Well you could change the rule in chess to allow a 3-1 knight move only being allowed if you are in check if you want it to apply to fewer situations but that I feel still misses the point. What I am trying to explain is not the number of moves it actually applies to but how you think about the game. If a 3-1 knight move was allowed then clearly every move you make you would have to take into account that your opponent had that option as indeed you would too. It is the same with backgammon, you must think about what your opponents rolls can be and how they can move them and also what your next roll could be and how you can move that given any possible move your opponent makes. Knowing that your opponent or you could make a move that allows only one die to be used, whereas the rules state both must be used if possible, will then come into many more moves you make than appear likely at first sight, and therein lies the problem. I do like Big Bad Wolf's analogy of the en-passant move at chess but would also say I feel that this backgammon rule affects many more moves than that would at chess.

As I said before though, without a cube, even if the rule is fixed we still won't have true backgammon, it will just be nearer is all. Anyone here could beat the current world champion in a 1 point match, I doubt anyone would if it was 21 points!!

Thats the whole point Kevin, if only one person is changing the rule, then he is chaning the game...
When everyone follows the SAME rules, than the game remains fair, and not to the advantage of one player...

Well if I were to compare the problem with Backgammon with a move in Chess - I would compare it to the "en passant" in Chess. A lot of "non-expirenced" chess players do not even know about the "en passant" rule - just like many "non-expirenced" backgammon players dose not know about the rule being discussed.

My Opinion: The rule in Backgammon should be fixed when there is time for Fencer to do it. Is it VERY important? Well not to me - but apparently for others it is. I would like to see if fixed soon, but I can live without it for now! Those are my thoughts. :-)

Yes, it was very well said, RsBaby. But how does changing how a piece moves in chess the same as how a move can be made only in certain situations the same? If the rule in chess was changed so that knights could moved 3-1 and/or 2-1 it would change the whole game, it's strategy, everything. If this rule in backgammon is not used, it is still very close to backgammon. In comparison, very few moves are changed. So if you are going to give an example as comparison, please come up with an example so that the rule only affects considerably few moves of the game, not every one. Thank you.

Very well said, any other way of playing gammon would be cheating...

EXCELLENTLY put, RsBaby!!! I was hoping someone better at putting it in words would comment.

Well lets look at chess shall we? Why does a knight move in a 2-1 "L" shape? Why not a 3-1 "L" shape? That certainly isn't "The whole game" as you put it. Now suppose here you could move your knight 3-1 as well as 2-1, would you say well it sometimes suits me to be able to do that so it's ok or would you instead pass a comment that the game wasn't being played to the rules? It is the same with backgammon. You keep asking why that is the rule. The answer to that is that if you understand the die roll possibilities and you understand that this rule applies then it is paramount as to how you move prior to the situation arising to avoid leaving yourself where having to play both dice will hurt you. Similarly you can create situations by using a backgammon tactic known as killing numbers to place your opponent in that same situation. You say it is not common, well it certainly isn't rare but what is common, though you may not realise it, is that many moves are made with the idea in mind of creating that situation, though not all will ever materialise.

To finish I would just like to deal with your comment "It would be fine if every piece could move like that through the whole game, although it wouldn't be chess." That is exactly the point, it may be fine although what we are playing certainly isn't backgammon. Having said that, without a cube in use which is far more fundamental to the game, then even if this is corrected what you are playing certainly isn't backgammon either, as cube action accounts for over 50% of the skill at the game. Regard it as a practice game for the real thing but even if you can play well here don't fool yourself you know how to play backgammon as when/if you do ever play the real game you will soon find out how little of the game you do actually understand.

i'm in a game right now, where i could have done it, but didn't, to me it would be cheating, and i probably could have assured myself a win, now i'm wide open, but that's the game, i certainly couldn't play any gammon games with you kevin.

No.. the moves ARE NOT legal. And it isnt rare just because YOU say it's rare. They are not legal because the rule IS: if you CAN use both dice, you MUST. Regardless of whether you like it or not.

You know, i don't appreciate being told to shut up, even if it is sugar coated.

The thing that is not so good about that comparison is that placing one piece at a time in Pente is THE WHOLE GAME, while this rule in Backgammon is to say the least not very common. And the other thing about this backgammon rule is that it restricts what would otherwise be legal moves - only in those specific situations is it illegal, why?

Why not question every rule to every game here then? IT IS THE RULE. That is reason enough. It would be like you saying you want to place 2 pieces on your turn in Pente. Who cares that the rule is 1? Just because you are in the mood to make up your own rules. Don't you understand that following the rules is PART of game playing? If you are so adverse to rules, perhaps you shouldn't play games???

I hope eventually you will keep your promise.

(sorry, i keep lying about being done)

Yes, often it is to my advantage to only use the 2 instead of all 8. No one has yet given me an answer as to why not that hasn't simply been "it's the rule", or "it's to my advantage" which is closely related to "it's the rule".

RsBaby: Checkmate in chess is checkmate in chess. It is how you win. It can be proven with any checkmate that you cannot resolve the check, ending the game. Playing a move that's against a rule in backgammon isn't the same. It would be a better analogy to say "move your piece to capture my king on the first move because you can". And even that is not the same. Pieces in chess move a certain way through the whole game. It would be fine if every piece could move like that through the whole game, although it wouldn't be chess.

I will tell you Kevin why you should not be able to move your 2 instead of your 6 if it suits you. It is simple, those are the rules and this one is fundamental to the game. Clearly your skill level does not extend to comprehend why that is so but rules are not changed to suit your knowledge of the game. Maybe you and I should play chess and I will argue that maybe I should not be checkmated even when I am as it "suits me" not to be? As for the argument players who dont like it should design their own site, you are missing the point. This is not a complaint it is simply drawing it to the designer of this site's attention who may not realise the software is doing this. With or wiithout the rule implemented the better players will still find their way to the top, it would just be better if we were playing the game to the rules is all.

Big Bad Wolf:
You hit the nail right on the head with your last paragraph:
"... maybe by that player just moving his "2" checker, he doubles up everything - where if he was made to follow the rules, he might have to open a few spots up for a chance of the other player to "hit" him."

How often in this game does a COMPLETE turn around of the game occur when someone who is ahead, is forced to leave an open piece that can be knocked off by his opponent? (especially if that opponent has several of the home points blocked with 2 or more pieces keeping you from getting off the bar) Quite a bit! When your opponent isn't forced to follow this rule and decides to use only one die to keep from making himself vulnerable, I find that highly unfair. It IS hurting the game.

And since when is Quantity better than Quality? I would agree if the site only had 2 or 3 games.

First: I think when Fencer gets some extra time, it would be nice to get all the rules correct. But I would prefer that he use his time now for new games, and other improvments. Having the rules not there is not hurting the game.

Kevin: For the example of if someone rolls a 2 and a 6 - and only 1 checker can move 6 spaces, and many can move 2 spaces. Then when the person moves the one checker that can move 6 spaces - 2 spaces instead of six, leaving the 6 die to do nothing.

Anyway, most of the time it is to a persons advactage to move all 8 spaces, but at times it is not. If that person was made to move 6 spaces, it might "open" up the board for the other player to hit his checker.

... maybe by that player just moving his "2" checker, he doubles up everything - where if he was made to follow the rules, he might have to open a few spots up for a chance of the other player to "hit" him.

Oh, and I personally don't see this as arguing... just friendly debate.

Well.. That is a VERY interesting question, Kevin. I definitely don't know the answer. But when it comes to a very popular, widely played game such as this one, there NEEDS to be some standards. And for whatever reason, THAT rule is part of the accepted standards.
If the scenerio you described was allowed to happen, and was generally accepted as allowed to happen, then I would be quite happy with it. I an a complete game addict (as I'm sure you are too) and part of the FUN in playing a game is the ways in which the rules sometimes work FOR you and sometimes work AGAINST you... Its part of what is beautiful about games. (LOL .. corny, I KNOW... but I just absolutely LOVE games!)

It brings up an interesting topic. Well, interesting to me, because I don't much about it. But, how DO game rules get changed? or get accepted? DO they EVER get changed?

I'm glad you asked that question of "Why?" .. It got me thinking. I may have to do some research.. or does anyone have some answers?

But regardless.. as I said, with games of such huge popularity as Backgammon, at some point there NEEDS to be some standards. And that is one of the BASIC rules of backgammon. And being the QUALITY site that I believe this is, I would like to see it comply with the rules.
It certainly WON'T drive me off if it doesn't though.

Sorry, i said i wouldn't argue any more. I have one more thing to say.

Everyone wants this problemfixed because it is against "the official rule". That's all well and good, but why is it the rule? If I use my 2, preventing me from using my 6 when i otherwise could have, why shouldn't i be able to? I know, it might be an unfair advantage against "the rule", but so what? If I want to move 2 pips when i could move 8, why not let me?

Kevin:
But I believe one of your major points was that it rarely happens. I think it probably happens much more frequently than "rarely". I just had 2 times occur today alone at IYT, where I could have used this flaw to my advantage, if they had been games here. I think it WOULD be a problem to have Fencer manually fix this at each occurance. Though, then again, a lot of people may not always pay attention to their opponent's move and wouldn't even notice.

I agree though that it certainly isn't an EMERGENCY.. it would just be nice if it were fixed. This is by NO means a real complaint. I am TOTALLY in love with this site. Fencer is my hero! :-D

How do you know it wouldn't slow down the server, Mike? The other sites (especially IYT) almost guaranteed have much faster servers than here. So their servers can tolerate the added members and calculations required for this. Maybe it wouldn't be very much slower if this was done. I don't know what kind of server Fencer has, and it would also depend on the number of backgammon moves (which seems to be quite a bit - quite a popular game).

I am not going to argue about it anymore, however. I believe i have made my points, and do not need to make them again.

It doesnt slow the servers down at IYT or dailygammon Kevin, both are faster sites than here, with more members playing, perhaps if programmed correctly it won't slow the server at all.

Hej !

Finns det några trevliga svenskar på den här underbara siten !?
Inbjud gärna mig på backgammon , nackgammon eller crowded backgammon !!

It's NOT "changing stuff". It's making it CORRECT.

Kevin: I don't think the additional move validation would have any noticeable effect on the server performance. I haven't noticed the sites where the rules are implemented correctly being any slower than this one.

Just for the record, I think that all the people who want to change stuff, any kind of stuff, here ; should start their own site with their own rules that they like best and leave the rest of us to have a great deal of fun.

I think it's pretty important.

dream: Being familiar with programming, i am familiar with what would be required to ensure the rules are implememented correctly. It may not be too terribly difficult to program, but if implemented, it would require the server to check EVERY move a player has to see if it is legal (if both dice have been used, and if not, if the higher dice has been used). Without a quite fast server, this would slow down the whole site considerably. Like i said before, i am not against fixing this. But don't you think there are other and more important things that Fencer could be doing?

You are correct Mike, GT and this site are the only ones with this bug. I have played at a lot of the online sites over the years and have never struck it before, and it is a basic rule, as is the rule there should never be a draw in the game of backgammon. It can give a player a huge advantage to NOT have to play the higher dice.
And Kevin as for notifying Fencer everytime it happens so it can be fixed manually, well that sounds terribly time consuming to me, wouldn't it be far easier just to fix it so all of the gammons are coded correctly. I have seen this fault in backgammon, nackgammon and backgammon race here, so I guess it is in the other 2 variants as well.
And I am going to mention the rating system again, the BKR is unsuitable for the gammons, it is the same rating system which was originally used at Goldtoken and is really does not give a good indication of player strength.

These rules need to be implented. As far as I know GoldToken and this site are the only ones not to implement these rules correctly. At GT I once encountered transgressions of these rules twice in 10 minutes so they are common enough to need addressing in my opinion. As RsBaby said, it is very frustrating to set yourself up in a good position only to be beaten by the rules being broken - it spoils the game for me.

I agree that the rule of HAVING to use both dice when possible, is a very basic rule and it needs to be implemented here. I have already run into this situation 3 times on my part, and made the legal move. I dont ALWAYS watch my opponents' moves so I can't really say for sure how many times it has come up on that end. IYT DOES make sure this rule is followed. New games are great, but having the ones we have be correct is more important, in my opinion.

I'll take them as they come. I am new to backgammon, and don't know All the rules. I don't know how to write computer programs either. It is not a perfect world and I enjoy what I have.

How do we know it is a lot of work for Fencer to program the game correctly? I haven't seen him mention that anywhere or is it just your opinion Kevin?

RsBaby: Who called it an "odd rule"? I never once questioned it, or why it exists. MY point was that it is a lot of work for Fencer, and a considerably small result. If i were him, i would fix the games manually where that was a problem, but it really is up to him.

dream: Just for your info, there are chess rules that Fencer has not implemented here. And no one has complained about it! First, if there is a three-time repitition of the board, it is supposed to be an automatic draw according to the rules. Also, if 50 moves have elapsed without a capture or the movement of a pawn is to be a draw. The ONLY place i have ever seen thes is on zillions of games software (located at http://www.zillions-of-games.com/). But like this rule in backgammon, these are quite rare circumstances. And i have not heard anyone even mention them as a complaint.
At the very worst, let Fencer know if your opponent performs an illegal move of this sort, and he will fix it.

I would question that this is an "odd rule". It is fundamental to end play strategy where a stand off arises to play in such a way that your opponent must break first. That is the main area though others arise too. I would also question that it is only 3% of games this applies to but if for now we assume it is, then if you lose/win 3% of games you should have won/lost then that is effectively a 6% change and that is significant.

IYT doesnt have this particular bug, it will be fixed at GT (we have only waited hmmmm how long now lol) I always consider with a game like backgammon, or chess for that instance which has particular rules, then they should be implemented correctly after all these games have been around for thousands of years.
So there should be no draws, no illegal moves, and a game friendly rating system (ie FIBS). So far BK is down on all 3 points, its only a matter of time to see if Fencer chooses to implement them or if the people who wish to play the more serious gammons move on elsewhere. Y'know everyone keeps asking for more games but how about getting the ones we have right first...Just my opinion :-)

Even with that bug, it comes up very rarely (i seem to recall hearing 3% of games). At goldtoken, if that happens in one of your games, you can message Chad and he will put it back and ask the player performing the illegal move to move again. I guess that depends if Fencer is willing to fix these games manually, or if he would rather have the server do it :-)

I usually just accept that whatever the rules are on that site then they are the rules I play by and have fun with it anyway. I only play for fun so that helps too :O)

Yea, most of the turn-based games sites (like here, IYT, and I think Gold Token) do not go by the rules when it comes to that - unless the site is made just for Backgammon ( DailyGammon) - it seems like some of the "odd" rules are left out.

I have also found this problem:
--------------
Lets take for example if you roll a 6 and a 2. Lets say only 1 of your checkers are able to move 6 spaces (and many can move 2 spaces)

So instead of moving that 1 checker 6 spaces, you move it only 2 - leaving the "6 dice" to do nothing, and your move is ended.

-------------------------

It's a known problem here - but also on the other games sites as well.

Question is: Do we want to waste the site administrators time fixing these small problems, or getting new games up and running? (I vote for new games)

The rules of backgammon state that both dice must be played if possible but where play is only possible with one die the higher number must be played. I am not sure about the second part but certainly the first part is not implemented here.

Fixed. I apologize. I had to delete corrupted moves.

game #57884
White has 31
Black has 14

This game with myself and Lilac Fairy, I have way to many men on the playing board, where did they all come from and can you fix this....

You can't delete it, but you can hide it so it doesn't appear at the bottom of the page. There is a link just above the chat archive that allows you to do this.

i love your site. I am playing my first game, and am just finding my way around,,,I cant figure out how to delete the chat that accumulates....where do I go to do this....

I have just discovered a wonderful mac friendly backgammon game, which offers (at last) a lot of features found in jellyfish and snowie. Great database options as well, and the ability to download games from certain sites to analyse...the link for anyone interested is
http://www.bgblitz.com/index.html
you can download and use the demo or pay the more than reasonable shareware fee.

LOL.. I think there is a lot to learn to using the cube. it adds a whole new dimension and strategy to the game... I believe I read somewhere that adding it to this site is on Fencer's todo list...

I think I have a lot to learn about this cube!! LOL!! Thanks, its a lot clearer than it was!

yes if you were to refuse the cube .. the person offering wins that game for 1-point .. or the value of the cube at that time before the offer... and then a new game starts until one player has reached the point-value of the match...

So if the person DOESN'T take the cube they drop a point? Is that like a forfeit?

The paradox is that, if both players know their doubling cube strategy, doubles are accepted more often than not. It's easiest to explain why in the context of a money game; there are additional considerations in a tournament match that we can discuss later.

When playing strictly for money, each game stands on its own. The players agree in advance how much money they will wager on each point. Say they play for $2 a point. Then a simple game is worth $2 to the winner. A gammon is worth $4, as is a doubled game. A doubled gammon is worth $8, and so on. (This can get expensive!)

OK now, suppose we are playing for $2 a point. After a while you think your position is so good that you have a 70% chance of winning the game (nothing in backgammon is certain!). You properly turn the cube to 2 and offer it to me.

Now, here is what I am thinking. "If I drop the cube right now, I will lose 1 point, or $2. Dropping will cost me $2, so dropping is worth minus $2 to me. On the other hand, if I take the cube, I will have a 70% chance of losing $4. However, I will also have a 30% chance of winning $4! The value to me of accepting the cube is therefore 0.70 x (-$4) + 0.30 x (+4) = -$2.80 + $1.20 = -$1.60. Since minus $1.60 is better than minus $2, I should take the cube even though I only have a 30% chance of winning!"

Now, you might ask how the game can have a value of minus $1.60, when I know for sure I will either win $4 or lose $4. Think of the minus $1.60 as the average result that you would obtain if you played many games against this same opponent and always accepted the cube when it was offered to you when the winning odds are 70-30. If you encountered this situation 100 times, you would expect to win about 30 times and lose about 70. Your net loss would be ($120 - $280) or $160. A loss of $160 over 100 games works out to $1.60 per game.

Note that if you dropped the cube every time, you would lose $200 or $2.00 per game.

Of course, if you and your opponent are evenly matched you should also encounter the reverse situation 100 times, where you get ahead, double at 70-30 and he accepts.