I disagree, and think it should have been 3 points.

Backgammon (3 points) - the opponent hasn't borne off any pieces and still has some pieces either on the bar or in the winner's home area (the six pipes where the winner bears off own pieces).

Since at that point, you COULD still have been sent back to the bar and/or your home area, then the max possible should be counted with a timeout in my opinion - so 3 points is what I would think a timeout should be worth.

cd power: Are the "official" rules for the game somewhere on the internet? Just kind of curious on the different "interpretations" of that rule.

For example, in the game - lets say that ALL your pieces except for 1 is already past the prime on the "1" space on the bottom of the board, and only ONE piece is trapped by the prime - would you still interpret the rule the same way?

".... but if opponent has collected all his checkers onto the one point behind player's prime, the player must unblock a point in his prime to allow the opponent a chance to move."


***Update - I started to post this before I seen the previous 2 posts ****

Walter Montego: There is no argument that chance is a part of backgammon - but you will get a wide variety of people who argue how much luck there really is involved.

For a computer - they can look ahead 20 moves - they can easily see what the more common rolls will result (More people will roll a total of 7 then roll a total of 3.)

tonyh: Out of those 57 games that had the same - did you happen to pay attention who won the opening roll? (Player 1 or Player 2)?

And were they all no-cube matches or with the double cube?

I'm just wondering if maybe we can determine if we can see more of a pattern here... I myself have noticed it also, just never felt like sitting down and counting.

tonyh: The problem is, and it has been talked about a lot in the past, is all games on BrainKing currently use the same rating system, which is one designed for Chess games which is (for sake of argument) is 95% skill, 5% luck

So when you apply that same rating system to games like Backgammon (65% skill, 35% luck), Battleboats (25% skill, 75% luck), Ludo (30% skill, 70% luck), Dice Poker (35% skill, 65% luck), etc.... anyway, using the same rating system designed for a mostly skill game does not produce the same results for luck games.

PLEASE NOTE: I'm not trying to start an argument about how much luck/skill goes into each game - the % that I wrote above are just quick numbers I made up.

What the site really needs is at least 2 different rating systems - 1 for mostly skill games (chess, checkers), and 1 for games that deal more with luck (dice games).

Hopefully some day Fencer will add that (and go back and recalculate ratings from the start).

spirit_66: Are there even programs out there that deal with the variant Crowded Backgammon? (don't need to post details if there are programs out there... just wouldn't think too many programs would be made for some of the rarer variants.)

Constellation36: Yes, that looks like a bug to me also. Of course if you wait a long time to tell anyone, or tell no one - it is hard for bugs like that to be fixed.

On the game page, in the upper left hand corner is a "bug" icon - click on that to report a bug on that game. Include the same information you wrote here there - and hopefully the bug can be fixed.

(Fencer, game programmer does not always read the boards on a regular basis - so best to leave it in the bug tracker so he can easily see the list of bugs that need fixed.)

Key McKinnis: Yea that is always like that..... and you know, the rules says if you can use both dice - you have to use both dice.... even at the end.

tonyh: Well what this site needs is a Backgammon rating system in place - since the current rating system is based on Chess which is mostly a skill game - and does not work as well with games like Backgammon which does include some luck along with skill.

Of course that discussion has come up many times in the past, and Fencer had been a little interested, but not really enough to put it in place - but the hope that someday he will.

And remember - last time he did something to the rating system, the system looked back to game #1 and redid the ratings from the very start - so even though the rating system does not work too well now, my opinion is to not worry about it to much - and continue to play as well as you can - and you never know, Fencer might redo all the ratings with a better rating system and fix everything up to this point. (then again, maybe not - but we can hope.)

"GERRY": Again - sorry, but I'm not understanding what you are trying to say. All the post before yours were talking about ratings cheaters (people playing games & losing on purpose to raise their ratings)

You came along and (I THINK) was saying you got stuck in a double cube tournament and lost.

I took a quick look at your current games & recent played games, and could not find anything that used the double cube.

So if you are still having this issue - if you could include a link to the game and/or tournament, it might help me understand what the issue is.

"GERRY": I guess I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Are you saying you signed up for a brains tournament which was using a double cube, but you did not know it used the double cube? If that is what you are trying to say, then when you go to sign up for a tournament - there is a long description of all the options of the tournament above the area where you sign up at - so all the details (time, autopass, cube, etc...) should all be listed.

If it is not listed - then I agree that it needs to be.

If it is listed and you just did not notice it - then I don't think it would be the fault of the person who used a "cube" against you.

Which brings up the second question.

if you were going to win a game, and they use the cube - then you should not have lost unless you declined it and gave up... otherwise you may not have been in the best position to actually win the game.

..... Again - maybe I'm misunderstanding what you are trying to say - and if so, sorry. If you could explain a little better I would be happy to try to help.

***** Added - which tournament/games - might help to look to help understand what you are trying to say.

Constellation36: I would also like to say that the write up is very helpful. From my own playing, I have seen and already picked up that the first & second space in the destination home is important, and I do try to go after that as quickly as possible - but there are many other tips that will hopefully help my games..... Fevga is one of my favorite gammon games right now.

Too bad none of the tips could have helped me out in this game: Fevga (Albaowl vs. coan.net)

LionsLair: Yup - like Andersp said - it is a 5 WIN match - does not use the cube, so even if you won by a gammon, you would still only get 1 win.

As a side note for cube games, I'm pretty sure you are given the points where the current pieces are - so a early resignation will lose the person a gammon.

Fevga Strategy:

1. After you move your first piece to your opponents side, it is best to try to get it to the #5 or #6 spot on the board. At first, I tried to keep in the opponents starting block, but the rules say they they can not block all 6 of those spaces - so there will always be an opening there (so like an invisible piece). So moving your one piece to the #5 or #6 space will not allow your opponent to block anywhere on their starting side of the board.

2. At the same time, try to make a block of 6 spaces - like #5 - #10 on your side of the board. Of course now I try to block #5 & #6 as quickly as possible since I find those spaces to be the 2 most important when starting the game.

3. In a recent game, I ignored my (2) above and went strait to getting as many pieces to my opponents side - this has led me to almost putting a 6 space block on THEIR side of the board, possible blocking the rest of their starting pieces from advancing. If you are able to get some good rolls, if you can put 4-5 of your pieces over on your opponents side early - it can be very good for you.

OK, those are 3 of the strategies that I have started to use in the Fevga game. Any others have any tips?

I was wondering if anyone has any strategies for the 2 new backgammon games that they would like to share.

Is any Bishop (or higher) interested in playing on the Grasshopper site team tournament?

The site team tournament starts in about 4 days, and there still needs to be at least 1 more team to join. (a team of 4 players)

My fellowship, The Gammon Cube is looking for 2 more players.

If you are interested, PLEASE come and join our Grasshopper team:

◙ The Gammon Cube ◙

rod03801: You can find how to play here:

http://bkgm.com/variants/Plakoto.html

I'm guessing the rules are the same here.

I have a few Backgammon variant ideas that I would LOVE to hear feedback from anyone about how it could be good/bad and such..... since I would also like to suggest them to Fencer as possible game ideas.

#1: Double & Triple Choice Backgammon - Details of the game can BE FOUND HERE - but basically each player has 2 (or 3) rolls already rolled in which you can choose which one of the rolls to use each turn. Your opponent can also see all of your possible moves in advance of their own move. This brings a lot more strategy into the game since you can see all possible moves that your opponent might make in their next turn before you make yours.... but how good can you plan ahead?

#2: Dark Backgammon. Each player starts with 10 pieces. The pieces are setup like they are in Backgammon Race (all 10 on space 1 & 24 on the board).

You can NOT see your opponents pieces

You can NOT see your opponents pip count

You can NOT see your opponents dice roll
You can only see where your pieces are.

If you move your piece to a space with 0 opponent pieces on it, your piece stays there (just like normal backgammon)

If you move your piece to a space with 1 opponent piece on it, you send it to the bar and your piece stays there (just like normal backgammon)

If you move your piece to a space with 2+ opponent pieces on it, your own piece is sent back to the bar.

Since it is "dark", you will not know the results of your move until you "submit" the move. So lets say you have double 5's, and you move 4 pieces from space 1 to space 6 - and hit submit. If your opponent already had 2 (or more) pieces on space 6, ALL 4 of your pieces are sent to the bar.

It should be a fun cat-n-mouse game

#3: New Russian Backgammon - Just made up the name, but it is a mix of Tabula and Russian Backgammon

So same as Tabula EXCEPT use only 2 dice & normal double rules apply. (roll double 4's, move 4-4-4-4)

So same as Russian Backgammon EXCEPT no choice of reroll of first roll, and no strange double/invert/roll again type of thing. Just regular good-old normal double rules.


= = = = = = = = =

AGAIN - Please feel free to comment good or bad about either of those 3 ideas. The first 2 are games that I have written. The double/triple choice seems to work well in real life. The Dark is not very easy to test in real life. The New Russian rules are basically the same as on the sites lists - other then the small tweak in the rules by myself which I think make the game more playable without having new strange rules to get in the way.

The ◙ The Gammon Cube ◙ Fellowship is still looking for 2 more players to join our Grasshopper Team Tournament - so we can join the upcoming site team tournament.

If you are interested, please come and join our Fellowship & team.

Also: Fellowship is open to everyone - so even if you don't want to join the team, feel free to join!

◙ The Gammon Cube ◙

nabla: And just as a side note on the subject. If the time comes that Fencer does change the rating system, in the past what he had done when a change happened in the rating system was run every single game already played on the site through the rating system to get a new accurate rating..... so if he were to do it again, there is a chance that current games / matches be ran through to get the new rating.

So just a thought to keep in the back of your mind - even though it does not matter to the current rating system, if he were to make the change - there is a chance your current games would be taking into account for the future rating change.

Not that I know if he plans to do it or not - but I have always agreed that it would be nice if different games used different ratings systems... instead of all games be lumped under the Chess rating system which I think he uses.

Puckish: I would not think it would be acceptable. Only after the move is made, then going back and asking "Did I do this correct, or would you have done something different" would be the most acceptable thing.

That way they are still playing their own game, plus learning how to play better the next time is a similar situation comes up.

Hrqls: With only 6 or so pieces left on the board, I personally would do what you did.

If I has many more pieces left, I would have probable tried to spread out my pieces.... nothing worse then getting double 4's and you can't even move 1 piece off because you have nothing on the "4" spot, but plenty left on the 5 or 6.

..... but then again, I'm far from a backgammon expert.

Gordon Shumway: Triple gammon is different then a normal cubed game - where points go towards the tournament result (not the game result)

http://brainking.com/en/Help?ht=70

* 0 points for a loss
* 1 point for a normal win
* 3 points for a gammon win
* 5 points for a backgammon win

Gordon Shumway: Well it is 5 points for a backgammon win.

When a person times out, the computer checks for the worse possible position you could be in if the game went on. (not the position of the pieces when the game times out to prevent people from cheating and purposely timing out to avoid a lose at a worse position)

I'm guessing the computer checks to see if you have a piece moved out yet, which you did not - so decided that the worse position would be a backgammon lose.

Even though looking at the position it is obvious that you would have never lost as a backgammon - or even gammon, but the computer is not setup to check like that.

jryden: It looks like it is fixed now - it shows all past 5 games between you 2 to show the correct score.

jryden: Looks like some sort of bug - but when I look at the tournament, it shows a similar bug that is being reported on the BrainKing.com board

BackGammon - Cardinal's Masters #1 (>2300)

My guess there might be more games not showing up - maybe got archived in Fencers recent work. Hopefully once Fencer gets on next, he will fix things.

alanback: I think at one time, it was discussed and it was decided on if someone times out, they lose the max amount of points (backgammoned) since they could still possible be in such a bad position that they will be put into that position and you would not want someone to time out on purpose just to be able to save a point or so.

NOW in this case, once a checker is already borne off, if a time out occurs, I agree that it should only be a 1 point lose.

You should add it to the Bug Tracker: http://brainking.com/en/BugTracker

Puckish: Even though general talk about cheating is OK on a public board, accusing a person of it is not. A private message to nabla would be best since there is no restriction like that in private chat.

nabla: Yea, autoplay would be another nice request - even though personally I'm not sure if I would use it, but I can see many doing so.

For checkers for example, a person only has 1 move - 1 jump, then yea - might as well make the move for you. For Ludo - well many turns in a game are only 1 option (maybe around 30% maybe? - just a guess) - Add that to auto-pass, then you all of a sudden turn around 1/2 the game for the computer to play for you.

So personally, I would have to debate with myself to use autoplay, but again - would be a great addition to the autopass to this game site - and can see many people using both.

I just think the current version of autopass needs to be scraped, and put in its place is a proper autopass - that will work in all games where a "pass" can be made.

I would think a simple auto message of "Your opponent had no move, so the game came back to you.". Any messages should just be shown when the opponent does have there next possible move. And then an auto message to the person who passed would be "You had no move(s) on the ## last move(s), so the system autopassed for you".

Plus each person can decide if they want the system to autopass for them. So for example, if I choose to auto pass but my opponenet does not - if it comes to me and I have to pass, then I should be able to autopass. If it goes to my opponenet and they choose not to autopass, then they can take the time to hit the "pass" button. I don't see why the current system will let 1 person dictate how the other person players their autopass.

And again, all games that have pass - Gammon & Ludo are the big 2 that come to mind.

= = = = =

Then for gammon games with cube, what I would like to see is when a person gets there first roll/double - then pass option if they are blocked, a little button to say "Roll & Autopass until next possible move" - so that will automaticly choose the roll & then pass until they are able to move again. (so then after they move, they will again have to roll & choose the option again if they are back into a pass position after making a move on the board.)

Autopass would be a great feature for this site - but I just don't consider what is here right now to be autopass... just a very weak version of it.

AlliumCepa: Well it is one of the "reasons" why Fencer did not want to do autopass in the first place - he is afraid that the users would be unable to have a conversation if the game is autopassing. So he put in this thing that is called an autopass, but I believe it will not work if there is chat going on. I don't think it is documented anywhere.

AlliumCepa: Was there any in-game chat going on during those moves? That will also stop auto-pass from working

Czuch: I've already told the bunny sorry twice, I will now say sorry to you also for whatever bad thing that I have done to you with my couple of posts.

playBunny: Some people want it - some people don't. (and some don't care either way) - is there another point of discussion? But whatever, lets keep "discussing it".

Again, sorry if you took it as a "shut up" type of post.

playBunny: The reason I posted that was that the conversation was moving away from a discussion and into an argument - with all points in the subject already covered. Sorry if I did not make myself clear in what I said and possible offended you or something.

(But as a side note - since my post, no new points in the discussion has come up - just the same ones... wow, who could have predicted that.)

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Anyway, as a Moderator of this board - PLEASE keep this board as a place to discuss issues. The discussion has been moving close to being an argument which is not wanted here. Thank you.

Why is people arguing about this?

People have different opinions. But the one that counts on this issue is Fencer - and if anyone can get Fencer to work on this feature rather then on the site and/or games - well good luck.

Otherwise, I think it is safe to say that many would like it - some don't care, and probable a few don't want it. Is there anything else we need to say about this?

Wow, leave for a day and come back to a board full of posts.

OK - Lets stop this discussion - it looks like everyone has had their say, and the discussion has turned into an argument - which is not needed.

So lets get back to the regular backgammon discussion please. Thanks.

playBunny: Best thing to do is PM the information directly to Fencer since he may not read all the public message boards - or the message gets buried before he read it - since there is nothing any user can do - only Fencer.

Andersp: Well I don't disagree with you - tougher stance on private chat would be nice, but that is not my call - so only thing I can do is give advise on what I would do - and the "Blocked users" lists will block everything that user will say to you again... if you choose to use it.

Andersp: No, BKR is not that important to me - but I would not let someone talk me into giving them a free win.

Andersp: I don't say I speak to Fencer often - but what I see is someone who talked his way into a win by getting you to resign. Did they cross the line? Well I'll let Fencer decide that - but if some people know they can get an easy win by just pushing a few buttons, they will.

Again, not saying that is the right thing to do - but if someone does that to me, I just simply put them on ignore and continue to play my game in piece.

Andersp: You were probable playing better then they were, so for some - they consider that cheating.... but kind of looks like you resigned the game after that point - so apparently by calling you a cheater, it got him the game win.

... That is one strategy to win that some take - get into your opponents head.

alanback: You know, Fencer has been doing different things - like AutoPass which seemed like something that we would not see on this site.

Maybe it's time to see if Fencer is interesting in putting in place different rating "systems" for different types of games.

- - - - -

For those of you new, the rating system that BrainKing uses is a type based on Chess rating system - a 100% skill game. A game where a 2000 rated players should beat a 1500 rated player 99% of the time.

For Backgammon (and other games with luck factors), I would say Backgammon is around 60-75% skill game with 25-40% luck (others would say higher & lower - but that is a stupid debate to have - but everyone agrees that there is more luck to it then say Chess). Anyway, a 2000 rated backgammon players should beat a 1500 rated players probable around 75% of the time. Since bad dice can come into play. A good player can still win with bad dice (that is where skill come into play.), but enough bad dice can doom even the best gammon player.

So there are certain Gammon rating systems out there, which in my opinion should be used for Gammon - and other games with luck factors (Battleboats, Dice Poker, etc...)

Fencer - any chance of having different rating systems for different games? I'm not sure of the formulas off-hand, but if you were interested, I'm sure someone can help you get the correct formulas and such.

So how does the new tournament type handle people who resign or time-out in a game?

Rose: You have to use both dice if possible, and if you do what you want to do - that will leave you with no move for the 1 die.

So you need to move the 7 to 11, then use the 1 to move 11 to 12.

Czuch Czuckers: yea, no move is that good of a choice - my move is more of a 'safe' move - that is try to let the other person go, get my chips in the best position until my other man is set free.

Your move is more risky - but might be needed since it is the last point of the match - some lucky rolls may turn out really good for you, yet, some bad rolls could leave you even further behind.

Will be interesting if someone has a computer program to anylize that position and give what the best move is according to the computer.

Czuch Czuckers: I would have moved the 2 from the 7 row, and 2 from the 6 row - not really good moves to make, but at least you would not open yourself up to getting another pieces taken.

jryden: Well not every game is for everyone.

Just to recap some past suggested variants:

1) A mix between Tabula gammon and Russian Gammon. Basically like "race", all pieces start off the board - BOTH players race the same direction around the board, bring in their pieces in the same area - can only move their pieces 1/2 way around the board until all of their pieces have entered the board - 2 dice only - no special double rules - rest of the rules like current gammon/race rules.

2) Domino-Gammon - I have since seen some other versions talked about, but linked are the rules that I have made up for the game.

3) Similar to #2, Double choice & triple choice backgammon - more explained in this post: Backgammon (BIG BAD WOLF, 2006-12-20 00:41:30)

Plus other suggestion on the feature request board awhile back:

Plakoto - http://www.bkgm.com/variants/Plakoto.html

Plakoto Express (well not requested, but will include it here) - http://www.bkgm.com/variants/PlakotoExpress.html

Moultezim - http://www.bkgm.com/variants/Moultezim.html

Czuch Czuckers: Maybe we need a gammon game that does not use dice?

gogul: They are no longer playing on the site, but a 21 point match just completed giving him another rating. Just wait 30 days, and they will again drop from the ratings list (like all inactive pawns do)