 |
|
  BackgammonBackgammon and variants. Backgammon Links Non ti è possibile inserire messaggi in questo forum. Il livello minimo di sottoscrizione per linvio dei messaggi è {0}. Modalità: Chiunque può inviare messaggi
10. Maggio 2006, 15:08:14 Yes there is this option for both players to use the cube since this is a "cubed" game.
People here (i think) speak about auto-pass in non-cube games. And players would have this as AN OPTION. But an even more advanced feature could be auto-pass in cube games only if the player wants this. Since to double on such situation is at 99.98% of the cases, stupid. Personally i would sacrifice the rest of the cases, where a double when you can't move isn't stupid and lose the right to double in this 0.02% for the sake of all the time i gained without having to wait at the bar. I guess i wasn't clear in what i meant about this advanced feature and when this occurs but it doesn't matter. The important thing is auto-pass in games where the cube can't be used. 10. Maggio 2006, 15:11:43 Argomento: Re: Pythagoras: I agree that it is a good option, I just didnt want others thinking that the posted link was a "no possible move" situation 10. Maggio 2006, 16:19:00 Argomento: Autopass I think it could be solved with a link that says "Autopass this game until I can move a piece". Even if the cube is an option you may want to click this link. 10. Maggio 2006, 16:23:09 Argomento: Re: Autopass grenv: maybe with the vast influx of money with black rook membership fencer will be able to implement such a feature. It seems a lot of people are showing faith in fencer by signing up the black rook membership so it follows that he would return the favour and offer auto pass. Fair is fair 10. Maggio 2006, 16:45:56 Argomento: Re: Autopass SafariGal: .
. . maybe with the vast influx of money with black rook membership fencer will be able to implement such a feature. It seems a lot of people are showing faith in fencer by signing up the black rook membership so it follows that he would return the favour and offer auto pass. Fair is fair I don't see how the increase of black rooks memberships can make Fencer to think more seriously to implement this!?!?! Also from your words i may imply that you think there is a need for more black rooks to register in order Fencer to make improvements to some features other members ask. So simple(white) Rooks or Knights memberships aren't enough and they don't have the right(or they have it but they will be ignored since they are not black Rooks) too ask things as long as they remain non-black Rooks? I don't think black Rooks have anything to do with what will be implement here..... 10. Maggio 2006, 16:59:38 Argomento: Re: Autopass Pythagoras: The implication was that implementing the feature is somehow expensive.
However, I believe it to be a personal preference of the programmer independent of any real cost. 10. Maggio 2006, 17:15:23 Argomento: Re: Autopass grenv: .
. . You speak about cost. I wonder what is the cost of implementing such a feature  
I consider it clearly as you say, as a Fencer's choice. Perhaps i'm wrong and there is a big cost for implementing this feature, but i just can't find any reason to have a big cost for that. Not even a small cost.... 10. Maggio 2006, 16:36:58 Argomento: Re: Autopass grenv: .
. . Yeah! Simple, easy(to implement) and elegant! As also a general option of "Autopass all games until I can move a checker." 10. Maggio 2006, 16:43:00 Argomento: Re: Autopass Pythagoras: I counted 17 black rooks which is an influx of $5100 euros. With this financial influx a capacity for auto pass should be quite viable. 10. Maggio 2006, 19:06:04 Argomento: Re: Pythagoras: Doubling when on the bar is not 99.98% stupid. There are plenty times when I pull way ahead of someone, bear most of my pieces off, and then get hit. In those situations, it often makes sense to double, as I will probably still be ahead when I get off the bar, but not so far ahead that I will get the gammon I was likely shooting for before I got hit. Moreover, people will often take HORRENDOUS doubles in situations like this. So auto-pass in a cube game makes no sense at all. But if it were available as an option, I would have no objection (who would?). I would just have it turned off.  10. Maggio 2006, 19:18:58 Argomento: Re: My suggestion would be to have auto pass when cubing is not an option. This includes single games, rolls when your opponent owns the cube, rolls when the cube is dead, the crawford round, etc.
But options like "Auto roll until my opponent leaves a shot", "Auto roll until my opponent opens a home board point", etc. sounds like a cool addition. 10. Maggio 2006, 19:20:23 Argomento: Re: pentejr: THat is exactly why the link should be there. In the situation you described you could choose not to click it, however in most situations you would. 10. Maggio 2006, 20:13:08 Argomento: Re: Modificato da Chicago Bulls (10. Maggio 2006, 20:14:02) pentejr:.
. . Doubling when on the bar is not 99.98% stupid. Probably yes, i gave that number more or less randomly and i was wrong....But still the situations you described are more rare to happen altough not 0.02% as i've said. grenv: If your 2 home pieces are on positions 1,2 then the opponent has about 70% to lose. If your 2 home pieces are on positions 5,4 then the opponent has about 62% to lose. 10. Maggio 2006, 20:19:55 Argomento: Re: Pythagoras: Yes, i had it round the wrong way, with 3 pieces you should always win, with 7 you should always lose. With 4-6 it depends where they are... according to the research I just did. :) 10. Maggio 2006, 20:21:36 Argomento: Re: grenv: I know you don't mean "always" win or lose. Are you referring to cube decisions? 10. Maggio 2006, 20:25:33 Argomento: Re: Modificato da Chicago Bulls (10. Maggio 2006, 20:29:03) alanback: Actually the "you should always win" should mean a >50% probabllity for a win.....
Although when people speak about "he should win now, it's clear!" they probably mean something like: "The probability to win is >70-80% " 10. Maggio 2006, 20:26:25 Argomento: Re: Pythagoras: how about
you should win more often than lose? 10. Maggio 2006, 20:28:41 Argomento: Re: SafariGal: .
. . That is exactly the same with probability of >50% for a win. 10. Maggio 2006, 20:29:55 Argomento: Re: Pythagoras: I was suggesting different wording grenv could have used 10. Maggio 2006, 20:31:08 Argomento: Re: Pythagoras: Ah, I see. "Always should" rather than "should always"! 10. Maggio 2006, 20:32:42 Argomento: Re: alanback: surely the use of the word "always" is fraught with misinterpretations 10. Maggio 2006, 20:46:20 Argomento: Re: Modificato da grenv (10. Maggio 2006, 20:46:38) All: I always exaggerate the position for effect :)
Yes, i meant >50%, which is not the same as cube decision by the way. 10. Maggio 2006, 21:05:56 Argomento: Re: SafariGal: The word "always" is one of the most unambiguous words there is. Used correctly, it should never be open to misinterpretation! 10. Maggio 2006, 21:07:46 Argomento: Re: alanback: obviously in this case it was. So what you are saying then is that if the statement was taken for it's true meaning, it was totally incorrect in this case? |
Data e ora
Amici in linea
Forum preferiti
Gruppi
Consiglio del giorno
|
|
Copyright © 2002 - 2024 Filip Rachunek, all rights reserved. Torna all'inizio |