Yes, WebTV has its own Email..

It's cheaper than a computer. I'm not sure how much the new ones are (MsnTV2), $200 or so, I think. But you can get the originals for under $100 ... The monthly charge isn't any cheaper.. (19.99 for the old classic, 21.99 for the newer classic, and 24.99 for webtv plus.. Not sure how much for msntv2) .. It was intended for the unit to not only surf the net, but enhance your TV viewing experience.. I don't know much about that, because I only use it for the net.. (And it's the Plus unit that has the most interactivity with TV)

It's other marketable quality is its ease of use. You don't really need to know a thing about computers to successfully surf the internet with it.

My personal reason for the preference is that I like sitting on my couch to surf and play my games. I don't want to be stuck at a desk..

Anyways, I guess this is kinda off topic. lol..

It was fun. But yes, with WebTV, the 1 hour format was WAY too much pressure. I'm pretty sure the computer users had no problems though.
I was probably actually at -3 minutes with Skittles, and probably -1 minute with Czuch.. 2 hours would have been perfect for that length game with WebTV. 1 hour would be fine for hyper though.

If some are made later today, I might play again.. Maybe I'll set up a 1 hour Hyper one..

Congrats Pedro

???? Why NOT believe him ?????
Jeez.

grenv, you have been here long enough to know that YES indeed, there are people childish enough to covet that meaningless statistic!

Restricting it to tournament games is a great solution..

The point being made with that game is only that it is pretty pointless to keep track of the record for longest hyper game.. The reason it is pointless, is that someone will do whatever it takes to make sure THEY have the game that is the top of that list. If there were a way to eliminate a game where it is obvious it was done on purpose, and keep legitimate games, the record would be interesting..

As far as anti-hyperbackgammon goes, Bumble and I just played a non rated, non counted game of hyper, as Anti... I personally find that it would not be a viable variation. Much of the strategy used in anti-backgammon is pretty useless in anti hyper.. Just not enough pieces.. I'd post a link to the game, but it really didn't end up being very interesting.. lol..

Of course it is possible, if both people are working to do it.. I agree that for that reason a record would be meaningless.
MOST would not bother to do this, but we all know there are people here who would.

It may not even be other people helping him/her, it could be their own multi-nics...
I agree, this person should definitely be removed!

lol.. but where do we get the 3rd die?

Back&forthgammon

I was thinking once about a variation with a 3rd die that was maybe a different color, that would be a negative number you must move one of your pieces..

Oh, I thought the "other site" was a different site. I've never heard of dice problems at IYT.. I know at Goldtoken they seem to change before your eyes.. I assumed that was the "other site" everyone was talking about..

That page claims that variation is "solved". How can that be? With the randomness of dice?

I see now what you are saying..
I tried what you said. I also noticed that when I entered back in with my password, that on any backgammon games I viewed as a guest, I could still see my opponent's next roll.. and ONLY on those games I had viewed as a guest.. interesting..
I, too, thought that the roll was decided when the player clicked on the game... but maybe I just assumed that, because that is the way IYT does it, I believe..

Why would anyone want to hide anything????

I'd like to suggest therapy again. These paranoid delusions are really quite funny..

You should buy a membership and THEN tell us stats. It would certainly be semi-interesting if they improved...

I know.. it's just silly

lol
ther-a-py

But you haven't learned anything really though. Because I guaruntee you that Fencer is not manipulating your dice. That's SILLY and PARANOID.

Zuggie, that's pretty childish.

Zuggie, I suggest perhaps mentioning to your opponent that this is generally accepted as illegal. Maybe they just didn't know that. I'm not sure if Fencer would put the game back a move so that they can then make a legal move, but at least that person will now know it was wrong.
I, too, hope that someday Fencer will program the backgammon games to follow this rule. In the mean time, we just have to live with it!

Yes Chellee. Fencer has stopped games being lost from timing out, until the problems with the site are fixed.

Hi berengeria. What is it you need help with? I see you do have a game of backgammon already going, and its on move #5.
If you get more specific with your question, I and others will be happy to help you.

I agree 100% that the game should be fixed to make players follow the rules, BEFORE more variations on backgammon are added.
I do enjoy the variations we currently have, and certainly wouldnt mind trying any other new ones. BUT please please please, fix the mentioned problem and at least add a "variation" with the doubling cube.. that should be priority as far as backgammon games go..

and I must add that a few of us HAVE told you exactly why it's a rule, and the significance it plays. I can only assume that you haven't played enough to see the significance. And again, I must repeat, that just because you say its a RARE occurance, doesn't make it rare. It is really NOT rare at all.

EXCELLENTLY put, RsBaby!!! I was hoping someone better at putting it in words would comment.

No.. the moves ARE NOT legal. And it isnt rare just because YOU say it's rare. They are not legal because the rule IS: if you CAN use both dice, you MUST. Regardless of whether you like it or not.

Why not question every rule to every game here then? IT IS THE RULE. That is reason enough. It would be like you saying you want to place 2 pieces on your turn in Pente. Who cares that the rule is 1? Just because you are in the mood to make up your own rules. Don't you understand that following the rules is PART of game playing? If you are so adverse to rules, perhaps you shouldn't play games???

I hope eventually you will keep your promise.

Big Bad Wolf:
You hit the nail right on the head with your last paragraph:
"... maybe by that player just moving his "2" checker, he doubles up everything - where if he was made to follow the rules, he might have to open a few spots up for a chance of the other player to "hit" him."

How often in this game does a COMPLETE turn around of the game occur when someone who is ahead, is forced to leave an open piece that can be knocked off by his opponent? (especially if that opponent has several of the home points blocked with 2 or more pieces keeping you from getting off the bar) Quite a bit! When your opponent isn't forced to follow this rule and decides to use only one die to keep from making himself vulnerable, I find that highly unfair. It IS hurting the game.

And since when is Quantity better than Quality? I would agree if the site only had 2 or 3 games.

Oh, and I personally don't see this as arguing... just friendly debate.

Well.. That is a VERY interesting question, Kevin. I definitely don't know the answer. But when it comes to a very popular, widely played game such as this one, there NEEDS to be some standards. And for whatever reason, THAT rule is part of the accepted standards.
If the scenerio you described was allowed to happen, and was generally accepted as allowed to happen, then I would be quite happy with it. I an a complete game addict (as I'm sure you are too) and part of the FUN in playing a game is the ways in which the rules sometimes work FOR you and sometimes work AGAINST you... Its part of what is beautiful about games. (LOL .. corny, I KNOW... but I just absolutely LOVE games!)

It brings up an interesting topic. Well, interesting to me, because I don't much about it. But, how DO game rules get changed? or get accepted? DO they EVER get changed?

I'm glad you asked that question of "Why?" .. It got me thinking. I may have to do some research.. or does anyone have some answers?

But regardless.. as I said, with games of such huge popularity as Backgammon, at some point there NEEDS to be some standards. And that is one of the BASIC rules of backgammon. And being the QUALITY site that I believe this is, I would like to see it comply with the rules.
It certainly WON'T drive me off if it doesn't though.

Kevin:
But I believe one of your major points was that it rarely happens. I think it probably happens much more frequently than "rarely". I just had 2 times occur today alone at IYT, where I could have used this flaw to my advantage, if they had been games here. I think it WOULD be a problem to have Fencer manually fix this at each occurance. Though, then again, a lot of people may not always pay attention to their opponent's move and wouldn't even notice.

I agree though that it certainly isn't an EMERGENCY.. it would just be nice if it were fixed. This is by NO means a real complaint. I am TOTALLY in love with this site. Fencer is my hero! :-D

It's NOT "changing stuff". It's making it CORRECT.

I think it's pretty important.

I agree that the rule of HAVING to use both dice when possible, is a very basic rule and it needs to be implemented here. I have already run into this situation 3 times on my part, and made the legal move. I dont ALWAYS watch my opponents' moves so I can't really say for sure how many times it has come up on that end. IYT DOES make sure this rule is followed. New games are great, but having the ones we have be correct is more important, in my opinion.