SafariGal: i think you're making the same point as me. :)

grenv: but if you add 3 hours then as long as you make 8 moves in a day you are fine and should always run at a buffer of at least 24 hours. You should be playing once every 15 minutes all day every day !!!

This person plays every 15 minutes. You should play like this. (refer to bug link)
http://brainking.com/en/ReadBug?bgi=840

SafariGal: And I play ALL the time.

SafariGal: It was a tournament, and really with adding only 3 hours, once you run out of time it's impossible to keep up unless you don't sleep. Whoever goes to sleep first loses.

grenv: but it does give some of us the added option of finally playing fast games and not having to wait sometimes months to make a single move. Just a matter of being careful. I always make sure my opponent knows when they are playing a very very fast game with me

Well, i ran out of time on about 6 games in the last 2 days despite playing moves constantly.
Watch out for the new time controls, they can be extremely difficult to keep up with when the added value each move is less than the time it takes to get some sleep. I'll resign all my current games with such controls.

I just set up some one hour games in the waiting room if anyone is interested.

fast games set up in waiting room

alanback: That would explain why the active ratings tend to slowly rise, but I believe (but cannot prove) that the average rating rises slowly over time.

alanback: True, that is also a possible factor.

nabla: I would expect the average ratings displayed on the boards to rise steadily, because a larger proportion of successful players than unsuccessful ones tend to stay active.

pentejr: I don't think so. It is rather considered smart than new people have a higher coefficient than people who have played a lot of games, and it could even compensate an inflation caused by people entering the rating list with a too high score. When there really is inflation it is likely to be caused by a too generous policy regarding first ratings, when the new overrated players inflate the rating pool.

alanback: I figured it was something like that. But this is the key to the ratings inflation you find in the more frequently-played games on this site, is it not?

pentejr: Your opponent probably had more completed games than you. Until you accumulate a certain number of completed games, your ratings adjustment after each game is modified (increased) by a factor that declines as you gain experience. Since you have completed only 42 games of hypergammon, your ratings adjustment is greater than it would be if you had already achieved the level of experience at which the extra factor ceases to apply. Your opponent was probably closer to that level than you, and therefore had a smaller adjustment.

I just won a game in hyper against someone with the exact same rating as myself. We both had established ratings. Somehow, I gained 10 points, and my opponent lost only 8. How? It's no wonder ratings inflate over time on this site, with stuff like that going on.

Marfitalu: That's what I meant. You can't make a good cube decision without being able to play the checkers.

is anyone interestd in playing a live game of BG? I'm game

Marfitalu: true .. the whole game stands with analysis, both checker play as well as cube decisions depend on that

Pythagoras: hmm true ... but isnt a good doubling decision also based on knowing ones capability to finish the game, and to know the difference in skill in the game ?

Hrqls: .
.
.
They don't double their effectiveness! Imagine they double and the opponent accepts and they lose because of their inferiority at the checker play. So they have a double loss.....

grenv: good cube players double their effectiveness, where good checker play only gives one point

(all this combined with the actual value of the cube of course)

therefore i think good cube play is more important, as it the importance is double by the cube itself

luck can make up for bad checker play, its hard to make up bad cube decisions by luck i think

pentejr: I think that once you reach a certain level of checker play, the cuve becomes more important. A person who is horrible at checker play will not beat someone who is great at checker play regardless of skill with regard to doubling. But when the skill level of the two players are both high, the one who is a better cube player will often beat the better checker player.

grenv: Yes, I agree with everything you just said. I also found that when the cube was first introduced, hyper players would take the most outrageous doubles, sometimes giving up 4 (or 6) points where they should've given up just 1.

pentejr: I agree the cube is very important, but even a good cube decision can be undone by bad checker play.

Hyper checker play is not all that difficult, so the cube seems very important here. I've found that many people miss an obvious double which ends up costing them.

Pythagoras: Yes, both are important, but I would rate the cube higher. And the more "luck-dependent" the variant, the higher premium I would place on the cube. I've won multi-point matches of hyper on this site where I've won as few as 1/3 of the rounds.

Yes cube is too important, but i would not put its importance higher than that of checker play! Ask a simple question: Can someone that doesn't know to play a good checker play, have any possibilities to win anything good, even if he knows well when to double and when not?
The question of who has the advantage, someone with better cube play but inferior checker play against someone, is simply not well defined....
Anyway a general idea is: Checker play + Cube play are impartible! No one can go to the success room if he is good only to one of these....Both are needed.....

Every turn is a new cube decision. Always. Never forget. The biggest error you can make is to fail to double at the appropriate time.
Kent Goulding, 1991

A player who is savy with the cube will have an advantage over an opponent who moves the checkers slightly better but makes inferior cube decisions. Thus, it is vital to understand cube decisions in order to be a winning backgammon player.
Kit Woolsey, 2002

The doubling cube holds the key to being a winner or a loser. Good checker play will never compensate for serious errors of judgement on doubling. A good part of the skill is accepting or refusing doubles lies in being able to recognize which positions are gammon prone and which are not. In any position where you are under attack and have no anchor in your opponents board, you risk being closed out and gammoned. Many seeminly inferior positions can be taken when you have an anchor.
Paul Magriel,

And someone said I dont know who: you win games with checkers, you win matches with the cube.

Czuch Chuckers: The doubling cube takes away much luck of the game and usualy finals are played to 21. A Backgammonmaster introduced it once if I´m right. I think that the realy better player can be determined in a 11 point match up. Indeed there is much decided by luck in backgammon, that makes this game so pleasant to me :). Actually I think that luck and scill is balanced to 50/50 but it depends on the scill finaly, the more you have, the more you can risk a beeing lucky.

I was having a conversation about luck and backgammon in a game recently.... I am told that luck plays 90% roll in backgammon. But to me luck is a 50 50 thing and even if it is a 99% thing in this game, it shouldnt matter, since we will all be equally lucky, and its the other 10% or 1% of the game that really matters? How are there world class players if the game is all about luck? I understand that luck can allow someone like me to beat a world class player in a game, which isnt possible in chess, for example. But it seems to me that luck is not as important as skill in backgammon, since luck will even out for all players in the long run?

Hi, to 'The Best and The Fast Gammon Players,

This is an opportunity, check your weight against to other best players if you inside the top 10% any of Gammon Games.

Don't be afraid of endless games and tournaments! If you don't like to join to the Gammon Tournaments without end (related with the move time of the opponents), our games finish before the next month tournament generally.

We choosed publicly announce this Traditional but popular Tournaments here, in the tournaments discussion group and some fellowship groups to all the best and fast players who are inside the top 10% of any type Gammon Games.

Inside the top 10% any type Gammon player (Back, Nack, Crowded, Race, Hyper, Anti), is eligible to join to all other games in this Tournaments before the begin time. (May 15, 2006).

Match type: 3 points match with doubling cube
Tournament type: one match for each two players
Maximum number of players per section: 8
Final match type for two players section: 5 points match with doubling cube
Time control: Time: 2 days, Bonus: 3 hours, Limit: 9 days, no days off (red signed)

(That means after beginning you have 2 days (48 hours) for your first move. Per your another move, you'll have 3 hours bonus for your other move time. 9 days is limit time for the opponents, after the move of other side.)

Please click to the Tournament addresse and 'feel free to join to any type of Gammon Games'. You are eligible to join, to all Gammon games without restriction, only if you inside of top 10% in any Gammon Games';(for now we have only six type of Gammon games).

2006 May: Top 10% - Fast Backgammoners 2006-05

With your join to this Tournament, hope to play good matches and enjoy!

*********************************************


If you interested who were the best and fast in the previous Gammon Tournaments, please click to following addresse:

2006 April : Top 10% - Fast Backgammoners 2006-04
2006 March : Top 10% - Fast Backgammoners 2006-03
2006 February: Top 10% - Fast Backgammoners 2006-02
2006 January : Top 10% - Fast Backgammoners (Invited)

Thank you!

Big Bad Wolf is right. If you win a game and then lose a game, your rating will be lower than if you lose and then win.

pentejr: I usually resign in that position so i could as well double :)

Andersp: That's not even close to the position I was describing, so I hope you're not talking about my "advice."

Andersp: But you had 2 pieces on the bar and were 100 pips behind, who gave you such advice??

I followed the good advice (-s) to double LOL

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

not too smart imo :)

grenv: I got your meaning grenv

It's incredible how quickly the conversation always descends into pedantry

alanback: obviously in this case it was. So what you are saying then is that if the statement was taken for it's true meaning, it was totally incorrect in this case?

SafariGal: The word "always" is one of the most unambiguous words there is. Used correctly, it should never be open to misinterpretation!

All: I always exaggerate the position for effect :)

Yes, i meant >50%, which is not the same as cube decision by the way.

alanback: surely the use of the word "always" is fraught with misinterpretations

Pythagoras: Ah, I see. "Always should" rather than "should always"!

Pythagoras: I was suggesting different wording grenv could have used

SafariGal: .
.
.
That is exactly the same with probability of >50% for a win.

Pythagoras: how about

you should win more often than lose?

alanback: Actually the "you should always win" should mean a >50% probabllity for a win.....
Although when people speak about "he should win now, it's clear!" they probably mean something like: "The probability to win is >70-80% "

grenv: I know you don't mean "always" win or lose. Are you referring to cube decisions?

Pythagoras: Yes, i had it round the wrong way, with 3 pieces you should always win, with 7 you should always lose. With 4-6 it depends where they are... according to the research I just did. :)

pentejr:.
.
.
Doubling when on the bar is not 99.98% stupid.
Probably yes, i gave that number more or less randomly and i was wrong....But still the situations you described are more rare to happen altough not 0.02% as i've said.

grenv:
If your 2 home pieces are on positions 1,2 then the opponent has about 70% to lose.
If your 2 home pieces are on positions 5,4 then the opponent has about 62% to lose.

pentejr: If one of your 3 pieces is on the bar then the chance of him catching up is very high, i'd say about 75%

Where is the bunny when you need him? Anyone care to do some rollouts on a computer to find out?