playBunny: Nice try, but you know what an outlier is. I would use this as a filter for tournaments or waiting games for example.

grenv: Nice try, but you know what an outlier is

Nice try? What's being tried? Oh, you mean trying to get you to expand on your use of the word? Yeah, I do that when I'm not sure exactly what someone means. It doesn't tend to work when that someone assumes that I should know what they mean and must therefore be asking for nefarious reasons.

And if that's the attitude then ... yeah, whatever you say. You're right. Great idea, grenv, perfect choice of metric, it should work wonderfully. No more exploration is necessary.

grenv: You said "the fact he has 200 games now is vitally important. In this case he will be twice as slow because he has twice as many games". I respectfully suggest that you are making a huge assumption that isn't necessarily correct. It may mean the player knows they have some time off so want some more games, or the 100 games weren't nearly enough to keep them busy. It also doesn't take into account the type of game being played. 100 new chess games is completely different than 100 new Ludo games. The player may be one who moves once a day in each game no matter what. Just because their game load doubled does not mean he will be twice as slow. There are too many variables involved to make that jump.

Oh and playBunny I had to look up outlier myself.
Outlier- a statistical observation that is markedly different in value from the others of the sample

UzzyLady: I apoligize - I thought playbunny was making a joke... outlier is a fairly common word. And as you showed the internet makes all words knowable in a few seconds anyway - why wait for me to respond?

I am making an assumption - it isn't a perfect system. It is, however, better than the one in place now - which is nothing. Come up with a better formula and I'll back it up.

grenv: I like the idea of coming up with a formula to rate how quickly players move for several reasons. It helps solve the problem of ending up in tourneys with those people who abuse the system. It also gets us away from trying to come up with a way to limit these abusers that doesn't punish the rest of us. I'm not disagreeing with what you are trying to do, just with one of your presumptions.

The only concern I have every time this conversation comes up is the desire to make a set of rules to deal with a small few abusers. I see this in many situations. You can never set the rules perfectly enough to weed them out without injuring innocent bystanders. The best you can do is inform yourself of who the abusers are and how to identify them. That is what you are suggesting, and that's why I think it's a good idea. But like anything else, set the standards too high and you pull in the innocents, set it too low and a few abusers get by. It's a delicate balance. That's why these discussions are helpful.

(BTW- I apologize if I'm rambling, I'm studying for finals and have been immersed in theology for hours and half my brain is still there.)

No offense to everybody, but this will never happen. Fencer does what he wants and he'd never take the time to study the math to do all that's involved here. I'm not speaking for him, of course, I've just been here long enough to know how he operates.

A better strategy would be to ask Fencer to give us access to player statistics (but no personal information) and then someone could program up any stats we want. You could have any or all of the ideas mentioned below. Since all the info relating to past moves and current games and such is already public (except for private games), Fencer would not be giving anyone access to information that isn't already available, so it shouldn't be a problem.

That's my $.02.

Thad: You are correct. Fencer will implement what he wants to implement. Two years ago I gave up my paid membership and promised to renew it when there was a decent autopass facility. Despite a lot of great suggestions (at the time) as to how this should be done, there has been absolutely no action And I have saved 2 years subscription!!

pgt: Absolutely no action? How do you explain that we do use autopass in our game then? Without any action taken by Fencer?

Pedro Martínez: ah, but no way to handle with the cube. A player should be able to choose in the game to sutopass in the current situation despite having the ability to double.
Unfortunately this oversight means autopass isn't working 90% of the time when it should.

grenv: Exactly!

grenv: And not only that, autopass only works if your opponent doesn't insist you mindlessly push buttons.

pgt: I would just like to know how was it possible for me to make 10 consecutive moves in this game, when ABSOLUTELY NO ACTION has been taken in terms of autopass in the last two years.

Pedro Martínez: It was implemented incompletely. Since then no action has been taken to make it work properly.

Pedro Martínez: It was because that was the Crawford round, when no doubling was allowed!

Pedro Martínez: If it had NOT been the Crawford round, it would have been (theoretically) possible for me to double on any move, and we would have had to play out the moves, tediously, one by one, over perhaps 10 days. Get it?

pgt: OK, it must be my bad memory. I thought there had been no autpass on BK two years ago at all and I would have had to wait for you to make your moves even in case of a Crawford Round. My bad. Sorry.

Pedro Martínez: OK, it must be my bad memory. ... My bad. Sorry.

Lol. Such humility when you think you are correct.

You are, but here's a way to interpret pgt's words that makes him right too.

pgt: Two years ago I gave up my paid membership and promised to renew it when there was a decent autopass facility. Despite a lot of great suggestions (at the time) as to how this should be done, there has been absolutely no action

It hinges on how strictly you want to interpret "decent". I take it that Phil's view is that we've seen action towards a half-assed implementation but that doesn't go any way towards decent.

My own view is that an autopass that's disabled because of the ignorance or whim of one of players isn't autopass in any sense of the word but I have enjoyed being able to play several moves in a row when my opponent (a fan of autopass) was on the bar and I had the cube.

However, what I'm more concerned about - and mystified by - is the complete lack of autopass in Ludo, the game that would most benefit from it!

playBunny: What I am MORE mystified by is why anybody would want to play ludo in the first place :-) (It's such a shame - since I gave up my paid membership I can't add smilies, and I can't edit my posts, so if I make a spelling mistake it stays for all thyme)

pgt: Ludo's fun. You might not think there's any skill in it but it's there and it's a challenge to tease it out.

playBunny: Skill only plays a role if you have at least two men out. Most of the time, you just have zero or one men out - in all these cases, the play is forced, requiring no decision of the player. Until BK offers a full autoplay, I won't be playing Ludo.

AbigailII: Yep, autoplay of forced moves would speed the play up a lot. I use it when I play real-time Ludo as I can see the pieces move but I might not use it in turn-based play because the game would be too disjoint. Witnessing the chase is part of the fun for me even if the decision making is absent but I imagine that plenty of people wouldn't miss that. Certainly hexkid's Ludo Auto-player for BrainKing was popular when it was available.

is anybody talking about backgammon in here?

playBunny: Well, I imagine a programmer could implement autoplay in such away that if players A and B are playing, both have one man out, and A likes to mindlessly push buttons while B is a real player, one each turn, A pushes a button, B move is played automatically, and it's A's turn again. Repeat until B has two men out.

Of course, in the case of Ludo, it may be that the computer plays an entire tournament, never encountering a play where a player actually has a choice.

AbigailII: Well, I imagine a programmer could implement autoplay in such away that if players A and B are playing, both have one man out, and A likes to mindlessly push buttons while B is a real player, one each turn, A pushes a button, B move is played automatically, and it's A's turn again. Repeat until B has two men out.

That would be pointless. There are unlikely to be enough player A's to make it worth the effort enabling play for mindless moves and some of the player B's, being real players, would want to make their own moves and wouldn't care for automation.

Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your judgementalism?

For those that want to thoughtfully make the moves that are forced, the thinking being in terms of the game not the move, something which you don't seem to appreciate, it is of course the case that autoplay options would be per player. That's exactly how I implemented autoplay in my own version of Ludo.

Of course, in the case of Ludo, it may be that the computer plays an entire tournament, never encountering a play where a player actually has a choice.

It would be rare for a single game to be completely forced but it's certainly possible. An entirely forced tournament, lol, that would be something!

playBunny: I would agree. I would not like Auto Move in Ludo. I could see it if I found playing games to be "work", but like you, I enjoy the process.

Also, I find it to be pretty rare that I only have one man on the field for much of the game. Of course it happens, but I find that through much (most?) of the game I have multiple men on the board.

I also would not like auto pass in Ludo, because of the same reason you gave, the board would potentially look MUCH different from the last time I saw it. I don't mind auto pass in backgammon, because I think it is pretty rare that as many moves would be passed, as could happen in Ludo.

Hmm.. this isn't the Ludo discussion board is it?

rod03801: The solution is simple... add a button to the move page "Pass and autopass until I can move"

That way the player has a choice in the game. This could be used in cube backgammon games when a double is possible... i should be able to essentially say "I'm not doubling so please start autopass now"

grenv: The solution is actually simpler than that. In a way, a game that encounters an auto-pass move would live in two states. The two states would be the last states viewed by each player. One of these would be the current state of the game. The other would be an old state that the other player simply hasn't viewed yet. Also, add a 'skip ahead to the current state of the game' for players who don't want to scroll thru every auto-passed move. That solves the problem of players who like to view all their moves vs. players who do not. It would be better, in fact, because I could look at one or two forced moves, then skip to the end. ;-)

Thad: Workable solution, but I'd hardly call it simpler. Hands up who had to read that twice to fully understand it ;)

Thad: No such button is needed. Currently you have the option to have the move list displayed next to the game. Every move is clickable. It's already possible to view a game move by move (ply by ply even).

Being a very experienced player of Fevga i took a moment to see a game.
It is the Rabbitoid - Alexlee.

I noticed some very very serious mistakes there. And i guess this happens for most Fevga games here. I guess this is definitely logical since it's a new game on Brainking and most players are inexperienced to Fevga.

Anyway i tried to analyze it a bit:
________________________________________________________________
1.pass 13-15, 15-20

2. 1-6, 6-8
2...20-24 In Greece our rules say that we are allowed to use the smaller roll of the dice only if we want too and only in the early opening phase(where you have to place a checker in the opponent's board) only, e.g we can play 20-21. I guess Brainking system implements Backgammon rules so you can only play the "4" of the roll and not only the "1".
BTW the notation of the board sucks big time. How can you call this 20-24 move while the Brainking's game's board says different things?

3. 8-9, 9-14 24-4, 13-16

4. 1-5, 1-3? A beginner's mistake. Fear about covering his board, but wrongly. How black can threat it? The nearest checkers is far away and even if it had 2-3 in close range again it will be wrong play. The correct play is to cover the !very! important 5 point of the opponent's board(the 18 point in the notation) and play 14-18! 1-3.
People don't realize how important is the 5 point in your opponent's home. The 18-point in the notation of Brainking.
It's probably the strongest point of the game generally. Another very strong point is the next one to the 18, the 19.
If you control these opponent struggles in most cases. So a player must try to control his 5 and 6 point before his opponent goes there.
And the other thing is that even good players at Fevga overestimate their home board and try to close it and make 5 -primes there(you are not allowed to make a full 6 prime there). We don't need this. This is wrong! Generally. We only need 3-4 blots there and it's OK. What we need is to advance. In the opening don't try to put as many checkers on your home board, but advance! Run your checkers to opponent's home and to the final home of yours.

Boards or areas are categorized into 4 areas of 6 points. 1-6 our home board, 7-12 the "prevention" board, 13-18 opponent's home, and 19-24 destination home.
The most important boards generally(with millions of exceptions unfortunately) are prevention board and opponent's board as also the first or second point(19 or 20) of destination board. But it depends on the opponent's distribution of checkers of course and his and our rolls.
But as a general rule: in the opening don't try to create too hard your home board but advance.

4...13-19, 13-17 Now this is debatable if it's the correct play. The other stronger alternative is 16-2 to press opponent's board while our board is perfectly safe(only 66 can threat it seriously). The played move, 13-9 13-17, covers the 6 point of black so it's a strong move. As i've mentioned previously the 19 point is very strong. In this case it's tough to say if with a 5 white would like to take it, but i think the answer is NO but it's not so easy to be sure.
Anyway to return to 16-2 or 13-9,13-17 debate perhaps both plays are equally good and they just represent different strategies.

5. 1-7, 1-5 ?? And this is a serious blunder. Very serious for 2 reasons: It doesn't cover the glorious 5 point of black(the 18 point). It allows black to create a !very! strong 4-prime if he gets a 5 next turn. And that kind of 4- prime for those who know the game is one of the strongest possible. So the strongest move is by far 1-7,14-18.

5...13-19, 13-19, 13-19, 13-19?? Very bad move. Does not understand the concept. Black !has! to bring another checker in opponent's home. Correct move by far is 13-19(2),16-22-4.
Now white even after his previous very bad moves, because of this time black lost with the big 66 and of course because of the wrong play, stands better.

6. 5-8, 1-2 Now this is very interesting position. The move played is very strong, to close everything in white's board. But it's not easy to say this. 14-18 i think would still be the best move here. The problem for black is he is behind on time so seemingly he can create a strong home and prevention board so black will get stuck behind it and eventually open first his primes.
But if you look closely the board, black is not so much behind on time and those 5 concentrated checkers on the 19- point give many plays. So if he gets his 5 home point and not get big doubles or 33, he is perfectly fine. Still worse(remember that the move played was very strong) but not by much. It's tough to decide between these 2 alternatives really.

6...19-22, 22-4 black gets a bit lucky here.

7. 1-6, 1-5? I just don't see why such unwillingness to play 14-18 here. Bad move again played here. White has to Just get the 5 point. It's his passage to the destination home.

7...13-17, 17-18

8. 5-8, 8-9

8...4-10, 13-18? Bad move. Black has to lose time and not bring another checker down from the "mana". He had to play 4-10, 19-24.

9. 7-12, 12-15?! Hmm giving the 7-point may be a bad decision. Black can take it and then white will not have an eays life with 6's and he will have to abandon another blot as he has no spare checkers. Also remember that black can safely take the 7-point and not be afraid of being primed at the home board of white, as white is not allowed to cover all 6 points of his board, so black can abandon the 4 point and to be like it has never did it(OK with 33 there is a difference but not crucial because of the 1/36). Also having a 2-3 distribution on opponent's home board does not put any real pressure on him. 1-6-9 is a better move.

9...13-19, 13-19, 13-19, 18-24 This is life. This is Backgammon, Fevga etc. Dice games generally. The opponent makes bad moves but he isn't punished for this. Actually he is in the long run, but in single games it's another story.
With these awful 66's white is now the clear favorite to win! Black is so much behind in time that he needs many small numbers(1,2) or white to get a 33 now.

10. 1-5, 5-7

10...13-19, 19-20!? Perhaps a dubious move, but maybe not. As i've said the blot on 4- point is almost useless as a blocking one(almost means 35/36 because a 33 is another story) and even if it wasn't there white isn't allowed to prime his home board. So black had to put pressure on white by bringing another probably permanent checker on his destination area by 4-10-11.

But maybe the move played is not bad after all, because of 2 reasons. First the 19-20 move is a very stong one and restricts heavily white's movement. And secondly if you observe white's board you will see no spare checkers so no flexibility at all. He has to leave blots to create new ones. With that in mind the original play may be the best after all.


11. 15-21, 1-3 A very important move is the 15-21. It gives a standing point where white can play. But it's nevertheless not so important now as white is the clear favorite anyway because of that awful 66 of black and because black was unwilling too to advance in the opening stages of game, his checkers to white's home.

11...19-22, 13-15

12. 1-5, 5-9, 9-13, 1-5?? A good roll that turns into an unfortunate roll because of a very bad play. Now soon enough after i declared white as the clear favorite, black enters dynamically into the game again and has some good hopes. A bad played 44 also. White should !!!!by all means!!!! have covered the 11 point as now with a 61 black takes it and also with a single 1 black should take it too to put more pressure to white. Also white should have left the spare checker on the 9 point and not play 9-13 as it is better to wait for a 5 and put that checker in the 14 point.
Correct play is 1-5-9, 3-7-11

12...19-24, 19-24, 18-23, 23-4 Oh God . 55's! This happens the worst time again. It's not a complete disaster for black as now although black is well behind in time and maybe get stuck and lose easily, he may also not get stuck and being so much ahead on pips will make him the favorite.
Probability is to get stuck, so he is the favorite to lose, but we will see.


13. 14-18, 21-23! Excellent move! Both moves make perfect sense.

13...24-4, 19-22

14. 18-21, 5-7?! This is a dubious move because of 5-7?. 18-21! was an excellent move as now the 18-point is much weaker than every point in the very important destination board. So white is correct to take every destination board that he is given. But 5-7? is bad as a 33 will mean a disaster for white. Instead of 5-7? a 1-3 would be more strong.
Remember Fevga(as like Backgammon and Plakoto and all Backgammon type games) are not about "Oh get real, is it possible to have a 33 now? That would be too unfortunate." Backgammon is about equity. And equity here must say that we HAVE to take into consideration and the 1/36 possibility of 33 so equity for 1-3 is bigger than that of 5-7.

But let's see it from another perspective. White is so much behind on pips. And if black manages to take the 11- point this will have a double super effect. White will suffer to take his checkers out quickly and effectivelly too, but also black will have deep board supporters for getting his checkers for bearing off. This is crucial and white should not let it happen. So perhaps instead of the move played, playing 6-11 is the best move. Black has not enough time and the checkers remained behind will have to move soon enough so white will get his checkers inside the destination.
One clear weakness 6-11 move creates is the obvious hole in the 6-point. But is it really so important? White will be able to bring his checkers out of home very easily. But the dagger in black's board the important 11-point will make black to stuck behind and waste many many rolls as he will not be able to enter his home board effectively as white would have 4 blots there. So eventually white will be able to enter easily(because of black not having enough time so he would move his checkers from white's destination area) to his destination area. It's a kind of duplication also as black needs 6 for playing on the 4-point and 6 also for playing into the 6-point.
And in stuck situations where one has stuck outside his board, the side that has stuck is losing badly.

So after all i think 6-11! was a truly great move and could have been played also. But playing 18-21,1-3! was very very strong too.



14...4-10, 10-11 Now white is in trouble. Had he covered that 11 point as i've said in a previous move this would not happen. By in trouble of course i mean that he has lost several points of equity but he is again the favorite to win but in a less extent than before.


15. 13-18, 1-5 19-22, 16-19, 19-22, 19-22

16. 5-8, 8-13 I'm not sure this is correct but it's highly technical and i'm lazy right now to count possibilities and cases. However it seems better to bring a checker from the "mana(1-point) by 1-5 for flexibility issues.

16...17-20, 15-17?! Dubious i guess. Again it's technical and i'm lazy to analyze it right now but 22-24 seems a move that had to be played. 2's are not easy to find so a spare checker there for a freeing 4 was better.


17. 3-6, 6-9, 9-12, 12-15

17...20-24, 24-4, 20-24, 24-4 And ta-daa, had black had another checker on 24-point and now black would not had to leave the 20-point. Not that it is too crucial right now but anyway.


18. 7-9, 13-14 4-10, 24-4

19. 14-16, 1-2

19...17-22, 10-12 Now the troubles of white by not covering that 11-point are seen clearly. Of course white still has the advantage but why to decrease your advantage, even by a bit?


20. 9-14, 18-20 19-24
21. 2-6, 14-18, 15-19, 16-20 11-12
22. 6-11, 18-21 pass

23. 1-3, 3-6?! I don't get this.Why to make life easier for black? Just sit there with 20-23,21-23 and wait. Anyway white is the big favorite to win either way. But now a 33 for black can make a difference. Why to allow that i don't understand.
Problem for white here is that black has plenty of 2's to play so he would not get that 16-point also. It will be a good battle but still white is the favorite.

23...22-4

24. 2-5,6-7?? 2-5 ????
Why to play 2-5? This is a serious blunder. Makes life of black much easier as it has many landing points and now black gets into the game very dynamically although white is still the favorite to win, but white lost even more equity.
6-9, 20-21 has to be the best play i guess.

Constellation36: Very interesting! Thanks for that.

I am terrible at Fegva, but I enjoy it. LOL.

rod03801: I've seen one of your games and indeed, you played terribly. :-)

One notice about Fevga in Brainking. It would be a good idea to allow doubles in the opening roll of a player(i saw many games and never saw a double in the beginning) as this is how it's played in Greece. It makes the game more "unfair" but not by much and anyway i don't think it matters also.

Constellation36: Nice analysis. Would you mind if I post it to BrainRook.com site?

Fencer: No problem.

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)

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

Oh my goodness!!!!!!!! That is the definition of "bad luck".

By calculating only your rolls(as calculating opponents rolls is a bit more tiresome and i'm lazy) the probability NOT to enter opponents board is:
0.047% or 1 out of 2115.

So the probability to enter opponents home(so you will be free to play later) is 99.95% or 2114 out of 2115.

And notice that the above do not take into account opponent's rolls, a thing that would actually increase your probabilities to enter.

So it's like you had a bag with 2114 white balls and only 1 red ball and you have chosen the red ball!
And note again that i have not taken into consideration the opponent's rolls that i guess would increase this probability to enter by a factor of 10(21139 out of 21140).

So many years i'm playing this game only once i have faced this situation and i was in the bright side, which means i forced my opponent not to be able to play at all.
And now i see it again.

Also notice what i've said a few lines before in this topic. In Greece we allow doubles in the starting roll for Fevga in contrast with what Brainking does. So there are 5 more cases(22,33,44,55,66) where one can advance high enough to enter opponents home or anyway to take the 12-point which is the key to avoid such position as then he will always have the change to so this can't happen.
So once again i will repeat that it is better if doubles will be allowed in the starting roll.

Of course what happened to you is extremely rare(writing a Monte Carlo based program to play millions of random rolls would easily show how exactly are the odds) and by allowing starting roll doubles becomes even more rare.

Is it possible to add Plakoto and Fevga to the triple gammon tournament?

Luminaire: These games are played without cube so I think it isnt be possible to play it as triple gammon.

lukulus: And i wonder why these 2 games are played without cube?? I see no reason.
I guess it would be easy to implement in these games the doubling cube also.

lukulus: These games are played without cube so I think it isnt be possible to play it as triple gammon.

Currently, all triple gammon games are played without the cube. So the fact there doesn't exist cube variants for Plakoto and Fevga shouldn't imply there can't be triple gammon tournaments for them.

AbigailII/Constellation36: I think there is link. Game with cube is played as tripple variant. These games dont know gammons and backgammons so there is no reason to use cube. tripple variants has developed from cube game and earning points is connected to gammon and backgammon. And if this games dont know g&b so there is no reason to play them as tripplegammon.

lukulus:
These games (Plakoto & Fevga ) do know gammons and backgammons actually. In Greece at Plakoto for example,if the mother checker is pinned, this is a gammon. Gammons are achieved when the opponent has no chance to collect any checkers. In Fevga we also count a gammon.We just don't use backgammons. You cannot earn 3 points in one game. But 2 points is acceptable

Whom do you think I should send a message to about adding them?

Luminaire: I think Fencer is the one.He is the site's owner and it is his call

nikos:
thanks I will do that

nikos: >>These games (Plakoto & Fevga ) do know gammons and backgammons actually.
There are no Backgammons in Fevga and Plakoto. Only gammons.
Definitions are the same. In both Plakoto and Fevga if and only if you haven't borne off any checkers and the opponent wins the game, then the opponent wins a gammon, that is twice the value of the game, (that is 2 points in Greece as we don't usually use doubling cube).


>> In Greece at Plakoto for example,if the mother checker is pinned, this is a gammon.
As i'm trying to show wherever i play Plakoto, this is wrong and should not be used.
In the vast majority of cases it is true but there are some where it isn't.
I have shown why before some time with the example i gave below(or above depending on the board setup you have).

Constellation36: These games (Plakoto & Fevga ) do know gammons and backgammons actually
You are correct about the backgammon.They don't know backgammon,but the DO know gammons.

As for the second about motherpins,I have only seen it once.If you play "correct"then there is no way you will win just 1 point for the motherpin checker. This happens one in a million or even one in a billion. I myself never won a just 1 point when capturing the motherpin...

In this game in the 10th move of black see what happens. The checker of white disappears!
And from the on white plays with 14 checkers!

Hmm this is not rare. See the 4th move of white in this game also.

It seems it is just a display bug as players seemingly can't "hit" the blot and as one can see later in the game(6th move) when the white checker leaves that point the black checker is revealed again.

Constellation36:I don't think I've ever seen this phenomenon, so it must be rare, albeit not unprecedented :-)