nabla: At DG I sometimes misclick [Double] instead of [Roll] so I have confirmations switched on for offering the cube but never for accepting the cube. Any feature implemented as an option in the backgammon settings would get my vote. As something compulsory it wouldn't.

I would agree with Alan. If I were doing these kinds of games I would want to know that my opponent is aware of how it works and what's required in terms of a time commitment. There have been countless posts on the BK board of people - including experienced BKers - expressing "What does .. mean?" and "Oh, I didn't know that" with regard to the clocks. With newcomers to the site they don't even know to ask the questions.

There's one player (in Linetris) who delights in winning games against newcomers who don't know that they must stick to the game like glue or lose it. What a great welcome he gives them to the site; their first experience here is to get shafted!

For me it wouldn't be fun or acceptable for anyone to lose to me because of the time. Each such win would be a cause for regret if I could have helped the opponent avoid it. Clear notice in the game invitation would be one part of that. With a new opponent I'd ask them on the first move what they understand about the clock and time constraints. I'd do it then so that I could delete the game if it turns out that they didn't realise. In other words I'd make it my responsibility, not theirs, to avoid winning because of the clock.

That's not to say that you should, just that I would. Part of it is that I care about my opponents but another part is that I care about my games stats. A 66% winning ratio isn't of such value if it includes too many non-playing wins. Others don't care two hoots about their stats. ;-)

"Have Fun": Lol. It could be said that it has a lot of RRRs. ;o)

alanback: I doubt that Fencer will change any of the actual BKRs. It's probably too complicated a web to unravel and when Fencer eventual gives us a real rating system and recalculates all the BKR histories (lol, are you reading this Filip?! ), having to program in such anomalies would be a real pain in the bum, I expect.

It is a pity that they've affected other's ratings, especially the lower rated players who've been leeched from, but hopefully the fact that they've no longer got any public incentive will mean that they'll stop playing that game in the future. What I'm not sure of is whether Fencer sent them a message or simply implemented the chart ban.

bouncybouncy: Each of those links shows the Finished Games list. If you look down the Number of Moves colums you'll see lots of games with very few moves. Open any of these and you'll see that it's been resigned. All those resignations pump up the rating of the "winner".

Looking at florin's list you can see that he's been getting a monthly boost from hitlerica since June. That took him to #1 on the ranking table recently which is when his shenanigans became noticeable. DARK PHOENIX was the newest #1 until this morning. It was easy to see that he'd been playing the same game along with his two accomplices.

A feather in the cap for Fencer. He's just made the first use of a new "Ban From Charts" feature and has removed two sets of rating cheats from the charts!

Group 1 - ROMANIA, laurentiu, florin, ROMANIAN Boy, hitlerica

Group 2 - DARK PHOENIX, el diabolique, zapdos

pentejr: "In a tournament where one loss puts you out of it, those with higher ratings should be protected against one another in the early rounds."

I've never heard of (noticed) this bracketing method, let alone the rationale, so this in a new idea. You're saying it's about protection and the top half are the ones who are getting protected and the bottom half pay the price, as it were. #1 gets the most protection by playing #8, and the #4, being the least important of the protected, therefore gets the least protection by playing #5.

If that's the aim then it makes sense to me. Certainly it would work in my favour in tournaments, lolol.

"I think we have different definitions of "fair."

I wouldn't call it "fair" at all because it's deliberately designed to ease the passage of some at the expense of others. Nothing fair about that as I see it (showing lack of favoritism; in an evenhanded manner; free from favoritism or self-interest or bias). But if that's not a priority, that's, er, fair enough.

alanback: Thanks for those. External links are worth $150 so I'll tear up that invoice.

So it looks as if both methods will work (with the highest-seed-wins assumption) as long as it's done correctly at each stage. Sadly that's not the case at Vog. If the top two get byes in the first round then they play each other. :-/

alanback: It's only obvious to lawyers, and, perhaps, notorious presidents.

Czuch Chuckers: "the toughest possible match for you

Sure, but a tournament isn't set up for "you" it's set up for "you all". The matched halves method means that the spread of rating differences is more even. That is surely fairer than the 8th player getting hammered by the 1st while the 4th and 5th have a balanced match?

Czuch Chuckers: Why should the 8th ranked player have to play the toughest match possible?

Czuch Chuckers: Don't be daft, Czuch. "high rated backgammon players who try to protect their rating by avoiding games against low rated players" would fail in both cases because the ratings loss is punitive. "High rated backgammon players who protest the stupid formula but would be happy to play anybody for any length of match if there were a proper formula" would probably not play in either tournament unless it was for players within, ooh, let's see, 50 points of their rating.

alanback: And would you care to share that experience and justify that method, as per my questions?

alanback: "That's not the way it should be done, of course"

Why "of course"? You've then got the widest ability gap possible for the outermost bracket and evenly matched for the inner. Is that fair? What do you gain from that method?

alanback: Keep hopin'.

I worked out the elimination seeding at Vog and asked Fencer to confirm, when he announced the new tourneys here. I worked out the round-robin by looking at them. That's as official as you'll get until ...

An invoice is in the post. Usual fee. $100 per link.

pentejr: What's this not #2 that you are talking about? You're top player on the second board. That's seed #2. (Or has it changed and changed back since the beginning of the discussion? lol)

With 1-8, 2-7, Do you think it's fair that the weakest player gets to play the strongest? I'd be very unhappy if that were me!

I don't know how 2nd and further round matches are arranged. I once vaguely investigated it at Vog but it wasn't conclusive. The curiousity with, and utility of, the knowledge was less than the hassle factor in working it out fully. So, without knowing how subsequent rounds work I can't comment on the fairness either way.

Alan: Keep waiting...

Oh, okay then.. I'll point you to something on the site that tells you that that there is a seeding system.

alanback:

alanback: "and if it exists, how is it determined?"

Sorry, sir. I thought this was the most important question, sir. I'll get to work on the others right away, sir. Sorry to inconvience you, sir.

playBunny: And in the round-robin tourneys the method is to take the list of rated players and spread them through the groups by going down the groups and then back up and then down again, etc. Our 8 players in a three group round-robin would then be 1-6-7, 2-5-8, 3-4 (or 1-6, 2-5-7, 3-4-8).

pentejr, alanback: The way they work is that the players are ordered by rating and the list split at the midpoint. The players on the two list sare then matched against each other. In an 8-player tourney, for instance, it would be 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, 4-8. This prevents the lions from killing each other too early in the game.

At Vog, where any number of players are allowed into these tournaments, not just a power of two, there is a bye for the top 2^whatever players and the very lowest rated must play to get through to the second round. Because the topmost players have had this bye and are in the second round they will then be paired 1-2, 3-4, etc, even though it's their first match of the tourney. (That's just to let you know how it works elsewhere should you encounter it. There are only power-of-two sized tourneys here, so that situation doesn't arise.)

alanback: We know it too, but hey, these things happen.

To the man who must be doing something right...

     Congratulations

Hrqls: Grabbing your opponent's 5-point or barpoint is a strong defensive move but escaping is generally better.

That's about it at the start for GS and GG. but throughout the game you'll be thinking about the blot, preferably blots, that you're wanting and you'll be prepared to take greater risks to obtain those blots, unless that strategy become inapplicable.

A prime game is where both sides have a blockade, preferably a 6-prime and each has men trapped. The loser tends to be the one whose blockade crumbles first so timing is very important. If you get big dice and establish a prime but without having escaped your backrunners then find that they're boxed in, you'll also find that your opponent has got midfield blots to soak up a few dice rolls while you have none and must crush your prime.

Hrqls: "Gettin' the hell out of Dodge City" is a cowboy expression for getting away from trouble, in this case it's Marshall Opponent packing a loaded 6-point.

I always run with the 11-roll. It's a banked asset compared to stopping at 18 where the blot sits trembling in fear of being clobbered. When going for gammon you want to avoid a prime vs. prime game and escaping your men is part of that.

Variety is an excellent reason to try all the different openings and the robots will probably take 100 years to understand that one. ;-)

Hrqls: Aye, you get all that and it's still not as good as gettin' th hell out of Dodge.

It's your choice, really. The difference in the rollouts is -0.039. The factory settings for GnuBg don't even classify it as an error. Doubtful moves start at -0.040. But for me, given that I start Doubtful moves at -0.008 and Bad ones at -0.050, it's clearly a weak move.

DragonKing: Given the choice I'd recommend without. Get a good understanding of chequer play first. Part of the use of the cube is to terminate games so that you don't risk the percentage of losses that exist at that point unless you opponent is willing to pay the price. Without the cube you'll be playing into those situations and thus learning about them.

I spent 12 or more months on chequer play alone before I took on the cube. It worked for me. Others who did both, well it'll have worked for them, too, lol. But I'd say the ASAP aspect precludes the cube. I'd imagine that overall progress will be slower if you're advancing on two fronts.

Hrqls, grenv: I agree. You accept a double because you have reasonable chances of winning more than you lose by dropping. Very unlikely in this case. You'd have had to hang on while he emptied his table and meanwhile you'd be destroying your own. You wouldn't have been able to contain any blot that you might have hit.

Hrqls: how can i search through more than 10 posts ?

There's a search box to the right of the message box. Stick in a keyword - something that you're likely to have said and hit the button. (In fact it takes regular expressions if you want to get fancy - and that probably really confuses people who use RE characters without realising!)

Hrqls: It might be easier to remember what you said here about it and use the search box.

Does anyone have any particularly memorable games - because of something spectacular, or very unusual, or that seems like a good example of some strategy or tactic. Examples of the former would include incredible dice, games where all of your blots get hit but none of your opponent's. Examples of the latter would include blotfests (early fights which result in a Nackgammon-type situation), blitzes, prime building, back games.

I'm going to add a section to the Backgammon Links for such games. The more the merrier.

ColonelCrockett: LOLOL

ColonelCrockett: OOK? Are you the librarian at Unseen University?


[Now we're waaaay off topic and into Discworld, lolol]

ColonelCrockett: Lolol. Where've you been when we needed your guidance? Off on your own blood sucking quest, no doubt!

[Not an insult, our Colonel is a vampire.]

Hrqls: Aye, there's a big differences in pheromones (but I don't think it's that for the mozzies either as I'm the target amongst people that I know).

Hrqls: No carry on sweating and make sure you bottle it. I know a guy who can get $$$ for refined blond sweat. ;-)

(Sue, you can delete this one once we've finished chuckling )

Hrqls: No problem. I'm pretty sure I speak for grenv as well in saying that that's always been a consideration when we answer a question. :-)

grenv: however I would err on the side of caution if you aren't sure.

Yep

Hrqls: grenv said "If you analyze immediately after a move it may give you insight into the position that you wouldn't otherwise have".

That wouldn't apply to a cube decision unless recubing wa sin the air but woudl to chequer play.

With chequer play it depends on the move and the stage in the game. If it was about whether it was wise to risk putting a blot somewhere and that blot's been hit taking the game into a new phase then there is no danger of gaining inappropriate knowledge about the current position - too much has changed.

As an example of a case where I wouldn't give advice, say you are trailing badly and have hit a last-minute blot and are trying to contain it. I wouldn't discuss how you'd lay your backrunner net down or build your forward blockade on a particular move because the advice would be strategic and cover that whole phase. On the other hand I was happy to discuss Czuch's game just now because there was nothing he could gain from anything I said.

Czuch: Lol. I was ahead of you. I took a guess that it was a current game so I've got the whole thing staring at me. Oh dear, oh dear. I don't think it's cheating to say don't redouble!

But the double that was offered .. you were right to snap it up - it was way to early. All your opponent had was an anchor giving 60% win including 15% gammons. Not enough by far. That 4-4 was handy but still not enough. Had the double come after the 4-4 it would still have been too early. And after hitting you and you dancing? Not as bad but not time to double. The 5-5 was good. Chances went up to 80% but you got in and hit back. Bad time to double then as well.

But then you got hit again and danced. But then it was beyond doubling! Time to get out the frying pan and chase the sizzle.

Czuch: The best play would have been to put a link in your message.

Hrqls: If you miss bearing off a piece with the current roll, why would you be doing so? To save the risk of being forced to miss on bearing off at a later stage. But that's voluntarily falling behind because of something that's only a possibility.

There are times when you shouldn't bear off as much as you can. Unfortunately it's been rare enough for me that I can't think of any examples and I still have to ask GnuBg to see whether I chose correctly.

Czuch: "Is it against the rules here to have a program assess a situation to help determine the probability to get a gammon or if a double should be offered?"

For sure. You should only analyse a chequer play or cube decision, after you've made it. Same with discussing it here.

"It is a good example tha a back game can win, but that will only happen once every 25 situations or so, although that number seems too high to me."

That 1/25 is much too low. Have a look at those numbers again. Sue had a 1/10 chance even when you were down to your last 6 men. With a double-anchor back game your chances can be as high as 30% and is why you should be hesitant about doubling if you're winning and ready for the cube if you're the one playing the back game.

Czuch: Heh heh. Forget the Backgammon, I just want your money!

Czuch: Sorry to hear that. $$$$$$ Where can I come and play you.

Czuch:


Just after Sue's 3-3 you had a 91% chance.
When you then had to leave a blot it went down to 84.5%.
When she hit the blot it went down to 60.3%.
At the point just before Sue started bearing off it was back up to 70.9%.
After her first bearoff and a gap opened it was 71.6%.
After you got your man back in it was 74.3%.
When she hit you again it dropped to 66.4%.
By the time you'd finished dancing and got back in it was a mere 23.5%.

redsales: "i knew you were nervous about experimenting!"

It can sometimes be said that asking questions about a game in progress gives an advantage to the one asking. Not this time!

Quick definitions: didactic - adjective: instructive (especially excessively)
Wot me?

"gaining blocks" - poor choice of words given that there's the standard "making points".

1) I'd do the double-tap. If hit there's every chance of making a nice anchor with the blots on 5 and 4 so it wouldn't be a total disaster. GnuBg says .. double-tap for best move. It says to hit one of the blots with the next 3 choices and making the 2-point is only 5th and a blunder! (-.100) The hitting priority doesn't surprise me because tapping a naughty blot sharply on the nose is the thing to do at the beginning but I'm surprised that making the point is considered blunderful. I guess another part of that is because the blocking effect has been lost given that the point is behind the escaping backrunners. A kind of bolting the stable door thing.

2) Striking opening examples where non-cube (or rather non-gammon) is different from cube. Hmmm. I can't think of anything striking offhand. I tend to play gammonish anyway and have to remind myself not to.

DragonKing: Isn't it confusing! You get the same with text printouts in certain newsgroups but worse because a text board has an added strangeness.

There's no official direction of play so when I was first taught to play on a real board we used to play as different colours and have the home tables on different sides, just to get used to playing it any which way. Since playing on the Net I've become very fond of playing it just the way it is here (and at most other sites). Anyway ..

.. there's a button on the right end of the GnuBg toolbar called Direction. Give it a poke and see if you like what it does. ;-)

grenv: I just wanted to give a flavour. I added some stuff about gammons and then took it out again. I left all that to the experts at the other end of that link. (There are more articles about equity in the Terminology list at the foot of the article linked to.)

Czuch: Yep. Positive mean you'll win more than you lose, negative means your opponent will win more than they lose. Equity of 0 means the position is 50-50.

Equity

Czuch: I don't understand. What's the difference?

Czuch: ..is somebody grumpy today?

I'm teasing but there is an edge of grumpiness. I'm really knackered and I'm probably going to get into trouble next week for something I didn't attend and I'm waiting impatiently for some important news and .. Lol. You sussed me!