AlliumCepa: Thanks! I had forgotten that I was still in an ancient tournament. Lol. I only logged in on DailyGammon by mistake, yet somehow the timing was perfect - just a few days after you sent the message. Maybe some mistakes are meant to happen. ;o)

Francine2_49: Presumably you mean your match with ZikZak. Check his Last Action date. He isn't playing against you because he isn't playing against anyone.

Aganju: That's an interesting question. In the real world (and in the DailyGammon world) you are allowed to move "illegally" so long as the final position is a legal one.

At DailyGammon you are allowed to move a piece on the board even if there's one on the bar, as long as the bar is clear by the end of the turn. In live play it's very common to move two pieces together having rolled a double, and sometimes the lazy approach to moving a piece beyond a stack is to shove it into the stack and move the displaced piece to the final destination.

A computer or website that doesn't allow the moving of two pieces at the same time only does so because that option hasn't been provided in the playing interface. GnuBg does provide this facility. If you click an empty point then two pieces will be placed there if those pieces were on points appropriate to the dice roll. Similarly, both GnuBg and DailyGammon provide a greedy bearoff which may take up to four pieces off the board with one click. In the case of GnuBg it's not even necessary to have got all the men home as long as the move is unambiguous (eg. a 6-6).

My original teacher actually introduced me to the triplet of games in Tavli but it was a long time ago and I have no idea whether this situation came up. Given that two pieces can be moved together, I'd say not. If I were implementing Fevga, I'd apply the rules to the final position as that is the only point at which the opponent is affected.

Aganju: has no effect on the game itself (aside from that you cannot see how many pieces are stacked up).

Heh heh. That's quite a large effect! ;o)

At this move, the standard backgammon images, such as http://i.brainking.com/back/bpuup40-13.gif, show up but the capture image (http://i.brainking.com/back/wreup40h-2.gif) gives a 404 Not Found error.

That's the size-40 image set and it's clearly missing these Plakota images. In the smaller size-25 image set they are available. http://i.brainking.com/back/wreup25h-2.gif.

It's definitely a bug.

Clandestine 1: Yes, the disappointment factor is certainly multiplied. :-/

Clandestine 1: The chance of losing when that one man left got hit was about 5%. Once your opponent had closed his home table with the spare men on the high points he had 8% or so chance of winning. It seems surprisingly high given that you have only one man left but you have to bear in mind that getting that man off the bar, around the tables and off the board requires 25 pips, which is 3 average rolls of 8.2 pips each, and that only starts when you get in. As your luck shows, that can be just too little, too late.

A monthly series of fast-paced Backgammon tourneys


I like it fast - 7-point Back - Nov 2015

I like it fast - 7-point Back - Dec 2015

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys


I like it fast - 5-point Hyper - Nov 2015

I like it fast - 5-point Hyper - Dec 2015

.
A monthly series of fast-paced cubeless Backgammon tourneys

I like it fast - 5-pt No-cube Bg - Nov 2015

I like it fast - 5-pt No-cube Bg - Dec 2015

These matches are a set of individual games. Gammons and backgammons don't count.

It can be done using an honour system, that is, if a game ends gammonly then the loser resigns the next game, or two for a backgammon. However an automatic system is definitely preferable.

Walter Montego: Unfortunately, I'm expecting it to be one point at a time although I'd be happy to find that I'm wrong.

A monthly series of fast-paced cubeless Backgammon tourneys


I like it fast - 5-pt No-cube Bg - Aug 2015

I like it fast - 5-pt No-cube Bg - Sep 2015

A monthly series of fast-paced Hypergammon tourneys


I like it fast - 5-point Hyper - Aug 2015

I like it fast - 5-point Hyper - Sep 2015

A monthly series of fast-paced Backgammon tourneys


I like it fast - 7-point Back - Aug 2015

I like it fast - 7-point Back - Sep 2015

MadMonkey: You're welcome.

I knew about the Rules link (as i asked for it many years ago lol)

Ah, then you would remember! Good request.

For me, I knew it a long time ago too but a few weeks ago I was looking into the rules of different variants and couldn't find an easy way ... until I noticed that wee link that I had stopped seeing. ;o)

MadMonkey: The rules for playing are the same. The scoring is the only difference. 1 for a win, 3 for a gammon and 5 for a backgammon.

The strategy for playing is different. Because gammons are worth so much you should play all-out for gammon. Take greater risks in building your home table and in attacking. Hit when you would normally hesitate.

(In case you've got so used to it that you never see it anymore, there's a link to the rules on every game page just after the name of the game type, eg. Backgammon (show rules). Finding a game if you haven't go one takes a few clicks via Menu: Statistics -> Running Games -> Backgammon). Triple Gammon isn't actually a game type so you'd have to find a backgammon game in a tourney with "triple" in the name. There's then a notification under the board. Backgammon (gambler104 vs. ajtgirl)

pgt: Out of curiosity, what about that other option, "banning" yourself!? Other sites have a similar mix of gammons and no, or weaker, restrictions on tournaments.

pgt: there are still TWO players playing THE FIRST ROUND!!!

At 4-4 in a 9-point match where neither player has got up the nerve to even look at the cube or go for gammon, it'll be another decade yet.

Is there anything anybody can do to speed things up?

This small nucleus of inert site-spoilers either don't care two hoots or lack awareness of their selfish effect. We are but tiny, distant, insignificant electrons and our frantic whizzing around is not for them.

Unfortunately the only practical option is to start a new account.

Maybeoneforeachtournamentthatinterestsyou!

coan.net: Since at that point, you COULD still have been sent back to the bar

Then shouldn't that apply to resignations as well?

On the other hand, if we're going by possibilities then it should be a draw (½ point each) because either player COULD win from that position.

Lightbug: Is Nackgammon different enough from Backgammon to play?

If you're good at Backgammon then you'll start appreciating the differences after a few matches. If you're still very much learning Backgammon then the unfamiliarity of Nackgammon probably won't make that much different over the unfamiliar aspects of Backgammon.

pgt: ~~ I am definitely setting up 2200 as minimum. But there is always one (and only one) player who manages to accept the game with less than 2100 rating! It must be that the site isn't working. Since it first happened I have been VERY careful to check, and it has happened twice more.

Yes, I thought it was too much to hope that it would be as simple as "not plugged in". Thank God there are Reshers in the world, eh? ;o)

~~ As for points - it always seems to me that in a simple game, you get the same points whether you just win, or win with a gammon, or win with a backgammon. That's rubbish.

That's how it works with proper backgammon, ie. the version of the Elo formula that FIBS, DailyGammon and various other sites use. It's getting to the match length and the win that matters./ How you do it doesn't count. Same as in tennis or other sports. You may get a pat on the back for winning by a country mile but you don't get any more of a win.

~~ As for "match", in super-rugby, the losing team can still get bonus points for scoring 4 tries, or for losing by less than 7 points. It seems to me that if you lose an 11 point match 11-0, then you should not be rewarded, but if you lost 11-10, you should still lose, but perhaps lose 2 points instead of 8. (But it's only a game)

Ah, that's interesting. Sounds like we need super-backgammon! :-D

I had been going to say that rating points aren't in any way a reward, even if it's nice to get them, but that they contribute to a rating which is intended to be predictive - that is two ratings will give you each player's winning chances in a match between them.

That's still true (for the proper formula but not for the BrainKing version) but I was then going to say that it's match wins that go into the formula and give you those percentages and the games don't matter. However, I had second thoughts. Why, indeed, shouldn't 11-10 count as less of a win than 11-0? After all, it's reasonable to at least suspect that the player who scored 10 knows a bit more about the game than the one who scored nothing.

I think the answer is that the backgammon formula, based on matches, is nice and concise as it is but could become rather complicated if it tried to take into account the games as well. I'm no mathematician so I don't know what would be required but it would certainly be more complicated with both scores involved rather than just the binary won/lost. It's not even certain that it would be more predictive. Mind you, once you had such a game-based formula (and a large number of matches), it would be straightforward to test.

It's certainly an interesting idea.

.

Getting back to that win/gammon/backgammon. It really depends on whether you're playing a money game (where the final score actually matters because it multiplies the stake; so a backgammon win in a $10 game would therefore be worth $30) or whether you're playing a 1-point match, in which case the extra 2 points are superfluous.

It matters because if you win a gammon or backgammon in a 1-pointer then you've possibly played badly. Gammons and backgammons are usually achieved through taking risks that reduce your winning chances. As such they get flagged as errors by analysis. If you only need 1 point then you should play to win 1 point and not more. (If it happens by chance that's fine but no extra risks should be taken). I therefore wouldn't give credit for exceeding the match length, whether it's a 1-pointer or a 25-pointer. But a money game is arguably worth more. That rating formula that takes games into account might also be able to treat money games differently rather than as 1-pointers.

pgt: When I set up a Hyper game and say minimum BKR 2200, how come a player with a BKR of 2056 is, consistently, able to accept the game.

Either the site isn't working or it's operator error. The "Are you sure it's plugged in?" question here is "Are you definitely setting it up with 2200 on the left and 4000 on the right?" ;-)

I don't really enjoy playing a game where I stand to win 2 points and lose 12, but such is the ridiculous rating system that that's what happens.

I hear ya, bro. I feel your pain. (Well, I do when I lose ;o)

While I'm on the band-wagon, why do the same points apply when you win or lose an 11-point match 11-10 or 11-0???

The score is for the match, not the games in it. That's just part of what "match" means. The real question is: why do the same points apply when you win or lose an 11-point match or 1-point match???

pgt: Five years? Luxury! I'm on 8½ so far and I've got Slowlaughs2 who I suspect is their king, though I must admit, Slowpol is definitely in line for the throne. ;o)

diemen54: Join this tournament .. Small & quick elimination tourney #203 or any of its kind .. Small & quick elimination tourneys .. plus any of the games here .. WaitingGames

Why that tournament? Because you only get to play one tournament at a time and that one will be fairly quick. The last thing you want to do is join a long tournament with one of the site's dozen or so slowcoaches who will keep you tied up for a year or two.

Carpe Diem: I'm involved in a game where all of my stones but one are behind a prime - the other stone is on my 1 spot, so also can't be moved. I would think the spirit of the rule would mean that my opponent should unblock, but since I haven't collected ALL of my checkers behind his prime, I can see how a literal translation would suggest that he doesn't need to unblock. Does anyone know with certainty how this should be handled?

The same rule is given on Backgammon Galore as "Limitation on primes: You may not build a prime (six consecutive blocks) in front of all of the opponent's checkers; at least one opposing checker must be in front of your prime".

The rule is about building a prime. So if a certain move would inappropriately complete the prime then it is illegal. The rule prevents the move in question.

The rule whose spirit you're suggesting would be about forcing a player to break a prime that's already been made. That's a very different thing and may not actually be possible at the point at which it becomes applicable.

The rule would be have to be something like "If your opponent cannot move and all their pieces behind the prime are stacked on the single point immediately behind then you must open a point within the prime at the first opportunity". This rule would force the given move or small set of moves that break the prime.

This is unlike the prevention rule in several important ways, as can be seen above. The similarity is that they are both concerned with not allowing a prime in their respective contexts.

To be honest I'm not sure what the spirit of the original rule is unless it's to give the trailing player more chances to prevent the prime happening in the first place. Each turn that the leading player cannot close the prime is an opportunity for the trailer to claim that point themself and retain a link, however tenuous, to the forward territory. Once the prime has been made then it's tough buns, they didn't make it.

I think a rule that extended the spirit of the rule as it appears to me would have to ban primes altogether - and that's quite a game changer.

Thom27: It seems we just have to accept the questionable dice rolling here. We may play here for fun, but for serious play one should go elsewhere.

That's not so. You have to accept it or go elsewhere. I, we don't have to do anything of the sort until you prove your case. It's like someone saying that they've see seen the Yeti but have no tissue sample, no photo, not even a map showing how to get to where you saw it. The Yeti may exist but it can only be treated as an interesting but unconfirmed story. Aganju claims to have met the Yeti and had a chat with it . That makes it more interesting but the story still needs more to become real.

moistfinger: The only truly dishonest and unnatural backgammon dice on the web is found on DailyGammon:

Lol. Now you've got me wondering which of the DailyGammon dice whingers you are.

Aganju: if the randomness is not good, it slowly makes a different game out of Backgammon - for example, if there are less doubles, or incorrectly often two doubles in a row, you can adjust your strategy to take advantage of it.

I suspect that any such effect would have to be quite sizeable for it to change people's strategy. Their strategy can be highly resistant to change even when you teach them to improve their game.

Aganju: It is still a fair game, but it is not 'standard' Backgammon anymore.

Aganju: However, I found a high chance of reproducing your opponent's roll by clicking in specific sequences. So when the game comes up, and he had a 5-5, and I want one too, I do that sequence of clicks, and have a higher-than-1/36 chance to get it too (it does not work all the time, but maybe 1:3; still, pretty useful feature); whereas if he has 1-2, I will not do that typically.

I'd say that if you're doing that then it's still standard backgammon but it's no longer a fair game. :-/

Thom27: How, exactly, have you taken advantage of these issues with the dice?

Aganju: Not only do one pointers have a large luck element, the rating system grossly penalises the stronger player. Players who value their rating should avoid them unless they are the underdog.

As for whether you're alone in the opinion, here's one player who agrees and takes it to the other extreme. ;-)

CurrentRiver: Guess i'm going blind.I [..] never did see the one piece.

You're not the first to not see pieces. Still, you can always change the board to a friendlier colour scheme. Oh, hang on, there never was one. :-/

But you can make the board bigger, if that would help :-)

Орлин: Yes, it was most probably a bad (automatic) translation of my original message.

You're welcome. ;O)

That was actually the corrected translation. ;-) I would have gone further but I wasn't sure whether you meant Crazy Narde or not and hence wasn't sure what to do with "pairs"..

I used to play Crazy Narde at VogClub as well as Narde and Tapa. From what I remember, I found that the craziness - the sequence of doubles to be played or given away - often resulted in a game that came down to whoever was luckiest in the bearoff at the end, no matter how much of a lead the lead player was. I preferred ordinary Narde.

Hello!

Do you think it is the same strategy for Fevga and Gul bara (Crazy Narde). I think pretty much because the difference in the rules is very small.

And which of the 2 games do you like more? For me Gul bara for pairs that make the game more dynamic and intriguing. Fevga is perhaps more cumbersome.

Hrqls: (and how come flake won at that position?)

He didn't. BrainKing helpfully shows the final score rather the current score (which nobody is ever interested in).

pgt: Have you tried to join another tourney yet? BrainKing may still say that the Lucky 13 is your one and only. You can't divorce it until it divorces you!

Walter Montego: Slow play might be within the rules, but for me it is not in the spirit of the game unless explicitly stated in advance.

I couldn't agree more.

When I did the "I like it fast" tourneys, complete with the motorbike icon, I was on the alert for slow people to remove. Somehow I never had to. Maybe something to do with the name? ;o)

The Thirteen tourney that Furbster brought up is an auto-pass tourney; says so right at the bottom of every page. So why do I have to wait for my opponent's clicks when he's stuck on the bar?! :-S

Hrqls: Lol. I'm tempted. ;o)

furbster: My bet is that one of these pairs will be the ones to make us wait years.

Backgammon (milionovej kluk vs. rod03801) and Backgammon (rod03801 vs. milionovej kluk)

or Backgammon (playBunny vs. Somelaughs2) and Backgammon (Somelaughs2 vs. playBunny)

Only 4 moves made by each slowcoach in the time that it's taken for the absentees to timeout 13 points.

:slow headshake, downcast eyes, grey cloud with rain:

speachless: Glad to hear that.

Pedro Martínez: Because you cannot mention a name here…

Ah, I see. I don't see why the GM didn't just bleep the name out of the post.

If the name was happyjuggler then I suggest that anyone who doubts his skills goes to play him on FIBS where they'll have a good fight on their hands. Note that he also only plays long matches, which is the best way of maximising an already considerable skill advantage.

If it's the unnameable player placed second, who has demonstrated a fantastic ability to copy moves from GnuBg into a BrainKing game page, well, he's been getting away with that for years. Just pretend that you're playing GnuBg when you play him and be suitably pleased and impressed with yourself if you win. ;o)

Walter Montego: Lol. I also checked that link and had a large count drop to zero. ;o)

But what I meant was which paully post was he replying to? There isn't one in sight so there's also no "him". Similarly speachless' post is rather mysterious. It's shown as being in the same thread as Pedro's yet without the pgt post that she's responding to.

Pedro Martínez: What conversation is this?

pgt: I've got two of the slowest players. My other two opponents gave up one and two years ago respectively. What a travesty.

pgt: I don't understand the problem. If you look at the tourney, you're in a group with 4 others so you have 8 matches, no more. Resign them all and you'll be done playing it. You won't be able to join another tournament for the next decade, what with whikki and Somelaughs2 being in the same group, but that's a different problem. ;-)

pgt: I'm through to the next round, but I'll be over 80 when it finishes, and there's no guarantee that I'll still have all my marbles my then. I think I'll just resign all the games and get on with real life.

Lol. Let's hope not! But surely you can pass the baton on to some youngster and have them save your honour? Perhaps grenv? ... or his grandchildren? ;o)

Czuch: You've given a link to your mailbox. ;o)

In the tournament that you're referring to, The first doubling cube tournament, it's hard to predict final scores without checking each unfinished game but furbster's win against you will gain him 4 S.B. points from your wins, which makes it likely that he'll beat your S.B. score.

Czuch: Was the score 6-3 to you in that game?

Walter Montego: ~~I do not understand your programming code listed

That's not my code, that Aganju's post. Fortunately it's not necessary to understand it unless you have reason to tweak it. Most programmers treat random number generators as a black box. "Give me a random number" is all that needs to be understood.

At DailyGammon the dice generation is taken to extra lengths. The RNG uses a library routine, such as the one that Aganju showed, but it also uses physically generated random numbers from random.org, which provides values generated from atmospheric radio noise. But even then, the programmer doesn't care how the calculated numbers are actually calculated. He calls the black box for one random number, gets another from random.org and combines them. In this way, any biases in either source are removed by the randomness of the other.

~~why is it that the first number generated is not random? This was something I had a teacher tell me forty years ago. It is still the case?

It's never been the case as far as I'm concerned but my programming only goes back thirty years. Even so, I'm surprised at what your teacher said. If he was correct then the solution is as simple as you suggested.

~~why start each roll over in a game? Why not just pick say 200 numbers and store them until needed for each game.

This doesn't produce any more randomness that calculating the numbers one at a time. As it requires storage and extra programming there needs to be a distinct advantage. It would also take more time, although that's not a huge consideration on modern hardware. Whatever length of buffer you had, you'd be generating more rolls than you need and throwing the unused ones away at the end. (Using them in another game just adds more programming effort and complexity).

Aganju: ~~I think you misunderstood me. Of course, seeding every time as well as seeding only with the minutes is not a good idea; this was my try to reverse-engineer the experienced behavior here on BK.

That doesn't make sense. if you know it's a bad idea, why would you suggest it as the likely reason?

~~As I wrote below, if I play a move in five games within one minute, all my opponents have the same roll afterwards. That seems to point to
a) the roll for the opponent is made the moment I send my move, and


This is certainly the case in games with auto-pass as it's necessary to know whether or not the opponent is blocked.

~~b) the minute is used for seeding every time,
so that would explain why they all have the same roll. That's only a guess, of course, but one that explains what's happening.

I would assume a bug before considering bad programming of something so straightforward.

~~Because all my opponents answer at different times, typically this is not very obvious, but if you note it down, you can check the games and verify that they all roll equal.

I think a much better reason than positing poor programming is to suspect the data acquisition. If you've done a Masters degree then you know that it's all about evidence - extensive and methodically recorded evidence. If I were to take the claim seriously then I'd want to see what you've got.

By the way, where did you do your Masters?

Aganju: Part of my masters degree was about 'Pseudo random numbers', how to make them and how to analyze the quality. It's been a while, though.

It must have been a few decades ago if they were using the time as a seed for each random number.

Except that even then the time wasn't used to obtain each random number because you don't seed for each random number, you seed the generator once, when you first start using it.

Aganju: the routine uses the current time as seed or so. If you make many moves within a minute, all your opponents get the same roll.

So that's balderdash and gives me every reason to doubt that you studied random number generators in any depth, if at all. Generated numbers have got nothing to do with the time and everything to do with the position in the sequence which, of course, changes every time you pluck a number out. That's even assuming that a mathematical random number generator is being used in the first place, which isn't necessarily the case.

Furthermore, if some junior programmer did make the mistake of reseeding the generator before every number, they'd have to be an idiot to take the computer time - accurate to milliseconds, if not microseconds or nanoseconds, and throw most of it away just to use the minute!

Fencer, by the way, isn't even remotely a junior programmer, nor is he an idiot, although pgt's observation is, unfortunately, correct.