Zmenené užívateľom playBunny (21. júla 2005, 00:45:56)
Wil: Aye, to follow the rule doesn't require Sharon's input at all. If fairness is your priority then taking advantage of the bug certain would. Respect to you, as I know that move loses you the last wee chance in that tourney. Good luck in the next one. :-)
Abigail: 1) It's funny that you brought up the dice swapping thing:
... click on "Swap dice" .. [except when] ..
a) Both dice show the same value.
b) The player could not make a legal move with the second die..
That's because I almost included it as a point in my own argument (too much effort at the time). ;-)
When can you not swap dice? One time is when one number cannot be used (eg. when trapped by a prime, 1-6 is rolled and there's room to move up with the one, or with two men on the bar and one's re-entry is blocked) but this is not a case of an illegal move, this is an impossible move - it's a separate class from the two mentioned in the rules (and shouldn't have been omitted).
The only other cases that I can think of are those that are the subject of this discussion - the illegal ones. Fencer has included them in the rules, albeit in a generalised way, for what does The player could not make a legal move with the second die. mean? It means that the BrainKing rules acknowledge the existence of illegal moves. They aren't described explicitly, nor is the maximise-dice-usage rule stated, but the mention of legal moves implies illegal moves, so what moves are they? Can you describe a class of illegal moves that is different to what we're discussing?
The rule is implied rather than explicit, but it is there, at least as I interpret it. The fact that the implementation doesn't detect this class of move and act according to the rules is a bug. It's not a permission to make the move.
2) You said you've not played backgammon on a physical board. Let me echo your words to Hrqls: Are you trying to make a point? If so, what is it? ;-)
3) It still stands with me that if someone knows the standard rules of a game yet prefers to use a site's E&O (Errors and Omissions) as loopholes then they are showing a poor attitude.