grenv: We'd eventually have the same rating.

The formula will consistently pull the higher rated player down by more than they can possibly win because it doesn't account for luck.

So the lower rated player will go up by more than they should and the higher player down until the two have the same rating.

Apply that to all possible pairs and everyone has the same rating!

grenv: In any event, because Fencer is recalculating the ratings from the beginning, we will be able to tell tomorrow whether we all wind up with the same rating!

playBunny: We won't all have the same rating, since if you lose and your rating goes down, you will gain more next time you win. Since there is some skill in the game the list will still be meaningful, though not as much as another system may be.

In fact winning 65% of games against average players is the problem, and there are undoubtedly players with inflated ratings as a result (for all I know I may be one :)

I took my thinking about this a bit further but posted it to the main BrainKing board where arpa raised the issue.

It's serious: This change will have a severe flattening effect. If left alone we will all - high and low - eventually have the same rating!

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=1&bscx=403725

(Bear in mind that the link puts my message at the top of the page but doesn't show anything posted afterwards. There may well be replies to it on the "previous" pages.]

alanback: I think you're right about the compression. In fact, because the points awarded favour the lower player so greatly, I believe it'll be over-compressed.

Playing all and sundry in single-pointer tourney matches is going to kill the ratings of the higher players who join a lot of them. (Score one for the Knights vs the Rooks, for a change, lol). Winning 60-65% of tourney matches, as a top player would, will not be enough compensation for the 7 to 1 points differential against players within 300 points and certainly not for the 15 : 1 against those further down.

After the adjustment all those games which previously won 8 useful points will only, in fact, have earned beans while the lost matches will be harshly felt.

Another aspect of this formula is that the ranking system will be highly volatile. A player rated 120 below will have a 2 : 1 advantage in the points awarded though the skill differential is minor and the luck differential is zero. Any player to reach a height can be tumbled merely by winning 50-50 against weaker players.

Walter Montego: I agree with Walter that the differential between winning and losing appears to be overstated -- the new system is better than the old one which effectively didn't recognize ratings differences at all (unless you were playing outside the 400-point band on either side of your own rating), but I think it represents an over-correction. I think we should give the new system a chance to operate before making judgments about it. We are used to playing under the old (flawed) rules; now we high-rated players are going to have to work hard to maintain our positions. I have suffered, too, because the change in the system coincided with something of a slump in my games; still I notice that those behind me are also suffering a decline. I expect a significant compression of the ratings spread, and I think that is a good thing. Why shouldn't we have a system under which a player can reasonably expect to climb into the upper echelons in a relatively short period of time? I think it should make the site more competitive and interesting.

grenv: If a recalculation of everyone's rating takes place, it won't fix anything. It will just use this rating system retroactively. I agree that a higher rated player should get less reward for winning a game against a lower rated player, but the points should be based on the ratings of the players involved and their actual odds of winning a single game. For a series of games it should break even after awhile if the odds are calculated correctly. For a match where the points are awarded at the end of a series of games, I can see having it set up with higher points, but this would again be because of the odds. In a long match, the better player will win more often.

Walter Montego: Actually the ratings system is now correct, assuming a game of skill of course. This will end up being fairer in backgammon as well, but still not optimal, once the ratings are recalculated.

It makes complete sense that the player rated higher risks more, and if that doesn't reflect the actual odds, then the difference in ratings is too much. This will probably be fixed somewhat when the recalc happens.

It used to be when I played someone a game of Backgammon and we were within a few hundred points of each other in rating we'd be playing for 8 rating points. Now there's this sliding scale and I find it completely unfair to the higher rated player. I will never be able to play a higher rated player that cares about his rating on this site because how disadvantageous the odds are now. Someone that's 300 points above me risks 14 rating points to my 2! This is nowhere near the odds of my actual chance of winning. It may not 1 to 1, but it can't be 7 to 1.

Can we please have a ratings system for Backgammon that reflects the odds of winning and keeps in mind that there's luck involved? This disparity will further segegrate the Backgammon playing community or will encourage people to not play rated games at all. I can see having a big difference in the points awarded if we were playing a match to 10 wins or game points, but to have it like this for a single game is ridiculous.

Walter Montego & playBunny: ah thanks, i am glad :) *phew*

i move both dice when i can (even if its to my disadvantage) but i didnt think about this possibility until after i moved

Hrqls: You are required to use the dice to tha maximum but not necessarily the pips, so what you did is perfectly legitimate and the best move.

Hrqls: You may do either move as you see fit. Nothing compells you to be efficient in the usage of the pips or in baring pieces off. Perfectly fair and part of the strategy of the game. Especially if your opponent has pieces in your home base.

Another example similiar to this is when your opponent has a piece on the bar and you're bearing off. Say you have two pieces on your 2 point and one on your 1 point and no others and roll 6-1. You have some choices here. You could bare off two pieces on the 2 and 1 point leaving one piece on the 1 point. Better is to move one piece from the 2 point to the 1 point and bare off the other piece on the 2 point.

The rules that I've read of Backgammon say moving the pieces around in your home base instead of baring off is allowed and they also say you needn't use the most pips possible. This is different than the maximum usage of the dice because you have used both dice.

on this move i rolled 2+4 ... should i have moved 5 to 1 and 3 to 1 (leaving a single piece on 3) or was i allowed to move 5 to 3 and then 3 off the board ?

in the second option i only used 5 of the possible 8 steps (which i would have used in total in the first option)

is this allowed ? (or is it just as much frowned upon as on using only 1 die when you can use 2 dice as well)

Vikings: If that proved to be too much information, the point in question could just be shown as guarded without giving the number of pieces on it.

I would still like to try the game first with it showing all the pieces on a point if the dice would let you move there even if the point is guarded. There would still be plenty of darkness in such a game. Too much darkness and it'd just turn into a running lucky game. I don't know if it'd work or not. Too much information and it'd be very much like regular Backgammon, that I agree with.

Let's pretend it's the start of the game and I roll 5-3.Even before this roll I know the four points where all of your pieces are and how many are on them even though I cannot see any of your pieces. This is analogous to the start of a Dark Chess game. I can see my four points and the rest of the table would be dark. Now the roll of 5-3 would show me your two runners on my 1 point, the 3 point, the 5 point, the 16 point(Your outer table 9 point), your 5 pieces on your 6 point, and your 4 point.

Whatever move I decide to make will be unknown to you until you roll the dice. Now this is where how the game would be played will make a difference. Will the game show my dice roll or not? If it doesn't show the roll, then you'll always be in the dark except for those cases of when your next roll happens to reveal where I might have moved from an earlier position. If it does show the roll, then you'll have information about where I might have moved, but you won't necessarily know where I moved.

As the game progresses, they'll be an increase in information as the pieces become spread out and some rolls would reveal a lot of the table. And then, just like Dark Chess, it would get real dark as the last of the pieces passed each other and it became a running game. I can imagine other scenarios, such as me having five or six points guarded in a row. No matter what roll I received it would show up a lot of points in front of this and be very dark behind it. When both people have all the pieces in their home bases it would be a very dark board. Here again, the information shown would make a difference. Are born off pieces shown? I think they should be, but it could work without showing them too. This is sometihing I don't like about how Dark Chess is on this site as compared to IYT version, the promoting of Pawns and showing them and the piece promoted to. BrainKing reveals nothing about this happening. IYT, will either take the piece out of the opponent's captured pieces bag, or in the case of an extra Queen or third Rook, Knight, or Bishop, will show that an extra piece is on the board though it doesn't reveal its position. Both ways are playable, but it makes a difference in the play at times.

The only thing that puzzles me is how you can call this "Basically like regular backgammon";-)

Walter Montego: you wouldn't want to show the places that you could roll because then you would know how many peices were there, 2, 3 or more, which would make it easier to figure out all pieces of the opponent

Walter Montego: Who's up for some beta testing? :)

BIG BAD WOLF: Oh, it'd still be dark all right. It'd be more like Kliegspiel than Dark Chess. The same situation is possible in Kliegspiel in that if you move your King into check one the assistants watching the game will tell you that the move is illegal, but won't give you any details. In Dark Chess, your opponent takes your King and the game is over.

I think a dark version of Backgammon would work, though I'm not sure if it'd be a fun game or not. I'd give it a try if it was here. Sure, I'd try different moves to investigate if a point was guarded. Remember you would only be able to do this with the dice that you roll.

An alternative to having the whole board dark except where your pieces are would be to show all those points that are available to be moved to with the current dice roll. This would save the time and trouble of checking every move possible. In Dark Chess you can see the squares that your pieces can move to. If you block a piece or move it to a different place, the view will change, but not until you have made the move and it is too late for you to undo the move. Depending on the roll, it could be very illuminating or not so much. 1-1 for example. Also, would your opponent be able to see what roll you received? If so, he'd be able to figure out what you know of his position and maybe plan, trap, or play accordingly. At the start of the game you'd know your opponent's position. I'm thinking that after just a few moves it'd be real dark and you'd need to see where the pieces might be with the help of the rolled dice.

I just think if the move is blocked, it would defeat the purpose.

I mean if I rool a 3 & 4, then I could (BEFORE SUBMITING) test many different moves / multiply moves with all my pieces to basicly determin where 2 or more of your pices are located - and in my opinion kind of defeat the purpose of the dark part of the game.

Where as if it allows you to move there, THEN if there is 2 more more pieces YOUR piece ends up in the bar - you will then only know of 1 place (insteald of multiply) where 2 or more of your pieces are located... and come with a "cost" since my piece would be put back to the bar.

Without that - I don't think it would be very "dark" nor very different then normal backgammon.

Totally different. I'm going for blocked moves when there are two or more of the opponets pieces on the board.

So there!

BIG BAD WOLF: Personally, I like the idea of not being able to move to a blocked space better, it would resemble a regular game better leaving the key to be when and where to move single pieces

Here is my suggestion from June 2003 (Sorry Nof - I claim naming rights!):

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&ngi=16070

which was:

1. Dark Backgammon Race (or Regular/Nack/Crowded?)
- Basicly just like regular backgammon. You don't see ANY place that you don't have your own piece, so you will never be "blocked" and allowed to move to any place.

Now when you move to a place that is open, your piece stays there. If you move to a place that only has 1 opponent piece, you take it like normal gammon. If you move to a place that has 2 or more oppenent pieces, your piece will be placed back to the bar like it was taken out.

So this game would involve a lot more strategy - making you want to set up many places of 2 or more pieces to take away your opponents pieces when they land on you.

I believe this would be better as Dark Battleboats Race. Also I'm debating if it would be good to hide the opponents dice or not.

alanback: The seed posts.

alanback: It started on Feature Request board - suggested to continue it here. I was thinking we talked about it before.

You obviously wouldn't know if you hit a single pip until after you sent your moves.

Vikings: Yea, but that would defeat the purpose of "hiding" your opponents pieces. I mean if you know you can't move a piece to a certain place, then you would know where at least 2 of your opponents pieces are. (And with a lot of trial-error before you submit, you could learn a lot.)

I think if there was going to be a "dark backgammon" version, then if you place 1 or more of your pieces on a space that already has 2 or more of your opponents pieces, then your pieces should end up on the bar. Then you will only know after you submit of 1 place where your opponents pieces are, and lose position because of it.

Vikings: I can't find the message this is a response to.

That is what I would think. If your opponet has two or more pieces on a particular spot that you were trying to move to, the program just wouldn't let you move that piece.

BBW: wouldn't it be if there is two of your opponents pieces on a spot, it wouldn't allow you to move there in the first place? Yhat would be the only way you could do decective work

The clock is ticking down to the fateful reshuffling of the rankings . . . any guesses as to what the new top rating will be? I'm guessing around 2200.

Bry: 21 days time control?! Has the first tourney of that series finished yet? Lolol. ;-)

Marfitalu:

WhiteTower: In the 5 cases that I've come across it's been a question of playing only one dice when two should have been played. The dice order is only a coincidental factor. But im the case of using the larger of the two (which I haven't noticed so far) it would certainly be helpful for the larger dice to be shown first.

It would also be a convention helpful in its own right.

Wouldn't the rish of accidentally violating the rule be minimized by placing the highest of the two dice first in order? That way, it would take a dice swap to violate the rule, and that would be deliberate.

Marfitalu: That's what I do already. To be honest I rarely look at the last move of my opponent, so I doubt I'd notice.

redsales: and not only that, he used vulgarities and curses. He was probably hated by the societal elite of the day in the same way that many rap artists are today.

But back to backgammon: Since Fencer agreed to fix this (when I wonder?) I think we'd have to all agree it's a bug, right?

grenv: right, as English and backgammon prove, and maybe the past dramas with FIDE and Kasparov also, that a governing body can do more harm than good. Shakespeare used grammar that is unusual or even just plain wrong today, yet he's the immortal bard. Nice paradox. Grammar is ridiculous anyway; it's simply a retroactive way to try and explain what a society knows intuitively.

redsales: My point about grammar was that there is no governing body in English (unlike some other languages), yet we still have rules that everyone accepts (using a period or full stop at the end of a setence for instance).

Split infinitives was never a problem and only came about because it's not allowed in Latin and some idiots thought that was a good reason not to allow it in english. However infinitives in Latin are a single word so that's stupid.

Where would Captain Kirk be without "To boldly go"?

this needs unification then. It would be a great pyramid scheme.

redsales: They're generally sponsored by local clubs, or are self-sustaining. There is a so-called American Backammon Tour, but it's just a series of locally-sponsored events.

http://www.chicagopoint.com/abtexp.html

alanback: so who runs those US-based gammon tourney sites I chanced upon online? The unabomber, I guess? He does have access 3 hours a day, I could see it.

There is no world governing body for Backgammon, just as there is none for poker. We're all anarchists at heart.

grenv:
I've never played a single game of backgammon outside of BK, either in real life or on another site, so the incorrectness of the playability on BK comes as a bit of a shock, bc I know nothing else to compare it to. But I'll take your word that BK is against the norm.

As an aside, English DOESN'T have official grammar in some cases, such as split infinitives, which were considered grammatically incorrect 150 years ago, but generally accepted today. Unclear usage is dealt with through a board of grammarians, who much like backgammon, are not the "official word" anyway. you can find more information on the process of debating new grammar at www.dictionary.com. What can you expect with such a bastardized language?

So there is no FIDE-like backgammon organization?

good point Vikings, I meant backgammon

Vikings: That should be a real feather in Fencer's cap.

When did Badminton get added here?

redsales: It's played by that rule everywhere. I don't know what you mean by not being official, by that logic you could argue English has no official grammar. All rules are arbitrary, why use only 2 dice instead of 3?

redsales: How come you don't know International Badminton Federation? LOL, I'm just messing with you.

grenv: huh! must play the larger one! well, that's a pretty arbitrary rule.

But all this is moot, since there is no governing body in badminton like there is in chess? The idea seems to be that through convention and habit, most people on the site seem to want to use both dice when possible, but it's not based on anything "official"?

redsales: I cut and paste the rule from that site in case people can't be bothered looking (which would usually be me):

"#4 A player must use both numbers of a roll if this is legally possible (or all four numbers of a double). When only one number can be played, the player must play that number. Or if either number can be played but not both, the player must play the larger one. When neither number can be used, the player loses his turn. In the case of doubles, when all four numbers cannot be played, the player must play as many numbers as he can."