which has no impact in backgammon - some game types aren't that crowded ...
in small pente I am so far ahead, there are only 3-4 players within 400 points
- still I bother to play for a team to be available sometimes after all ... ~*~

danoschek: 21 players are within 400 points of you in small pente

whoo hoo. 30 - 40 would have made it worth an objection
still the same dimension thus and not at all touching
the core of the sense. checked a year ago last time btw ... ~*~

AbigailII: That's filled a gap. I'm not a chess player and only read as much of that Chess Rating link's info as needed to work out how my provisional ratings were being generated, and to note how much more complicated their scheme is than that in backgammon! Now that you mention matches I've reread that page and seen where match length comes into it. Thanks Abigail :-)

Is the formula there better or not?

WhiteTower: The DG formula seems to work more smoothly, if nothing else. It's supposed to be the same as FIBS.

Dailygammon Ratings

what i find funny about the formula used right now is that when you win and then lose to the smae player, both you as well as your opponent will have a net gain in BKR

(of course your opponent has to be within 400 points of your bkr, and sometimes it doesnt show as the net gain can be less than 1, but you will see if clearly when you arent established yet)

shouldnt a win + a loss equal out to a draw ?

pros indeed trim timing of resign according to the little difference ... ~*~

Hrqls: shouldnt a win + a loss equal out to a draw

No. A win followed by a loss is slightly worse than two draws, while a loss followed by a win is slightly better. It's easiest to see when you have two players with equal rating, and an equal number of games played. Assume their current ratings to be R. Then a win will give an increase of r points, a loss will give a decrease of r points, will a draw doesn't change the ratings. So, after drawing the first game, it's still r points change for a win/loss, and no difference with a draw. With two draws, both players still have rating R. But what if player A wins the first game? Then her rating will be R + r, while player B's rating will be R - r. So, the expected change in rating for player A for the second game will be an increase of p for a win, a decrease of s for a loss, and a decrease of q for a draw, with 0 < q, p < r < s. So, if player A wins, then loses, his rating will be R + r - s < R. And player B, who first loses, then wins, will end up with a rating higher than R.

A win and a loss will be equivalent to two draws only if the rating is calculated after the entire match - but not if you calculate ratings after each result (which is what happens on Brainking).

AbigailII: Actually I have noticed that a win-loss against the same player is a net gain for both players in certain circumstances. This does seem like a flaw in the system.

grenv: Yes, it's a flaw. I was describing the situation how it should be.

unlike the players who play on draw.
(lil poem) ~*~

AbigailII: *nod* thats how i expected it to work when i first paid attention to the ratings

but when you compare that to a 2 game match in which both players win 1 game .. its a (one) draw .. while in the rating system it should be actually be a slight loss of bkr for the player who won first, and a slight gain in bkr for the player who won the last game

as those matches are calculated as a draw i would expect 2 games with the same player, directly after another, win and loss, have the same result as the 2 game match which was a draw (although the change in bkr might be slightly less because the match is calculated as 1 event and the 2 games in the other case are calculated as 2 events

Hrqls: I think I have noticed that a 3-wins match counts the same as a single game win -- is that correct? Seems like it should count for more.

alanback: you noticed right ... but why
change ? else a match would make no difference ?
appointing amount of points/games provides liberty ... . ~*~

Hrqls: as those matches are calculated as a draw i would expect 2 games with the same player, directly after another, win and loss, have the same result as the 2 game match which was a draw

No, that's not what I expect. There is a difference between two one-game matches, and a single two game match, and that's the fact that in with the two matches, there's a rating adjustment after the first match, and unless there was no rating adjustment, the ratings of the opponents at the start of the second match differ from the ratings of the opponents at the start of the first.

Compare it to interest on a bank account. Say you have an account that gives 10% of interest a year, you have $1000 on that account - and you keep the money in the account for two years. How much interest have you made in those two years? $200? (10%/year of $1000 for 2 years) Or $210? (10% of $1000 for the first year, 10% of $1100 for the second year). Or even $215.50 (interest added every 6 months)?

alanback: think I have noticed that a 3-wins match counts the same as a single game win -- is that correct? Seems like it should count for more.

Why should it count for more? Is a 2-1 win, with 15 draws a bigger win than a 1-0 win with no draws?

because it enables you to create staged handicap challenges
in those gametypes with one clearly advantaged colour ... ... ~*~

AbigailII: Where's this bank that gives 10% interest? Please tell!

Putting Abigail's explanation of why a win and a loss is not equal a different way (for those who see 0 q, p r s and find their eyes glazing over and their mind going blank, lol): The points per game is based on the difference between the two players' ratings. After the first game that distance will have changed and thus the second game will be worth a different amount.

The backgammon formula gives a match a maximum value equal to the square root of the match length. Whether that's the "correct" function to use or not, it makes sense that longer matches earn more beans; more effort/risk, more reward/loss.

I've often been puzzled by this one. I've seen it in player's profiles at Vog but not been able to retrieve any match from the archive. How can you have a draw in backgammon?

playBunny: By agreeing one.

Mike UK: Maybe the question really is: why WOULD you agree on a draw, when a draw is impossible?

e.g. to win a tournament when the other has no chance anymor hence just wants out ...
and in matches with a fixed, even amount of games a draw will always be possible -
taking a draw in a set of a bg match may even gain the thrill of the lacking cube ... ~*~

WhiteTower: To finish a tournament round? Because you're about to start a three week vacation? Because your opponent offers a draw and you're behind in pipcount? Just because you can? Because a draw finishes the game, freeing a game slot, so you can participate in the next tournament?

WhiteTower: In money play, agreeing a draw is common. This usually happens in a close game, where the outcome would be decided solely by the luck of the dice. In tournament play, I think the situation is different and a draw is never really acceptable.

a draw is very acceptable and senseful. e.g. your opponent offers draw,
you accept because you forsee to lose this set in a bg match - half a point.
for players with a bit of fantasy that effect is half a cube too ... . ~*~

So... my opponent is going away on a holiday and I have to give up a probable win... or my opponent WANTS to have a draw and I have to cheerfully give up my win just like that...

Are you all guys serious??? I mean, beyond money games, which I have no care whatsoever about, please give me a VALID reason why I, having a possible win in a few moves, should give it up for a draw!!!

the point could be in an 8-games match when you
won 5 already, why bother on, rest draw over ... . ~*~

danoschek: ... which of course, brings us to the silly way one gets a SINGLE win for multi-game matches... that's another's day work. See, wherever you turn with my question, you ALWAYS end up in a silly situation. In the real world, and specifically in 1-point matches here on BK, there is NO ****ING WAY a draw is reasonable... because EACH GAME counts, towards statistics and final ratings...

so you are excused too - I for my part enjoy
players with a bit more of fantasy though ...
have a blessed week ... ~*~ . -- silly

WhiteTower: Who says a win is only a few moves away? Besides, against some players, a few moves takes a few weeks anyway. I don't understand your shouting of VALID. If there is a draw, then the players of their draw had, for them, valid reasons to make it a draw. Don't assume that if you wouldn't agree on a draw in certain situations that noone else would.

Agreeing a draw is rather the obvious answer, especially with that link that says Offer draw, lol. Admittedly few would realise it but at Vog there is no option to draw; it's win, lose or resign. As I was unable to see the matches referred to, I was unable to determine haow they were drawn and was wondering whether I was unaware of some quirk of the game that that made a draw possible through play.

WhiteTower: One possibility is that the two players are more in it for the sociability, and the friendship outweighs the competitive aspect. In the holiday case, or any similar, they might agree a draw because a timeout win would be taking an unfair advantage.

Another, perhaps, is if there is a strong competitive aspect and the draw is agreeable because they want their matches to reflect only their playing and not spurious wins. In the latter case the overall rating would matter less than the match history between them.

Then I imagine there's a whole bunch of players who don't really care about statistics or ratings. For them it might be as simple as "Draw?" "Okay, why not."

One reason for drawing that I have: I occasionally give backgammon lessons at Vog and when the main points of the lesson have been given, or my student's reached the brain-full-need-to-digest stage, lol, then I will resign the game or match. (It's just a politeness and doesn't affect my rating because we play unrated). If there were a draw option then I could use that.

WhiteTower: because EACH GAME counts, towards statistics and final ratings.

No. Non-rated, non-tournament games don't count toward ratings or standings. And often, tournament games don't really matter for standings either - if for instance in a 6 player section, one player already has 5 out of 5, and you have 2 out of 4, it doesn't matter whether you end up with 2, 2.5 or 3 points - you're not making it to the next round anyway. Furthermore, in a N-wins match, draws don't count at all.

Finally, there's a tactical element. Suppose you're in a 6 player section. Your current score is 4 out of 4, your opponent has 4 out of 4 as well. There's one other section, and it's already know there's a single winner there. Suppose you, your opponent, and the winner of the other section are all equal in stength, so you estimate a 50% chance of winning any game between any two of you. If you play for a win, you have a 25% chance of winning the tournament - 50% chance of beating the current opponent, and 50% chance of beating the other winner. But if you go for a draw, your chance of winning the tournament increases to 50%! (25% of being a solo winner, 25% of joined winner). I guess offering a draw is the closest you can get to making a cube decision on BK. ;-)

Draw at Backgammon......? That is one of the most ridiculous things that Brainking has.......
Since the game itself CANNOT be draw in any way (this can be easily proven) i completely support that players should not be able to agree on this.......

Chess offers the draw as an option for a player to offer, but that is because the game itself can be drawn by some rules (50 move rule, 3-fold repetition,...,etc).

Chessmaster1000: lacking fantasy is
bad enough - but iterated it is just boring ... ~*~

danoschek: Sorry to disagree with you, but what's "fantasy" is a draw in backgammon, like Chessmaster1000 said... whatever may be the operational requirements that make such an abomination allowable...

The bottom line is: the GAME of backgammon does not allow for draws. It's the ENVIRONMENT of playing backgammon that allows them, and some people disagree with that. Fact.

CM1000, WhiteTower: It's true that it's the environment that allows draws and for some people it's a useful option on occasion. Calling it ridiculous and an abomination? Wow! Is 'despise' a good word here? It's obviously something you feel very strongly about? Enough, it seems, that you would deprive those who might enjoy that benefit.

danosham: Still hiding my posts, eh, chum? Would someone tell him he's dribbling again? Or if he wants to waste "air space" with personal remarks (like I'm doing, he he) then the word he's after is "imagination".

before it just stresses my patience or universe-outreaching tolerance granting everyone
to be happy even without the obvious thrills and benefits of a draw as described earlier
any attempts to make lacking fantasy obligatory are ridiculous and abnominal of course ~*~

AbigailII: you are right

WhiteTower: suppose your opponent has a big advantage and very probably will win this game .. he has to go away for 3 weeks though and would time out .. he offers a draw ... would you accept the draw ?

i would .. or i maybe even would resign the game as it would be fair ... because the problem is on his side though .. a draw would be fair as well

accepting such a draw is just fairplay

i once asked thebigoh to wait to make his move until the last day of his time limit .. because i wouldnt be able to be online for a few days because of a funeral .. he was so kind to do it .. of course he would have been able to move as fast as possible as well and win the game from me because of my time out .. but the way he did it, i now respect him a lot

sometimes a pawn wants to enter a tournament but cant, he wants to finish a game but doesnt want to lose it either ... he offers a draw (with some explanation) ... i would accept ...

draws in bg are all about being nice and/or fair

Hrqls: As I mentioned before, the game itself is never a draw - period. As far as fair play is concerned... I am a lowly pawn and I will accept lost games going away on holidays, the same way that I accept all the limitations I have due to my non-paid member status. From that point of view, there is no "fair play" involved, as different conditions exist for pawns and non-pawns anyway.

I have a few games going of hyper where I set 1 day limit with no time off and the time left still shows as almost 3 days. I Think something is not working right

Hrqls: Suppose you play with other 10 players the following game.
Each player plays with each other one game. So we would have 45 matches.

We have in a black bag 2 balls. One white and one black.
The game is simple. One of the 2 players, picks a ball, without being able to see the color, and if he chooses the white one he wins. If not he loses.

The first 2 of the group win 50.000$ each!
And after all the matches except one, that of player-A against player-B, we have the following ranking:

Hrqls      = 7 points / 10 games
Player-A = 7 points / 9 games
Player-B = 7 points / 9 games

And the 2 players agree to a draw and win 50.000$ each one. Perfectly fair right......?

Backgammon could be at the position of the aforementioned game......Backgammon has no draw! So the arbiter should not accept draw as a result.....

wayney: A weekend is coming, so 2 days are added to most people as vacation days, because most people have Sat/Sunday as their standard vacation days.....

Chessmaster1000: Lol. Then there's that other variation of the game - played with a cat in a box. If, on your turn, you look into the box and the cat is dead .... ;-))

But back to the main point: WhiteTower is obviously putting forward that no draws is the best way for him and that being fair to other players isn't an idea that he'd entertain (which is reasonable enough as being nice can't always be high on people's list of priorities), but are you saying, George, that everyone should be deprived of the ability to offer a draw?

Chessmaster1000: true in that case it would be an abuse of the feature :) .. but only because its me who would lose 25.000$ :)

if there is another reason to offer a draw than to change the results because of the results .. then i see no problem with it .. if its used, like in your example, to change the outcome of a tournament .. then its another matter

WhiteTower: agreed : the game itself is never a draw

but would you as a pawn accept lost games due to holidays or other, and unforseen, circumstances .. you can always try to take action and see if your opponent is nice enough .. you might decide to draw and play the game again later ?

Chessmaster1000: the weekends should not count as in this case the rule of "no days off" has been set which should also exclude weekend days
http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=886923
That was my understanding. This is different to the other option where you can select weekend days off only as denoted by the green dots

wayney: There is currently a bug similar to that in the bug tracker:

http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=411

Actually if you wanted - you should add your game to that list.... to give Fencer another example to look at which might help fix the bug.

Hrqls: As I said, I am a lowly pawn, who, as "valuable" as I may be to the existence of BK (by way of numerical majority) I am not that valuable as to warrant special treatment like paying members are. I have found that several times when I made other fair-play-related pleas... I was met with the usual "yes, pawns are important, but we can't help you - pay for membership for more help".

Therefore, while that stance is still valid, I will have to use my only advantage - not accepting draws when I can still win, whatever the circumstances, and accept losses for the same reasons.