people who also play on dailygammon probably already know the TTT tournaments. I am not sure if other players are familiar with it ?
summarized its a tournament in which every plays 1 match (of 1 game) against all other players (so if there are 20 players in a tournament each players plays 19 matches, giving a total of 190 matches) you gain points for every match you play : 1 point for a single win 2 points for a gammon win 3 points for a backgammon win 0.5 points for a loss (single, gammon, or backgammon)
the player with the most points when all matches are finished is the winner of the tournament
this leads to some nice gammon play, players will take more risks to gain a gammon as they will still win 0.5 points if they lose (0.5+2)/2 > 1
what do you all think ? should we have it on here as well ? (erik from dailygammon is ok if we have it on here as well)
Hrqls: If everyone scores at least half of a point for each game win or lose, then why not score it 0 for a loss, .5 for a win, 1.5 for a gammon and 2.5 for a backgammon (or 0, 1, 3, 5 if you want to use whole numbers). Same, thing, yes?
Also, sadly, the tournament system here is not set up for the type of tournament you describe.
Fencer: New tournament forms are always cool, now just add the Champions League tournament (first the group phase of n players in the 8 groups, first 2 go through (for a total of 16) then Double elimination with random setup)insert for n any number.
Сделано для playBunny (27. Августа 2007, 14:13:31)
Fencer: It's "Tric Trac Tourno". TTT is just a handy abbreviation, not the name of the format. As a purposely designed format, I think it would be appropriate to honour the name that the inventor gave it and unseemly to change it.
playBunny: TTT might be handy in English but not in other languages. What if I say that it would be implemented only with our own name or I don't see a reason to do it? Unlike some other site owners, I always think multilingual.
Fencer: hmm .. just the name ? the rules remain the same .. we could even come up with a Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious name which could be abbreviated to TTT :)
Hrqls: I checked on the French Wikipedia, the name is usually spelled trictrac. The game is played on a backgammon board, but its rules and especially its scoring system are awfully complicated. There is a whole chapter on the various penalties which should be applied when one of the players did a scoring error :-) For it to be a good name, I think it would require something more mind-boggling than upgrading losses to half a point. Or maybe I missed the inventor's idea ?
nabla: i dont know the inventor's idea either i am playing trictrac on a dutch site now (i didnt know of the game before yesterday) and its different from, backgammon
i dont know why mike named it trictrac .. but to me it feels 'not-right' to change its name (at least not without contacting him ..which i dont know how to do as he seems to be on a long vacation)
Hrqls: By the way, have a look at BrainKing in Turkish, backgammon is translated to tavla and I am sure there are more languages which don't keep the English name.
Fencer: ah ok .. i thought tavla was slightly different .. but thats my mistake as i did leanr backgammon on here and all my 'knowledge' of backgammon comes from this site ;)
Fencer: Tric Trac isn't actually an English name. *4* If it were me I'd change "Tourno" to the nearest equivalent in the target language but keep the "Tric Trac" that Mike gave it.
whirlybabe: "Tric-Trac" and "tournoi" are French, but we would say "Tournoi de tric-trac", not "Tric Trac Tournoi". I never heard of remotely similar rules in the old game of tric-trac, but I am no specialist of game history.
Hrqls: I would welcome new tournament formats, but as for backgammon they should include the doubling cube to be of interest for me. So this one doesn't appeal to me.
AlliumCepa: You are right, it is completely compatible with cubed matches. Indeed, it should be implemented a scoring system, not a tournament system. Now as Thad pointed out, the half point for a loss is not very natural and it would look better and be completely equivalent to have loss = 0, single = 1, gammon = 3, backgammon = 5. But I propose even better : single = 1, gammon and backgammon = 3. Simpler, closer to normal backgammon, and counting backgammons has always been quite irrelevant anyway, it occurs so rarely that it count for virtually nothing in the equity calculations, except in the 2-3 last moves of some games. As a scoring system and not a tournament system, I support it.
(убрать) Используйте Notepad, что бы увидеть как будет выгледеть Ваш профиль с html тэгами, до того как запишите Ваш новый профиль. (Только платящим членам) (rednaz23) (Показывать все подсказки)