Andersp: As aggressive as you are, I'm surprised you would talk this way. Of course, the sense in doubling would diminish as the strength of your opponent's inner table increases. However, let's say I have three pieces left on the board and my opponent has two pieces back and a locked up inner table. I double in a heartbeat! What are the chances my opponent catches up to me before I get out and around?

Andersp: Actually I think the only time you'd double is if it's your last piece.

I dont think anyone would double if there is no chance to come out of the bar, if they manage to get out then they should play the powerball instead of backgammon :)

and Pythagoras,,yes the my link works if you copy and paste it...dont ask me why it doesnt work if you just click it..i havent added anything.

pentejr: THat is exactly why the link should be there. In the situation you described you could choose not to click it, however in most situations you would.

My suggestion would be to have auto pass when cubing is not an option. This includes single games, rolls when your opponent owns the cube, rolls when the cube is dead, the crawford round, etc.

But options like "Auto roll until my opponent leaves a shot", "Auto roll until my opponent opens a home board point", etc. sounds like a cool addition.

Pythagoras: Doubling when on the bar is not 99.98% stupid. There are plenty times when I pull way ahead of someone, bear most of my pieces off, and then get hit. In those situations, it often makes sense to double, as I will probably still be ahead when I get off the bar, but not so far ahead that I will get the gammon I was likely shooting for before I got hit. Moreover, people will often take HORRENDOUS doubles in situations like this. So auto-pass in a cube game makes no sense at all. But if it were available as an option, I would have no objection (who would?). I would just have it turned off.

Andersp: *lol* true :)
it makes you click the link 'roll dice' because you can double as well (try it )

grenv: .
.
.
You speak about cost. I wonder what is the cost of implementing such a feature
I consider it clearly as you say, as a Fencer's choice. Perhaps i'm wrong and there is a big cost for implementing this feature, but i just can't find any reason to have a big cost for that. Not even a small cost....

Pythagoras: The implication was that implementing the feature is somehow expensive.

However, I believe it to be a personal preference of the programmer independent of any real cost.

SafariGal: .
.
.
maybe with the vast influx of money with black rook membership fencer will be able to implement such a feature. It seems a lot of people are showing faith in fencer by signing up the black rook membership so it follows that he would return the favour and offer auto pass. Fair is fair
I don't see how the increase of black rooks memberships can make Fencer to think more seriously to implement this!?!?!
Also from your words i may imply that you think there is a need for more black rooks to register in order Fencer to make improvements to some features other members ask. So simple(white) Rooks or Knights memberships aren't enough and they don't have the right(or they have it but they will be ignored since they are not black Rooks) too ask things as long as they remain non-black Rooks?


I don't think black Rooks have anything to do with what will be implement here.....

Pythagoras: I counted 17 black rooks which is an influx of $5100 euros. With this financial influx a capacity for auto pass should be quite viable.

grenv: .
.
.
Yeah! Simple, easy(to implement) and elegant!
As also a general option of "Autopass all games until I can move a checker."

grenv: maybe with the vast influx of money with black rook membership fencer will be able to implement such a feature. It seems a lot of people are showing faith in fencer by signing up the black rook membership so it follows that he would return the favour and offer auto pass. Fair is fair

I think it could be solved with a link that says "Autopass this game until I can move a piece". Even if the cube is an option you may want to click this link.

Pythagoras: I agree that it is a good option, I just didnt want others thinking that the posted link was a "no possible move" situation

Yes there is this option for both players to use the cube since this is a "cubed" game.

People here (i think) speak about auto-pass in non-cube games. And players would have this as AN OPTION.
But an even more advanced feature could be auto-pass in cube games only if the player wants this. Since to double on such situation is at 99.98% of the cases, stupid. Personally i would sacrifice the rest of the cases, where a double when you can't move isn't stupid and lose the right to double in this 0.02% for the sake of all the time i gained without having to wait at the bar.
I guess i wasn't clear in what i meant about this advanced feature and when this occurs but it doesn't matter. The important thing is auto-pass in games where the cube can't be used.

Pythagoras: correct me if I am wrong but even though there are no blot moves possible, isnt it still possible for the blocked person to use the cube. This would also be classed as a possible move right and hence no auto pass?

.
.
.
Hehe, yes it's very exciting!!!!!
The link is a bit wrong as you entered a br
Correct link

Last 5 turns ive clicked this game it tells me to "roll dice" so there are no dice rolled before.

http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1613042



Its sooooooooooooooo exciting to see what the dice will show

pgt: another reason is that on this site (different than on other sites) the new dice are rolled when the player views the game. So when you are on the bar and your opponent makes a move, the site doesnt know what you will roll in the future (as you are not viewing the game yet), yo might escape when you roll well, you might not when you are unlucky (or didnt bribe enough ;)).
Autopass cant be implemented for those case.

There are however situations that you will have to pass regardless your rolls (for example when you are on the bar, and the whole home is blocked), in those cases autopass might be partially implemented.

i asked fencer about that in a game we had and he said he would think about it and might implement the partial autopass ... he doesnt know when though

(at least its better than the 'no' we usually get about plain autopass ;))

Jules: I've even offered to do the programming! No. it's more than that. Fencer (I believe, for some obscure reason) thinks that you should possitively see and respond to every move, however meaningless. The programming is trivial!!

pgt: More people wanted the cube, I think auto pass is something we'd have to convince is worth the programming.

whopper: I think to get this implemented requires a lot of creative grovelling to Fencer. Nobody has managed to achieve it so far, despite many attempts. I'm not sure exactly what it is that is necessary to do, but I am willing do do anything (almost) if we can discover what the secret is.

Are there any plans of implementing auto pass (when cubing is not an option)? Being closed out in crowded bg can be a bit dull.. :)

Walter Montego: If you go to the statistics of wins/losses, you´ll see someone whose rating are due to time out of opponents...

He has such an inflated ego that he even put in his enemies those who dare to defeat him in a game... LOL

Walter Montego: It's much easier to understand the logic of deferring losses than it is to understand the BKR effect of losses preceding wins or vice versa. Also, the BKR effect is more attenuated if both losses and wins are recognized than if losses are deferred. However, I'm with you all the way on the meaninglessness of it all.

alanback: And I imagine there's a few people that are willing to do such a thing to have an inflated rating to match their inflated ego? What's the point? If someone has to bend the rules to achieve something, have they really achieved it? And who are they fooling? What does having a higher rating get one as compared to having a lower rating? Especially in a rating system used here that is flawed for Backgammon? I play to win. I play the same speed, winning or losing. Why hold up one game of a pair against the same opponent? This seems very discourteous to me.

If you're right that losing your game first and winning the other will give you a higher rating, why do these people do the exact opposite? Maybe they don't really care about the rating, but want an inflated win/loss record?

grenv: The effect can be quasi-permanent if you make a policy of accelerating wins and delaying losses -- at any point in time, as long as you keep playing the same number of games or a larger number, your finished games will include a disproportionate number of wins and your unfinished games will include a disproportionate number of losses.

BIG BAD WOLF: I actually don't think it matters that much, opponents ratings being more important. Point is you can delay all your losses by months on end and effectively engineer a good rating, albeit temporarily.

BIG BAD WOLF: But if they delay long enough in every game that they are sure to lose, they may end up with a win by getting their opponent to time out first!

grenv: They are only hurting themselves by delaying a lose game - since as I understand ratings, if you win a game, then lose a game - you will end up with a worse rating then if you would lose a game first, then win a game.

So if you know you are going to lose, it's beter for your rating to get them over and counted as quickly as possible. (At least this is what I've been told - I haven't done the math myself to back it up)

I have to say I get annoyed at people not moving when they are about to lose, so I think that a frame of backgammon should be over when it is mathematically impossible for one player to win.

It would also stop people from continuing to play out the game instead of resigning, as they should.

Of course if the value of the result is important and unknown (gammon/backgammon/single point) then it obviously needs to continue.

Marfitalu: I have replied to you in PM

Marfitalu: errr have you put it to Fencer though

Marfitalu: That sounds a fantastic idea, well thought of

whopper: Im not worried about the nuymber of games or tournaments, but it is very frustrating when you know the person is doing it on purpose.

WatfordFC: Looks like your tournament games against this players is one round-tournaments, so what's the rush? His losses will hit him hard in the end. And since you are a rook you don't have to worry about your number of games/tournaments.

SueQ:

WatfordFC: Sounds more like an issue about vacation days than backgammon.

SueQ: This is a backgammon issue, isnt it?

WatfordFC: refer to previous message. Play quicker tourneys

Back to backgammon issues please.

SafariGal: I am a very quick player and i didnt ask to be drawn against him, there are others who feel the same way too.

WatfordFC: if he now has more vacation than his paid entitlement, then I agree that is a problem.

Seems Fencer is looking into it so try not to let it bother you though. worse case is it takes an extra couple of weeks to time out

SafariGal: He didnt have any other vacation booked.

WatfordFC: i have never done it but my guess is he cancelled other booked vacation. As a paying member he is entitled to use these days and he is playing within the rules. You do not have to play in tournaments of such length if you wish to complain. Create your own and play in tournaments where you are unable to use vacation days. That will solve to problem.

I hope I have made this clear enough this time. You're welcome

SafariGal: I dont think u get what i am saying, this is a tournament game, he knows he is losing so doesnt play the game out he does it with other gams with other people as well. He only had 6 vacation days left, and now he has 17 days, how is that then?

WatfordFC: he is allowed to do that under the rules right? I have a match going which I set to no vacation days and only 2 hour topup each move and he is still doing fine in that game. He has to make a move every 2 hours from when I move basically. I suggest setting up such games in the future if you want quicker moves otherwise there is nothing to complain about

Backgammonfan29: You do let them time out, the ones your losing u let them time out and then u let your auto vacation days take over. You are doing that at the moment with a few tournament games.

I just put a bunch of games in the waiting room for Hypergammon for anyone over 2100 in rating. Care for a challenge, accept a game