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.

Andersp: "no ..not coming..waste of time..i prefer to play games"

Except that you did.

Andersp: Your inability to understand and your clumsy lies .... this is not the place to discuss them.

See you in the Flame Pit.

..... Are you coming?

redsales: "So-called" is right, lol. I doubt if you'll find it anywhere else. A name was needed when it was being discussed and that was the shortest phrase that said it all. ;-)

alanback: That's a pretty radical change. It sounds more like a different formula than a bug fix! I can see how you expect a large difference in your rating when it's applied to the BKR history.

Though it's an improvement, I'd still like the ELO Backgammon formula to be used (like at Vog, Fibs and elsewhere) as it knows about the luck of the dice.
Your 2700 would reduce to 2200 or under with such a formula because of the diminishing returns that you mentioned.

It's even more pessimistic in its judgement as it predicts 30% loss of single-point matches between a top flight (2200) and an average player (1600). That's a big luck factor and it's entirely missing from the chess formula.

And I agree about the differential being too punishing. In our game I stand to gain 10 and lose only 5 and you vice versa. The proper formula would award us nearly equal shares of the match value.

alanback: That's interesting. What difference have you noticed? And why should you drop so much? - you're way ahead of the field!

frolind: What? Just 'cos I'm being noisy today? or is it the way I'm so adamant? ;-)

alanback: I guess I can sound acrimonious. Hang on, I'll just look that up so I know what I'm saying .... a sharp and bitter manner + marked by strong resentment or cynicism. Ouch! That bad, eh? Hmmm. I do put make my points firmly and I can certainly put sharp knives in with my words when I don't like someone or their behaviour. A touch of the Victorian schoolmaster, perhaps. Lol. How do I tone that down?.... [goes away pondering]

AbigailII: I've asked Anders to provide proof in the rules of his players-can-use-a-single-dice idea. I would, however bow humbly before any other compelling evidence. Somehow I don't think I'll have to.

I did expect you to throw back my challenge to Anders but it is an empty gesture. The maximise-dice-usage rule, which you agree is easy conceived, isn't in the written rules explicitly. I've provided logic that you so steadfastly refuse to acknowledge and attempt to refute. That's my evidence. Why do you not address it? Is it because you can't? Is it undeniable that the bug implies the rule?

As for your request that I show you where it states the MDU requirement in the written rules ... We've had that debate already, and you gave up. I do enjoy debating with you but it's puzzling that you don't deal directly with the points I make. You didn't provide any compelling logic then. But here's your chance now....

See also:
http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369309

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369575

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369642

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369667

http://brainking.com/en/Board?bc=26&bscx=369758

alanback:

Just to add - relaxation is only one of the benefits that's available from the game. As you say, different strokes ... ;-)

I also enjoy the tempest game, I mean the debating game.

AbigailII: Since when does a rule have to be written for it to be a rule? Some rule are conceptual ones, perfectly capable of being held in your head without requiring you to see them in print or on a web page. It would be better, as BBW says, if Fencer made the rule visible, but it is available through logic.

So. Please refute that logic relating the existence of the bug to the existence of the rule - if you can.

WhiteTower: Lol. Well said, and thank you. I laughed when I read alanback's message because in the greater scheme of Life and the Universe it is trivial stuff and I found it funny that the player ranked #1 finds it a "silly little game" - but, hey, why not?!

Yet your point is very true, and more relevant than his long-term with-hindsight perspective. My relaxation and enjoyment did evaporate with this situation and is a minor part of why I've got fewer games going. But then, this isn't a silly little game to me, it's a big part of my current way of life. And fairness is one of my key values.

alanback: I'm sure I'll fully agree with you once I look back on this time from a me that has lost my current degree of involvement in the game. As for changing the world? If I can't even further the cause of sportsmanship and justice in a tiny wee corner of the Backgammon world, what chance have I with the bigger issues out there?

AbigailII: Telling me that we agree on something doesn't make it true. Sorry to be so dense but could you repeat your point in a simple undeniable logical sequence? Oh, and tell me where the flaw in my own logic is, if you'd be so kind.

WhiteTower: In this particular instance it was 50-50 before the move. The illegal move protected against leaving a blot. Had Tiikeri done the best legal move, my next roll would have been a hit giving me winning chances of 2/3. By protecting herself with the illegal move Tiikeri's own chances were 2/3.

That's a reason to think that a resignation would have been appropriate, but it was a very volatile game - her man on the bar would have been entering a 5-point board with a blot which, if hit, would have swung the game back the other way again - so a draw would also have been acceptable.

But, as I said to Walter, the point is not the game itself but the sporting attitude or otherwise that's shown.

AbigailII, BBW: My point is the one in the post to Walter. That's the one to answer, if you wish.

Walter: I don't agree that the flaw is in the name of the game.

BrainKing Backgammon is standard 1-point Backgammon.
Here's the logic behind that statement.

1] If the ability to make the move in question were part of BrainKing Backgammon then it would be a feature of the game.
True or false.

2] If the move was a feature then the server wouldn't need to protect against it.
True or false.

3] The fact that the server doesn't protect against it has been acknowledged as a bug.
This is undeniable.

4] As the ability to make this move is an artefact of a bug then it's not a feature.
True or false.

5] If it's not a feature and it's due to a bug, then the move is illegal.
True or false.

6] If the move is illegal then BK Backgammon is standard 1-point Backgammon, but with a flaw in the implementation.
True or false.

7] If BK Backgammon is standard 1-point Backgammon then making the illegal move that the server fails to prevent is against the rules.
True or false.

For me it's True all the way down and I don't know how you can see it any other way; perhaps you can show me what's wrong or missing.

Andersp: How wrong can you be? On the scale of 0..100 you're at 100.

"Tiikeri is absolutely no cheater"
That's your opinion. Mine is the opposite except that I don't go for dramatic language like "absolutely". In my opinion she is a cheat - she openly admitted that she knowingly made an illegal move, thought that "everyone would do it" and said that it was unfair but so what. Those points spell cheat and unsporting in my book.

she is playing within the rules
No, she is not. She made an illegal move which is against the Brainking rules. Please, feel free to show me the bit where it says you can use just a single dice if it suits you. Show me your proof. And see my post to Walter for the logic of my own assertion.

but to ask her for a draw
I didn't ask her for a draw. I didn't ask her to resign. I told her that the situation was a critical point in our playing relationship and left it for her to decide what to do. Although she lacked my verbosity, we exchanged messages for over a week. During that time I did spell out a whole range of options, including draw, resign, do nothing, tell me to get stuffed... but I did not ask her to do any one of them specifically. I told her that the playing relationship was at stake here and that my action depended on what attitude she showed. She said that she wanted to continue playing with me but her lack of positive action contradicted her words, and I let her and the games go.

and sit
Lol. Anders, you missed a wonderful chance to accuse me of standing - on a soapbox!

and complain about her wins
I'm doing no such thing. Her wins against me in prior matches were an indication of how she should feel no need to cheat in order to beat me - she was doing very well with good play and luck. Her "wins" in the "cheat" match and another match that I suspended at the same time weren't wins at all. I let those games time out and, as I said, the losses are trivial compared to the loss of an opponent who, if she had chosen to be sporting about the sitution that her choice of move created, could still be beating me today.

... complain on a discussionboard is to be a VERY BAD LOSER
Yes. I am a bad loser. I've lost respect for a player and I've lost an opponent and I don't like it one bit. I'm angry and disappointed that she preferred to take the games and lose the partnership.

But although I'm saying "Yes" there, I don't think that's the meaning you were implying. I can point you to many players, mostly at Vog but here as well, where my opponent has been surprised by how magnanimous I can be in defeat. Many a lost match has found my opponent congratulated for playing well, with smiles and thank yous, and declarations of how good a fight it was or what an interesting game it was.

No, Anders, I am VERY GOOD LOSER. In fact I feel at times that I am a poor winner because if I beat someone too often I start to think that they won't be enjoying playing me so much. That takes a significant edge off my own enjoyment, and can sometimes affect my judgement too.

That's not typical behaviour for a competitive player, many of whom are silent or even leave the table abruptly (Vog is a realtime site), but it is typical for one who values sportsmanship and relationship.

Your score: 0 / 100.

But thank you for the opportunity to express my values.

pgt: Yes, Walter's posts are always worth reading, even if I may not agree. :-)

It surprised me greatly when I did a search of this board and found that you had pointed this bug out in 2003! It's not a trivial piece of code to add to the Backgammon server, but neither is it so daunting that it should take years. If the problem occurred once in a blue moon then I would not be concerned but this bug has shown itself in 5 of my 260 games (at the last occurence) - 2 in Backgammon and 3 in Hypergammon - which, at 2%, is too frequent for comfort.

I share your diappointmebnt that Fencer regards this matter as unimportant.

Walter: Lol. Thank you for that point re. Pedro. And I agree with your sentiments in that paragraph.

The first person to use this tactic against me was Wayney. That matter was solved by him being booted from BrainKing for the more serious rating-fix cheating and since him I've been alerted to the possibility of similar. I do play people hoping that they share my attitude but I don't expect it. I'll challenge anyone who makes an illegal move and I'll respond according to the attitude that is shown at that point. Inadvertent bad moves are acceptable - (even from someone who knows the rule, like BBW, because he is a wolf with a lot of bunnies t-, er, games to chew on, and may sometimes swallow a bone whole without realising that he should have crunched it first) - provided that the situation can be resolved with respect and sportingness. In practice that means a draw or a resignation, or a very persuasive reason to continue the game as is. It's how the ploayer responds to the situation that shows their mettle. The move and the game are simply the context in which this gets explored.

BBW You're allowed a "My personal feeling:" but I'm not? I'm having no debate, just declaring someone a cheat. End of topic on my side (well, maybe, lol. It depends what anyone else says).

Pedro Martínez: So sue me Pedro. AGAIN. When was the first time, by the way? ;-p And why are YOU telling me or anyone; are you the UA guidelines wathcher? And how come you're assuming that permission hasn't be granted? And if someone is a cheat should they have the same rights as others? And what's it to you anyway? You may answer any or all of these questions but I'm not particularly interested - except, in the interest of accuracy, that bold question.

BIG BAD WOLF: My position on it, apart from it being against the understood Backgammon rules, is that it occurs because of a bug and is therefore an illegal move in BrainKing terms - otherwise it wouldn't be a bug.

Inadvertantly making an illegal move is one thing, but I say that a person who makes such a move deliberately is a cheat. Furthermore, if challenged, they should either draw or resign the game.

The example shown by Marfitalu shows a game between myself and Tiikeri. She's a very good player, in the Top 10, and ahead of me in our matches together, yet she chose to make the illegal move so that she could stay out of trouble.

When I pointed it out to her she said "If the computer let me to do that, I think it's OK. I know that this move was illegal, but everybody else does that, so would I. Sometimes that isn't so fair :)"

In fact not everyone does that and a number of top players have stated that they will not take advantage of the bug, giving priority to good sportsmanship rather than a cheap win.

She and I had an exchange of messages about it over the next week and the outcome was that she preferred to stick with her illegal move. She wasn't sporting enough to suggest a draw, let alone resign as a gesture of goodwill.

It was more important to her that she win that game than that she try and mend the break in our playing relationship, ever though she claimed to enjoy playing me and wanted us to continue. What she wanted was for me to accept her cheating and pretend that it was okay. In the end I let my games with her timeout and I will not play her again unless forced to in a tournament.

I don't miss the points lost which I will forget and make up for in due course, but I do miss the opponent whose attitude I no longer respect. That will not be forgotten so readily.

WhiteTower: Sort of and more. One of the Crazy Narde rules is that when a man enters the home table it is stuck on the point on which it lands (so placing the men there must be done carefully) and, because of that, bearing off requires the exact number. As a result of this you can be trailing by 120 pips with your opponent down to just a few men and catch up and beat them. Because you get every dice number that the opponent can't use, that 120 pips goes down very quickly. Your opponent can get left standing despite having had what in normal bg would be an undeniably winning position. For the opponent a lot of hard work and luck can go down the toilet in the bearoff phase. Very Grrrr! ;-)

Walter: It can be played for free at VogClub where it's called Narde (Fuega). It's definitely a different way of thinking.

There's another version called Crazy Narde (Gul Bara) in which a double gives you not only the 4 dice values but also every double higher. Rolling a 1-1 can thus give you 84 pips to play with, lol. But in practice you can't use them all and what you don't use your opponent gets. Crazy indeed.

WhiteTower; Thanks. Link fixed.

rod03801: WhiteTower can't see the graph because he's a Pawn.

WhiteTower: It's a graph showing George's plummet in the backgammon ratings. From 2556 to 1869 and dropping in just a few days. 'E's been an' gorn an' legged it.

Dramatic!

I'm concerned. I hope he's doing better than his games. :-(

WhiteTower: It doesn't sound like a whine to me. Slow players in fast tournaments are being inconsiderate. I'm compiling a list of such players. If I ever get to be director of speed tournaments, I will be excluding them.

Walter Montego: Lol. I think the Dice Guy might do well to take out a franchise on these dice. If he's wily he might even repackage them and flog them at other sites. ;-) Although I think there are players at every site who believe that these dice must already be available - to their opponents.

re: Rating formula ... Here, here!

WhiteTower: Ahah. It was that invisble word that has become clear. "Has the exact calculation of dice in backgammon games here been ever discussed?" So now I know that you don't want to know about GnuBg's dice generation choices, for instance. ;-)

Here? All I know is that I've reached #2 in the ratings because I bought the special $150 BrainKing "Roll-'em-as-you-want-'em" Dice! Lolol.

[For those, ie. not you WT ;-), who don't understand my sense of humour - This is a joke. It's funny and false, it's not serious or true. There are no "special $150 dice" as far as I know and nor would I use them and blah , blah ... Jeez, the lengths you have to take to avoid some people misunderstanding... As if they're only $150!!]

WhiteTower: Care to be more specific?

Vikings: Care to be more specific?

Lol

FNA: One on the bar is the same as one in your opponent's home table - its a loss by backgammon.

(By "behind the board" I assume you mean in your opponent's home table)

ArtfulDodger: Just for the record, the opponent did the sporting thing. I watched the match and Marfitalu .. 5-1 .. definitely got the last word. ;-)

WhiteTower: Maybe, just maybe, his "Pro Backgammon" initiative will include a backgammon ratings formula. :-) I wouldn't bet on it though. :-(

alanback: "Maybe if I were a better player I would care more "

You're ranked 4th of all the players with a decent number of games under their belt. You're not good enough yet? What hope the rest of us!! ;-))

WhiteTower: I like the wins/losses ratio as well but I only use it in conjunction with ratings and in situations where it has strong validity. In the VogClub tournaments, for instance, where all players get a wide variety of opponents who cannot be chosen, the ratio is indicative of strength amongst players within a given ratings range. Against the robots (strong, medium and poor) you need to know which robot the player prefers. But Grenv makes a good point when considering other players; it's hard to tell what the ratio means unless you keep track of who plays who. My ratio is 36:12 overall but against Walter it's 6:6.

I should point out that Vog maintains separate ratings and rankings for the three different ways of playing backgammon. It could be interesting for BrainKing to have players ratings and tournament ratings plus a combined rating and corresponding win/lose ratios.

Pedro Martínez: It was a direct answer to your post to me:
You should have said you were speaking of probability of possible "existence" of a certain sequence, not actual rolling it.
Why were you mentioning it in your reply to Chessmaster1000?
But never mind. It hardly matters.

Grenv: Your blocking example is the same the hitting one. Make as long a sequence of blocks(hits) as you like. Then tack on something different.

alanback: "at least if the infinity in question is the infinity that measures the number of integers (referred to I believe as aleph-sub-naught)."
Maybe we have to use one of those other infinities. How many are there? ;-))

Everyone: Perhaps the most important result of all this is that in googling something mathematical I chanced upon a link to some good jokes which you may enjoy. :-DD

Pedro Martínez: I did, lol, 10 messages ago in Re: 100% vs 0%.

ChessM challenged my 5-5 example:
[playBunny: Both sides roll 5-5 ad infinitum]

1st)The probability that both sides will roll a 55 an infinite number of times is exactly zero!

2nd)Even if the game will continue with an infinite number of 55 (although this can never happen as i said), that game would be one single game and this doesn't help us in the question of how many Backgammon games exist? Finite or infinite?

This is correct when considering the production of the sequence but if you look at it from the viewpoint that you already have the infinite set of sequences then the sequence already exists, then you have a single infinitely long game.

Then, given that for each roll there are alternate sequences of rolls which will result in the same position (ie. one piece on the 5-point and one on the bar), there are an infinite number of games.

Wil and Abigail have already said much the same thing.

Pedro Martínez:
Q: What is the probability that you will roll 55s forever and nothing else?
A: 0

Q: What is the probability that the sequence "Endless 5-5s" exists in the infinite set of all dice roll sequences?
A: 1

It's a viewpoint kind of thang.

Pedro Martínez: I'm more considering the infinite set of dice rolls as a fait accompli that we can just dip into and grab something out of. As the set already exists and it contains every dice roll sequence, then the 5-5... must be in there. 100%

As you head towards infinity, generating the 5-5s as you go, the probability shrinks by 1/36 each time and certainly tends towards zero. But when you eventually reach infinity (I know, lol, I know) then Hey Presto! the probabilities for all sequences suddenly jump to 100%! Strange things them infinities.

But I'm looking at it from a logical point of view, not that of a mathematician. Strange things them mathematicians. ;-)

grenv: "One piece each wouldn't work, it [the 2 pieces each case] relied on players hitting each other's block."

I can imagine a 2 pieces each case with the two blocks at a given distance apart ( say 3 points) and 3-3 is endlessly rolled. This will give a single infinite game, so maybe I haven't found the one you were thinking of.

The 1 piece case that I'm envisaging is similar to the 5-5 case mentioned below except that the 14 pieces on each ace point have been born off first. Then it's a question of combinations of rolls that ensure that a piece keeps getting hit.

Pedro Martínez: Yes, yes. Next?

Pedro Martínez: Lol. So if that infinite set contains everything then what's the probablity of a given thing being contained in it?

Peeky: The weaker player loses more than the stronger player in the case of a loss and gains less with a win. Or two players can play two games and after each having won one game both their ratings will have increased.

Can I explain? No. But I can join you in a complain. It's a terrible formula that we have.

Pedro Martínez: "The probability of any specific roll or sequence of rolls is lower than 1, no matter if you consider the number of moves finite or infinite."

Are you sure about that? Does not the infinite set contain everything?

Pedro Martínez: Aye, and the "something" in question is the endless sequence of double fives.

Or did I miss something? I wasn't sure whether you were agreeing or challenging?

Perhaps by the probability of "something" = 1 you mean the probability of any of the sequences implying that the probability of a particular sequence is less than 1? As I understand it, that's true when considering the finite but not when considering the infinite.

grenv: "the simple case with 2 pieces each left." Lol, I think that's actually quite crafty.

But why complicate it? Let's use the case of only 1 piece each. ;-)

Chessmaster1000: Excuse my ignorance, I'm a logician more than a mathematician, but I would have thought that the probability of an endless sequence of 5-5s is exactly 1.

Consider every single possible infinitely long sequence of dice rolls.
Surely 5-5, 5-5, 5-5... is among them? If not, why not?

Chessmaster1000: All pieces on the ace point except for two men each. Black has the 15th piece on the Bar and White has the 15th piece on the 5-point. Both sides roll 5-5 ad infinitum.

By "all possible, different Backgammon games" do you mean the variants? In which case we need a list so that we're talking about the same thing. From VogClub I know a few variants:
Tapa, Narde (Feuga) and Crazy Narde (Gul Bara) are finite as there is no sending back to the bar.
Longammon, Nackgammon and Acey-Deucey are the same as Backgammon.
Hypergammon is, of course, ripe with infinity.

Chessmaster1000: I agree. By "Time we had some" I meant the world. ;-)
Rule 19 in Connect-4 8x8? lol. What's that one about?

WhiteTower: Reality? Where you bin? You've missed a whole huge debate about Fencer's law. ;-p

Chessmaster1000: It's about time we had some then. We desperately need to know whether Law 20 is the most important in spite of Law 13 overiding Law 17.

AbigailII: Okay. Let me answer your points as directly as I can:

[For the last time. But you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept that rules should be complete, and not refering to things that aren't defined.]

I fully accept that the rules should be complete. I fully accept that the rules should be correctly implemented. There should be no ambiguity and there should be no bugs. Similarly people should always be fair and the sun should always shine when we want it to. In other words it doesn't matter what should be, it matters what is. And I am only arguing about what is - the bug and the (English) rules as written. The grey area is in what these things mean and that's what this debate is about.

So:

1) [The rules of backgammon (as stated on THIS site, not rules of backgammon defined by some other identity)]

I am talking about the rules on THIS site and no other.

2) [.. nowhere state that if it is possible to move with both die, you have to do so. (This is your MDU rule).]

There IS an MDU rule - it's the one that the Fencer-acknowledged bug fails to enforce.

3) [Considering that you have to pass if there is no legal move available (no my words - read the rules), and you call this situation "impossible moves", it seems that what you call "impossible moves" is what the rules call "no legal moves".]

The rules say that the player "must pass" if they "cannot make a legal move". The use of the word "legal" in that sentence is irrelevant. It could simply say "cannot make a move" and it would still be correct. There would be no change to the meaning, either literally or by implication.

Here's a choice for you:

3a) There is a distinction between possible and legal. It's impossible to move past a prime. Legality doesn't come into it. It's impossible to come off the bar into a closed table. It's true that there are no legal moves but that's because there are no possible moves. The impossibility of a move precludes legality; you cannot judge the legality of a non-move.

Or let's say that you can't bring yourself to agree with 3a).

3b) All impossible moves are in the illegal moves category. It should be obvious that there are possible moves which are also illegal. Illegality would then be a concept that applies to all impossible moves and some possible moves. These last constitute two separate sets.

4) [Again, the rules do not define any MDU rule.]

Correct, the rules do not explicitly define an MDU rule. We have agreed on this several times now. ;-p

5) [Therefore, the "no swapping possible if there's no legal move for the second die" isn't referring to the MDU rule, because there is NO MDU rule.]

It's quite the opposite, I would suggest. This no 'Swap dice' link shown when there's no legal move with the second die" covers two situations which I've shown are separate (see 3a) or 3b), whichever you prefer).

5a) The first is when swapping the dice makes no sense because using that dice value is impossible.

5b) The second is when swapping the dice would lead to a possible but illegal move.

6) The obvious question is "what are these classes of possible but illegal moves?". The non-MDU-compliant moves are the only known class so far. And I invite you, yet again, to come up with another because my argument will collapse if you do. Go for it! ;-)

7) The sentence must therefore imply the MDU rule.

Conclusion:

The MDU rule is a BrainKing rule that is both implied by the written rules and acknowledged as a behaviour that the backgammon server should enforce but doesn't. Non-MDU-compliant moves are therefore against the rules, illegal, not to be done, yada, yada, yada.


Let's try a different tack.

Q: Does the MDU bug exist?
A: Without a doubt. It's clearly documented in the bug tracker (and, besides, it's what triggered these debates!).

Q: Is the bug really about the MDU rule?
A: Absolutely. Both of the original instances in the bug tracker as well as Wil's new example are cases of MDU rule.

Q: If this bug is a failure to enforce the MDU rule, doesn't that mean that the MDU rule is part of the BrainKing rules?
A: As Spock would say: "Logic dictates this".

Q: But if the rule isn't explicitly stated on the rules page, doesn't that mean the rule doesn't exist?
A: No. As the previous question indicates, the existence of the bug implies the existence of the rule. It should be assumed that the written rules are lagging behind and need updating.

Q: Ah, but if the rule isn't written and there's a bug which means the rule isn't actually enforced, then surely there is NO MDU rule.
A: You can certainly argue that point but it doesn't negate the fact that the bug and the written rules imply the MDU rule.

Q: Implied? Only implied?? That's not strong enough for me!
A: Ain't nuthin' I can do 'bout that!

LOLOL.

Pedro Martínez: Ah indeed. In the procedure that I outlined below the legal moves are determined even before the user is asked to move. Although I didn't include it, the list of legal moves is necessary for the no-move-possible and dice-swapping logic.

Wil: "where is the exception that makes the other legal when it breaks one essential rule of the game?"

That's why I want to see the official rules. ;-) I want to see how they define the end of the game and whether that takes precedence over the MDU rule. It's legal to take a man off with a single dice value. If that causes the end of the game and that's that, then the other dice value doesn't matter. The end is the end.

But if not, and the MDU rule is still a requirement, then would indeed be illegal to move directly off with the one dice.

Commonsense gives us the obvious answer. I'd like to see whether the official rules also see it that way.