DarwinKoala: I usually resign when I feel I've no chance left; not just with backgammon variants, also with other games. I don't go out of my way to calculate the chances, so I may play on for a move or two "too long", but whenever it's obvious, I resign.

And I greatly appreciate it if my opponents do so as well.

playBunny: The reason to finish a jigsaw is to look at the picture I assume, perhaps show to others?

Anyway this is clearly an aesthetic endeavor, whereas a game of backgammon is a contest. Once the contest is over it should be ended. Better yet, the next frame should be started so that the moves actually mean something.

Again, chess is set up this way (we don't need to actually capture the king) as are most sporting events (we don't play all 7 games in a series once one team wins 4) etc.

Czuch Czuckers: You didn't say anything about the explanation of jigsaw analogy. I take your silence as 100% agreement given that you're vociferous when you disagree..

You disagree with my use of the word "ridiculous". It was grenv's word but you echoed his sentiment with your "derive pleasure from a meaningless activity".

You talk about people getting upset about your viewpoint. Czuck, you live for those moments! Even so, it doesn't have anything to do with the points that I was making or the questions I was raising.

Finally, you claim that the point is about how a game ends. No, that's not what this discussion is about. Look at the title. "Etiquette" not "Defining the end of the game".

As usual, a debate with you is .... [looking fr a good euphemism] .... the discovery of "challenge".

Andersp: I notice that you didn't answer my question. Would you care to do so? Your own can then receive due attention.

playBunny: Who are you or grenv to say that this viewpoint is ridiculous?

I am not trying to say that their view point is rediculous, its their getting upset about my view point that i find wrong.

But back on point... on Brainking their are several proper ways to determine the end of a backgammon game. One of them is by resigning, and it is just as proper here as any other method for determining the end of a game.

I like to play through to the end of the game so that I can see how close I was. For me the game is more important than the final numerical result (although I also play rated games to gauge myself against other players).

But I don't get upset if other players resign when they feel they have lost - although I have seen a couple of resignations when, with a bit of luck, they would have been in with a chance!

Cheers,

DK

Czuch Czuckers: It's the perfect analogy and your own logic can prove it.

A jigsaw is finished when you've discovered where each piece goes. That's just like a backgammon game is finished when the final score is known, right? Your idea. There's no point continuing to slot pieces into holes once you know where all the remaining pieces go? Why bother? You know where they go, so pack the thing away and go read a book. It doesn't have to be the last piece either; it could be the last dozen.

I hope you disagreed with that because you understand that the logical view of simply knowing where the pieces go isn't all that there is to it.

It's the same with backgammon. For some people the game ends when one player has all their pieces off the board. There's mathematically complete and there's humanly complete. Do you find it hard to understand? Yet you think that slotting known pieces pointlessly into a jigsaw makes sense?

It's the same principle but in different games. The outcome, as regards the score, maybe different from the completion. Some people see it one way. Some people see it the other.

Who are you or grenv to say that this viewpoint is ridiculous? That is simply a declaration that you have no understanding and acceptance of this difference between people. Your way is the one true way? Sure. And I wonder how many of your ways should be the one true way. [Shudder at the thought]

But the point of this discussion is not about what's the "proper" way to determine the end of a game, it's about whether you would deliberately go against the wishes of your opponent. Do you respect your opponents as people or are they just machines here to provide you with a set of postions to play?

Andersp: But what if you knew that your opponent likes to finish by taking all the pieces off? Is it rude to resign despite that?

Geez, I didn't mean to stir up such controversy.

A player once asked me why I resigned the previous game of a match with only two or three moves to go. I said I did it because I was mathematically unable to win. She said, "Oh, ok." Maybe she didn't notice or didn't want to (or couldn't *gasp!!*) figure that out. Point is that there are all kinds of players with all kinds of skills.

Sometimes it's just easier for me to click a few times than think if the game is really over. If my opponent is online and playing quickly too, does it matter? I suppose it would be different if my opponent was taking like 9 days to make every move, but I try to avoid that kind of game.

alanback: if an opponent asks me to let the game finish, I will.

You could also remind them that the game already is finished.

Andersp:  I've always thought it was bad manners to drag out a game that was mathematically lost.  But of course, if an opponent asks me to let the game finish, I will.

Etiquette, after all, is just a default set of rules to follow until you understand each other well enough to know what will offend and what will not.  It's not a substitute for friendship, but just something to smooth the path while friendship and camaraderie develop.

Andersp: I guess that not too many people will disagree with you.

But if someone asks me too continue a game and to not resign, even though I have already lost, well I might do it, but I cant honestly see that ever happening.

Czuch Czuckers: To me its more bad etiquette to continue a lost game than to say "congrats" and then resign it.

alanback: Well then, tell me what the purpose for playing rated games are?

Czuch Czuckers:  It's rare to see so many unfounded assumptions built into such a short post, I congratulate you!

grenv: I dont really care where someone else derives their pleasure from.

But when you derive pleasure from making moves in a meaningless game, it doesnt matter to anyone else but yourself, and should not supersede the one and only purpose for playing a rated game.

Czuch Czuckers: I've got a good analogy. it's like wanting to play another move in chess after checkmate, just so you can derive the pleasure of capturing the king. :)

playBunny: Like putting the final piece in a jigsaw before breaking it up and putting it in the box, it's logically unnecessary but it has a tangible psychological value.

Poor example....

A puzzle is not completed or finished until the last piece is in place, but a backgammon game is completed or finished as soon as someone wins it, not when the last checker is removed.

not Indulging someone to derive pleasure from a meaningless activity is not rude.

Winning is the ultimate objective to any game. Most games are finished when the outcome is decided.

Anyone who is interested in getting pleasure from removing checkers in a meaningless game can play games that do not count and are not rated, otherwise it should be assumed that one is playing to get pleasure from winning.

Of course, to you, deriving pleasure from moving the last piece off is ridiculous enough, so people who value it that strongly can only be ridiculous squared in your eyes, and thus deserve all disrespect due them, right?

Correct.

grenv: Not to mention it wastes my opponents time

Lol, indeed not to mention it. Given that they get pleasure from the final move, it wouldn't be a waste of their time, it would be time well spent! It's a waste of your time because you derive no pleasure from indulging them. Indeed, it would seem that you fail to recognise their pleasure at all.

I'll be as polite as you like

If you knowingly resign when your opponent would like to finish then you're not being as polite as they'd like. In fact, to those for whom it's important enough to block a resigner, adding a FU smiley to the resignation move may not make that much difference!

Of course, to you, deriving pleasure from moving the last piece off is ridiculous enough, so people who value it that strongly can only be ridiculous squared in your eyes, and thus deserve all disrespect due them, right?

In fact it's boorish and impolite in my opinion to keep going,

If someone doesn't care either way and knows that you're impatient to move on but deliberately plays on just to spite you (and not for some other reason like not really understand the resigning system or being sure that they can trust it) then, I'd agree, they'd be the ones being rude to you. Of course most times it'll be because people aren't aware of your preference or didn't think in time before they hit roll. Resigning is a more deliberate action so it's perhaps less likely to be done accidentally/unthinkingly.

to demand that others keep going in order to satisfy your own ridiculous need

There's a difference between someone expressing their preference and you denying them that pleasure, and someone demanding it. Making demands is rude but surely a knowing denial is rude, too?

Kind of like needing to have the last word... :)

Maybe. It depends on what need it serves. Getting the last word is probably** more a competitive thing wanting to take the last piece off is probably more a completion thing. Like putting the final piece in a jigsaw before breaking it up and putting it in the box, it's logically unnecessary but it has a tangible psychological value.

**I say "probably competitive" with regard to getting te last word because I've played people who like to get the last word because it feels rude to them not to respond. With two such people they can go on doing smileys at each other for ages! Eventually one gets up enough courage to be "rude".

playBunny: I'll be as polite as you like, but I won't waste my time continuing a game that's already over. Not to mention it wastes my opponents time.

In fact it's boorish and impolite in my opinion to keep going, or to demand that others keep going in order to satisfy your own ridiculous need for moving the last pieces. Kind of like needing to have the last word... :)

grenv: It wastes your time to indulge someone and be polite, grenv? I think it shows disrespect and a lack of caring but if you want to be boorish about it that's your prerogative. Nobody can dictate how you value people here.

playBunny: Totally disagree... waste of time. I will always resign in that situation regardless of opposition. If you're that worried about playing the last piece you are free to block me, in fact I encourage it.

kaluza: I applaud your sensitivity. I wouldn't go as far as to block someone!, but there is a definite pleasure in taking the last peieces off the board. If you know that that's the case for someone, it's poor etiquette to resign when there are only a couple of moves to go.

That is, unless you're playing against ....... (Fill in the name to suit yourself!) , in which case they don't deserve that respect.

nabla: It may be difficult to calculate accurately enough to resign the first turn that it's impossible to win, but it becomes obvious when you're each down to a few pieces. At some point in most games you will resign even live on a board. :)

Thad: I am not experimented enough to say it for sure, but I think that the recognized backgammon etiquette is to carry the game on as long as there is a theoretical chance of winning (even if it is a one to a billion shot), and resign as soon as there is no more. Usually one assumes proper play by the opponent when computing theoretical chances.

But as it is often longer to compute whether a theoretical chance exists than to play on, in live play one often simply carries the game to the end. In turn-based play, I think it is nicer to bother with the simple computing and resign on time. Note that the Dailygammon server implements that etiquette by resigning the game automatically when a win is impossible.

In matches one should normally be allowed to resign the type of game one decides to (normal game, gammon, backgammon) and the opponent should be allowed to reject one's resign offer if he finds in not high enough. This is not possible on BK though.

grenv: I agree! If you have avoided the gammon, and can't possibly win even by thowing 6-6 in every subsequent game, what is the point of throwing out the remaining dice? It could take three weeks!! (or more if you're playing against ....... ) (Fill in the name to suit yourself!)

rod03801: I resign as soon as I can't change the result (so for instance when I avoid the gammon but can't win). There is no etiquette to the contrary, in fact over the table you would always stop the game and quickly start the next frame in the set.

and i never say gg until the MATCH is finished, not the frame.

Thad: I used to resign backgammon games. But then one player put me on her blocked users list because I resigned when there was one move left , so I don't do it anymore.

Thad: I think with Backgammon, the 2 schools of thought are pretty equal on this site. I have heard just as many people say they hate when someone resigns, because it takes away their "joy" at clearing their pieces off the board, as those who see no point in continuing a game that the outcome is already known.

Personally either way is fine with me. If it is a clear loss for myself, I will usually ask if my opponent minds if I resign.

What's the proper etiquette concerning resigning at the end of a backgammon game? In chess, it's proper etiquette to resign when you're clearly defeated by laying your king on its side. Of course you can't do that online, but it's still considered inconsiderate to drag out a game that's clearly lost. In pente (the game I'm most familiar with) one puts his stone far away from the other stones when the only other option is meaningless captures or blocks that would only delay the inevitable. But what's the proper etiquette in backgammon? Or is it ok to finish any game no matter how far behind you are?

AlliumCepa: Looks fine to me now too! Perhaps it was just you taking a peek! It went funny about two weeks ago, I went on vacation for a week, and it was still funny when I got back. I have not (intentionally) emptied the cache.

Backgammon (pgt vs. SMART ALX)

Has anybody ever seen this many checkers in a BG game?

AlliumCepa: For example a checker on the 8 point requires 2 moves. if you roll 6-5 each time you will need to use 2 5s at least, which is 10 on the dice to move 8 pips.

Better way would be to see how many moves each piece needs and make sure a maximum of 50% 6s are used.

So the 2 back checkers each need 4 moves (8 6s total)
The 5 checkers on 13 each need 3 moves (with no 6s needed)
The 3 checkers on 8 each need 2 moves (again, no 6s - 2 4s will do)
The 5 checkers on 6 could be moved out in 1 if 5 6s are used.

So,,, with 13 6s, 6 4s and 15 5s I could move them all out. That could be done with 13 6-5s and 4 5-4s (which would trade some 4s into 5s which is ok). Trading the 5-4s for 6-5s wouldn't help.

Thus 17 moves is the minimum with no doubles.

Here's one I lost in 16 rolls,
Backgammon (trambu4ka vs. Thad)

It this rare or can someone top it?

AlliumCepa: Except the checkers on the eight-point and 13-point will necessitate an additional rolls, I believe.

With doubles:
To bear off the two checkers starting on 24 will require two rolls of double-six and for the opponent to clear the 12-point. Double-fives would be satisfactory here too.

Two more double-sixes, double-fives, or double-fours will get four of the five checkers from the 13-point home. One more double-six, -five, or -four will get the fifth checker home and also two checkers from the 8-point.

Now another high double roll will get the final checker home plus three checkers borne off, leaving 12. Three more high enough doubles will clear the board. So you could do it with nine rolls of sufficiently large doubles and possibly some assistance from your opponent clearing a point or two.

Good luck.

Vikings: What is the minimum number of rolls needed to clear one side? Without doubles? I'll think about it later, but someone will probably come up with the solution sooner...

anyone ever played an entire game without so much as one set of doubles rolled?

Thad: She probably would have rolled more doubles, but that was the end of the game.

Nope, probably not. 1/6 in fact. ;)

Backgammon Championships-No.70

Feel free to enter.

And her first move in the next game was with 6-6!

Someone asked about doubles on several consecutive rolls about a week ago. My opponent rolled 5-5, 6-6, 6-6, 2-2, 5-5, 6-6... right after I doubled the cube. She probably would have rolled more doubles, but that was the end of the game.

Backgammon (trambu4ka vs. Thad)

Thad: There is no general answer for that, it depends on the rolls. The general principle is that doubles being a great roll, you want to focus on offense. This is because the positions where both players anchor high are mostly about equal, while prime against prime positions are not.
But tactics often overrule that principle. 3-3 is one of the most difficult rolls. The 3 is not a great point, but making it unloads the stack on the 6. The 5 is great, but making it abandons the 8. The 10 is not great, but it unstacks the midpoint. The defensive 20 is great, but you would like to focus on attack.
After an opening 6-1, the value of advancing the back checkers goes up, so I like your move. At www.bgonline.org there are all rollouts for all second moves that are considered non-trivial, and 24/21(2) 13/10(2) indeed rates as the best move.

Thad: Yes indeed, advance the back checkers and move the 13-10 or 6-3 or 8-5.

However if you need a gammon my first suggestion might still be better. )