Czuch Chuckers: You can use a remote keyboard with a computer as well, and a large flat monitor is not all that expensive.
Viruses and spyware are overrated, just install some software and forget about it. I recommend using Firefox or Opera instead of IE.

Most sites that I know of either have an automatic "are you sure" mechanism, or one that can be toggled on and off. It is a convenience that I highly recommend. Blather all you like about reading before you click, if you have a hundred games going here and a life, you are going to make a few mistakes. It would be a thoughtful and useful gesture on Fencer's part to provide the same consideration here as is provided elsewhere.

I would rather see a checkmark option next to the buttons then another whole page loading to ask me the same question again.

Or better yet, make it an option to have the checkmark's there for the players who like the site to protect them from their own mistakes. :-)

BIG BAD WOLF: Yep, I'd go for the checkmark. I don't like a whole new dialogue/page for confirmations.

BIG BAD WOLF: So you're talking about a checkmark you enter before pushing the button, like the one that asks you to confirm a challenge match on the Stairs before it will create? I would agree this sounds like a better option than a whole new page.
But there also has to be point at which Fencer says he cannot make the site idiot-proof and declines additional fail-safe mechanisms. He could easily spend all his time doing that, and not get to the other features and new game ideas that people are asking for.

txaggie: a site which is me-proof ??? no way! not possible ;)

Hrqls: LOL. No I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular when I made the comment. I think we all could fit into that category at one time or another .

txaggie: some people more often than others

txaggie: Well I personally don't need a checkmark, or anything - even though I may make mistakes and hit a button too quick - I can just as easly check a box and click too fast, or scrool through 2 pages and click buttons too quickly also. So for me, I would rather just keep things how they are.

BUT if anything is done, I would rather see a checkmark confirmation box next to the button rather then see a whole new page saying "Are you sure..."

How about a confirmation page that says: "Are you sure you want to leave a blot there?"

txaggie: "He could easily spend all his time doing that, and not get to the other features and new game ideas that people are asking for."

I think that would be a seriously difficult challenge. lolol. But you're right, do this one thing and it's the start of a slippery slope that ....

playBunny: Its just that for something like deleting a fellowship you must check 4 boxes, because it cant be undone. Well this is no different, and although I am not an idiot, its just a matter of sometimes clicking before my curser moves, I just dont know why in this case it is a huge joke to some and in other instances where it is already used, it is just fine? I have already lost one match where wanted to decline an offer but clicked the other button by mistake and then I got skunked on top of it all! UGGGG! hat woul;d it hurt to offer these form us 'idiots" and let the BBWs of the world choose to not have them shown?

Czuch: Yep. I quite agree. Only one hour ago an opponent of mine sent me a message informing me that he had just accepted my double by mistake! Colour-coded buttons and a nice checkbox. Dead easy!

Czuch, does WebTV handle javascript, do you know?

grenv: The really SIMPLE solution would be for players to sign up for only the number of games which they can savour and enjoy, and think about.

pgt: Simplest and least likely solution :)

grenv: "Are you sure you want to leave a blot there?"

playBunny: No, webtv doesnt support java script

I dont understand why in a cube match you lose more points when you try to resign a game?

In a 5 point cube match, for example, and my opponent already has 4 points to my 3 or less, should I automatically ask for a double early in the game? Since losing more than 1 point wont hurt me, and my opponent will almost certainly have to accept it?

Czuch Chuckers: That's not exactly rocket science!!

Czuch Chuckers: That is correct.

If you are 3-4 down and double, your opponent should refuse the double even if only slightly behind, since that is a chance to even up the game again (rather than continue the current game at a disadvantage).

Hence it is important to double before the game gets going.

Because the trailer should double at the first opportunity, he can't -- in the Crawford game only.

pgt: Sorry for the stupid question.... I am only in my first few cube matches ever, and I am ahead in most of them, so the oppurtunity is so new to me, it seemed like the correct play, but I just wanted to check, plus I am not a rocket scientist either.

alanback: What is crawford?

grenv: Why would you refuse a game that early just because you are ahead? How far ahead? When would you want to accept? When yu are only up by one? I mean, lets say you are up 6 love in a 7 point match, I double you first chance I get, and you refuse, how many games can you afford to play that way? Not tryoing to be mean, I really am just curious?

Czuch Chuckers: Up 6-0 in a 7 point match, you will be playing the Crawford game where no double is allowed (http://brainking.com/en/GameRules?tp=23). Assuming that the trailer wins the Crawford game, it will be 6-1. Here's where it gets tricky.

Post-Crawford doubling strategy

Leader's strategy:

As the leader, you must assume that the trailer will double at every opportunity. Therefore, the trailer needs only three wins to take the match. When you are leading by an odd number of points, you have one "free drop." This means that if you drop a double at 6-1 making the score 6-2, the trailer must still win three games to win the match.

You should not drop a post-Crawford double when you are leading the current game or when the game is even. You probably should drop the first post-Crawford double that occurs when you are behind in the game (you may not get another opportunity).

You should not drop a post-Crawford double when you are leading by an even number of points, even though you are behind in the game, unless you think you are going to be gammoned. For example, suppose the score is 6-2 and your opponent doubles. You are significantly behind in the pip count but you don't expect to be gammoned. If you drop, the score will be 6-3 and the opponent will need only two more (doubled) wins to win the match. If you take and lose, the score will be 6-4 and the opponent will still need two more wins for the match. In other words, you are no worse off after taking than after dropping, and by taking you have a chance to come back and win the game and match.

Trailer's strategy:

If you are trailing by an odd number of points, you should double as soon as possible. If you wait until after you are ahead in the game, your opponent will use his free drop and you will have wasted a win. If you are trailing by an even number of points, many players will wait until an opportune moment to double. For example, you may double at a time when a good roll will put you in position to win a gammon; the opponent may drop out of fear of losing 4 points, and you will have advanced one win closer to winning the match. Or you may wait to double until you have taken a significant lead in the game, hoping that your opponent will make a mistake and drop.

Thank you!

alanback: I don't get your point, IMHO the post-Crawford doubling strategy is a lot simpler than that. As the leader wins absolutely nothing of the game being doubled, the trailer should systematically offer double at move one, the double should be accepted (otherwise the trailer will do the same in the next game having gained one more point inbetween). Then the game is just like a cubeless game, except that it will count twice.
The only exception I could think about is when the trailer needs an even number of points to win the game and he gets a good first roll. Then the leader could decline the double just in that game, hoping to get a better start in all the remaining games.
Or is there another exception ?

alanback: Maybe there can be a rare other exception : the trailer who needs an even number of points and gets a fantastic first roll could try for some moves to go for a gammon, and double only when these chances vanish, hoping that his odds won't yet have dropped below 50% (otherwise he would have done better to double at move 1).

In the Cube game, can we offer draws for a single game?

tonyh: There's no such thing as a draw in backgammon. It should be removed as an option in my opinion.

Czuch Chuckers: What is crawford? For more on Crawford see http://www.kmmod.com/ccrawford/

nabla: Mathematically, it's probably correct for the trailer to double at the first opportunity in all post-Crawford situations. However, BG is more than mathematics and psychological factors lead many to try to game their opponents in situations where the opponent does not have a free drop.

Of course, the biggest psychological factor of all is the risk that you may forget to double altogether, winning 1 point rather than 2 and giving your opponent a free drop in a later game.

On your other point, I don't think there are any first roll/second roll combinations (someone will likely prove me wrong) that create such a gammonish position that the trailer should refrain from doubling on that ground alone. In fact, this is likely to be the situation where an immediate double is called for even by those who tend to hold the cube: if the opponent believes the position is gammonish, he may make a mistake and drop.

grenv: There is, of course, such a thing as a draw if the rules permit it as they do here. However, there is no board position that forces a draw (what might be called a "natural" draw) so the ability to agree on a draw is something of an anomaly.

Another anomaly here is the notion of a 2-game match (used in the standard stairs). BG is never played in 2-game matches for the very reason that the predicted outcome in such a case is 1 win apiece, resulting in a drawn match. I don't play standard stairs anymore for that reason: I was losing rating points in the great majority of matches without gaining anything on the stairs.

alanback: Threr have been 198 draws so far, .06%. It's a case of the match being so close that neither player wants to risk losing; seems eminently reasonable to me.

tonyh: I have no objection to the draw option. I have had draws on IYT. However, ithe backgammon world it is an anomaly, and would never be allowed in real-life tournaments.

tonyh: Reasonable it may be, but the rules of the game don't allow it.

Drawing a 2 game series is only a little better, but I don't agree that the ratings should be affected at all.

e.g if you stood to gain 4, -2, -8 (for w/d/l) and you are evenly matched your expected loss for one game is -2

In a 2 game match:
win 25% = 1
loss 25% = -2
draw 50% = -1
for an expected change of -2. exactly the same!!!

but for example if you were a better player and win 55% of the games then the expected results are:

single game .55x4-.45x8 = -1.4
2 game match
win 30.25% (1.21)
loss 20.25% (-1.62)
draw 49.5% (-0.99)
1.21-1.62-0.99 = -1.4, in fact it's always the same!

QED

grenv: Talk about putting the rabbit in the hat -- how could you have those point changes if the two players are evenly matched? (You must assume equal ratings to make such an assumption meaningful).

alanback: Um, that doens't necessarily follow tha the ratings would be even.

However, I believe I showed that the ratings will be affected equally no matter what the skill difference.

alanback: "BG is never played in 2-game matches for the very reason that the predicted outcome in such a case is 1 win apiece

This puzzles me. Between equal players the win rate will the same for each over the long term. For unequal players the stronger is going to win more matches. "Possible", yes, "predicted", not necessarily.

playBunny: The stronger player will win more matches than he loses, but probably not more than he draws, unless the skill difference is great.

The length of a backgammon match is always fixed in terms of a number of points, rather than a fixed number of games (except in the case of a 1 point match which could also be considered a 1 game match). Because there are no draws, BG is almost always played in matches to an odd number of points.

A prize tournament, thirteen point match for thirteen months rook membership.
Please make sure you have at least 10 empty slots.
Best of luck everyone :)

volant: Very nice of you to create this tourney.

Blimey, it doesn't start for about another 50 days! Any bets on how long it's going to take?

playBunny: @ 30 moves per game, let's say about 10 games to finish a set, and some slow players that take and average of 3 days to make each move, that's about 3 years per round, and I didn't even account for vacation.

So if there are 2 rounds, the prize won't need to be bought until 2010 I'd guess.

volant: Thanks Volant! That is very generous of you!

grenv: I think 2 rounds may be optimistic, too. 18 players so far and several weeks to recruit more. Only the board readers know about it so far as it's not on the tourneys front yet. And if volant fancies doing a broadcast to a bunch of players from the Backgammon rankings .... Also, we should go by the average of the slowest rather than everyone, so perhaps 4.88 days per move.

We could have us a 10-year tournament!

Frolind's 21pt tourney from October is racing ahead.

Since the prize tournaments have to be paid in advance of the tournament starting, if it takes 10 years to finish, it will be a bargain 13 months membership!

Has the idea of eliminating the rolling of doubles in hyper ever been discussed? I'm just wondering what others think of the idea at the moment. It seems that by removing doubles, it would add more to the elements of strategy and tactics in the game while eliminating the "stealinng" of a well played game buy the lucky double sixes!!! I've been robbed too many times! ;) OTOH, I've done a bit of robbing myself but with the doubling cube the stakes are higher. What do others think of eliminating (or adding as an option) the removal of doubles in hyper?

Groucho: Doubles add dramatically to the luck element in hyper as well as in race situations in other backgammon games. I have suggested eliminating doubles in pure races before.