunny: Is a person that uses a computer to help with his moves on this site play noticeably different from someone that doesn't use it? What would be an example of such play? Is it something noticeable at once, or is it much more subtle that it takes many games and certain move situations to notice or even have a suspicion that it might be going on?

playBunny: It seems like related subject to this is how to reward the rating points for Backgammon on this site. Single games seem disproportionally in favor of the player who is rated lower when his rating is more than 60 point behind his opponent. I am thinking that as the match length is increased it becomes more fair from the higher rated player's perspective and this accounts for why the higher rated players will play me even though I am 200 or more points behind them in rating.

coan.net: Just knowing the common rolls and what to expect isn't enough. Sometimes playing for a long shot is so much more worth it than playing safe. Which way will a computer decide? I'm sure you've made a move that you know was not as good as a different move, but if your opponent doesn't get the roll to make you sorry for taking the chance you will win the game. So, do you go for it, or not? And this obviously has to take into account if it's a single, a betting game, or a match, and if a match the current score.

Walter Montego:

Hmm, maybe part of my question might depend on the actual position as it seem that a computer might help in some positions a lot more than others.

(A post of mine from a game while having a discussion about computers)

Just how much of an improvement can using a computer make in Backgammon? In Chess there's no arguing about the improvement, but in something so dependent on the roll of the dice and the 11 different rolls and 36 combinations of those rolls and each turn multiplying it and the permutations from where to move one's pieces, it seems like it'd not be all that much of a help. All the same, I agree with you as it seems it might help in some way, but how much?. Even the world's champion would have trouble defeating either of us more than 60% of the time in individual games, but remember these guys aren't playing individual games, they're playing matches. Even 55% of the wins would make for a match win of over 80%. Count up your games won and lost in a couple of matches and see what it adds up to. And what about luck? I get real lucky against some of my opponents and other I just get stomped.

Single games? Short matches? Long matches? Individual games with money bet on them? Does any of this matter?

playBunny: Then the problem should be fixed. Either start over with a new dice program, or find out where this link between the rolls is being made and sever it.

I haven't posted to this board in many years. It looks from the links you and pedestrian posted here that this has been discussed and reported about from last year. So where's Fencer at on this? I am sure he wants the games here to play correctly. And any type of random dice program must be a fun challenge to make it work randomly, which they aren't doing now.

pedestrian: Well then!
IF this is the case, what's being done about fixing the problem? Can't we just have the dice to simulate a real pair of dice being toss instead of some fluke that can't be right and might explain why I win more than I should, or less?

These links confirm that tony's and others' charting of the dice have shown a pattern of something being wrong with the dice.

It is a fairly simple thing to have a well working random dice simulator, so what's the deal? A day or two's work on a program should be enough. This is a major problem since it affects the integrity of the game even if the flaw is fair for both players, and I am not so sure that it is fair for both players since in an identical paired start one player or the other will have an advantage depending on the what rolls were made. Maybe not 6-1 or 3-1, but what about 6-3?

alanback bouncybouncy: I agree with these two posts.

"Have Fun": Huh?

alanback: The Fischer clock works quite well at eliminating the use of the clock to a player's advantage. The time parameters chosen make a difference. You can start with some amount of time which doesn't matter too much. The bonus time selected will in a many move game be near the average time per move. The maximum when reached will be the most time one player can take between moves during a game. If you don't move for awhile your time will drop as it does with the other timing methods. To get more time for your clock you have to move. That's what the bonus does. None of this wait until the last minute and then get 7 days to move again. You'll only get the bonus time if you try that. Of course if the bonus is set high at 7 days that's what it'll be. You have to experiment and find the times you like for your favorite pace.

If you see 5/1.6/15 it means a starting time of 5 days, a bonus time of 1 day 6 hours, and a maximum time on your clock of 15 days. I use these parameters or similar ones a lot. It comes out to about 8 moves per 10 days not counting your initial 5 day start. The maximum 15 days can be reached with 8 or 9 moves in two days from the start. This gives either player the abilty to leave for two weeks without timing out if he can just make a few moves in his game. Obviously both players could be online and finish a game in less than an hour. If one person plays slower than 1 move every 30 hours, he'll lose time and then have to start moving faster for fear of timing out. There's plenty of other time parameters you can use too. Depends on how you like the game to progress. I would certainly recommend using a Fischer clock for any tournament as it keeps the slow and fast players more or less together, especially when compared to the use of the standard vacation timing method. For playing one on one, it's up to how you and your opponent get along or want the game to go. Fof friends or people you've played many games with, you'll know what you like. Newer opponents will depend on yourself and what time limits you like until you've played a few times.

I didn't see playBunny say he wouldn't play him, just that he was complaining about how this person happened to acheive some of his victories from how it appears. The player did defend himself here, so maybe there's more to it. You know the trouble caused by making assumptions based on incomplete data. None of the others listed have spoken up, so perhaps there's a good reason for Fencer's actions concerning them. Fencer can see every game and draw his own conclusions about the appropriateness of how someone is conducting their games.

As I've said in the past, I will not play games where a major part of the startegy is the use of the clock to win. You said so for yourself, but there are plenty of people that like having the clock as part of the game. It is certainly within the rules to use the clock in this manner, even if I disapprove of it.

alanback: Maybe playBunny will agree to a one hour game, or they could certainly play with longer time limits. Maybe a series of games, eh?

pgt: Though I tend to agree with how you approach playing games and this attitude, it is not the only reason for people to play games, nor is it the only way for others to have have fun. Playing lots of games and not communicating with your opponent is not how you or I like to play, but there's plenty of people that do play like that and it stands to reason that it must be fun for them. Maybe they think how you play is a showing that you need a life too. I can see the argument from the other point of view even if I do have trouble understanding why some play in that manner. I've seen this discussion in other places on this site and it generally gets down to name calling and resolves little. To each his own. The similar complaint is speed of play. We may not be able to communicate with opponents as we like, but at least we now have a choice in the speed of the games we play. These "actions points" that some go after are also another game on this site. I don't play them, but some people do. I no longer play Backgammon either, but here I am reading and posting to this board that is still on my favorite list. It is from when I did play Backgammon that I met a few of you and that's one of the reasons I like playing on this site.

As for losing games. I'd rather win every game, but I can have fun even if I lose the game. Especially if it was a good game. Since I only play Chess type games, the nature of a loss is different than in Backgammon. At least in Backgammon you can blame your luck. You can sometimes say that in Dark Chess too, but in the other games I play, it's either your opponent played well, you screwed up, or both, when you lose.

Hrqls: I often times have running commentary through a game or just a conversation that has little to do with the game we're playing. But it had to start with a greeting unless I'm playing someone that I've played many times before in which case we might just gab away. If I get no response to whatever I start a game with. I might type again to this person (not everyone knows about messages on the game pages, especially new members) and see what happens. If nothing, them no more from me except to say that, plus maybe a last comment when the game concludes. Language can be a barrier and I only know one, so I can understand when there's no reply for that reason. During a series of games, I still might say something about the just finished leg at the start of the next game. Something like, "That's one for you. Good luck in next game." But I don't always type anything and it will depend on what has been typed earlier between us.

It is this talking during a game that keeps me from playing hundreds of games, even if I only type in a fraction of my games. It's lots more time consuming to type than it is to find a move, though you might not think that from some of the stuff I actually type. :)

And let us not forget the bug that deletes the invitations and the acceptance message. Someone might have typed to you, but you never got to see it. So you think they're being rude or have some other reason for not saying hi or greeting you and reply in kind. Now the game is started and there's no messages. This is another reason why I usually type a message after the second move and always copy and paste the acceptance message when I play first. Yeah, right, Fencer says it's not a bug, but it'd be nice if all of a game's messages stayed visible.

Hrqls: I'm not sure what to make of your advice for making neat columns. I'll re-read it and try to put it into use soon. If I have trouble, I'll post some questions on the Computer discussion board.

Thank you very much for narrowing the columns. It all fits into the window now and I don't have to scroll sideways at all. Makes it a lot easier to compare the various numbers and people. Plus the other posts on the page are back to more managable widths too. For some reason, one wide post box and they do it to on my screen.