rollover
Andrew Loewy
rollover..to be applied only a single time per game..either your own throw
or the opponents, should be an option. It clearly will take some of the
excruciatingly unfair element out of the game and add a layer of strategy
that I think many of us would welcome. I have found no evidence of the
rollover option on any of the servers.
What do folks here think of the option...is it used in any tournaments?
Andy Loewy.
(BTW, JPWhite..enjoyed playing with you the other day. I'll do better next
time :>)
Douglas Zare
> It's been suggested and I think it makes excellent sense that a single
> rollover..to be applied only a single time per game..either your own throw
> or the opponents, should be an option. It clearly will take some of the
> excruciatingly unfair element out of the game and add a layer of strategy
> that I think many of us would welcome. I have found no evidence of the
> rollover option on any of the servers.
> What do folks here think of the option...is it used in any tournaments?
I strongly disagree. Allowing a rollover would distort the game significantly.
That doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun, and that one couldn't apply ideas from
backgammon, but it would favor some styles of play over others and alter the
correctness of many common decisions.
If you don't see the changes, consider the situation where you have used up
your rollover but your opponent has not. This needs to be considered, since
this is the threat you have when deciding to use the rollover first. Suppose
you are playing against an ace point game. Instead of, say, a 30% chance of
leaving a blot and being hit immediately, the rollover can be used so that
your first blot has has more than a 50% chance of being hit. 30% of the time,
your opponent would hit without using up the rollover, so would be able to use
it later. (Does it seem fair to be able to beaver with an ace point game? It
might be wrong due to the gammon chances, but many double/drops would be
converted to no double/takes.) So the rollover is worth a huge amount. On the
other hand, if you close your opponent out, I believe his or her rollover is
worth less than half the advantage in an ace or deuce point game. So closing
someone out is more valuable if they have a rollover and you don't. The
rollover is more valuable in positions which will lead to volatile ones than
ones in which the volatility might stay low for the rest of the game.
It would add complexity to the game. I'd like to learn how to play ordinary
backgammon first before taking that seriously, and I don't think it would
necessarily seem more fair to allow rollovers. My guess is that novice
opponents would make less efficient use of the option than I would, and they
would complain even more than they do now (I averaged more than +2.5 points
per game last week, cube never over 2). I think serious players should get
used to factoring the luck out of the game, and be satisfied with outplaying
an opponent no matter what the outcome is.
If you want other variations of backgammon, here are a few (mostly not in the
archive):
1) It's Essentially A Race: The board is set up at a 400m track. When you
complete a lap, you get to move, even if you were the last one to move, and
you have to move at least once every 5 minutes (walking speed) or lose a
backgammon. Some people are better at non-contact positions than others, and a
good sprint is extremely useful for blitzing.
2) Misere: The object is to lose, which is different from what BG2Lose plays.
It probably makes sense to ignore gammons and backgammons, although one
variant I have heard people play is that one must lose a gammon to win; single
wins are draws. The games take much longer than ordinary backgammon games
though the proof that the game ends with probability 1 still works. Timing and
pipcounts are essential as is holding high defensive anchors (which your
opponent can't slot) before breaking contact. Primes are still extremely
useful. Since this is a longer game with a lot of the same concepts, I think
there might be more skill involved than in ordinary backgammon.
3) Bad Advice: This is modelled after Fred Galvin's Compromise Chess. After
rolling, the player offers two legal moves, and the opponent decides which to
accept, or if there is only one legal move, this is simply made.
Unfortunately, I haven't found anyone willing to play this yet for backgammon.
I believe blitzing and containing a single checker would be extremely
difficult, and bearing off against contact should be humorous. I chose the
name "Bad Advice" for this operator on games since it can be played by asking
your opponent for advice, and by offering bad advice with absurd
justifications. ("Should I take your queen or run with Ke6?" "The important
thing is to get another piece controlling the center of the board. I recommend
that you advance your king.")
2) and 3) have the advantage that they produce legal games, hence can be
played on backgammon servers. There should be added points for confusing
kibitzers.
4) Short Backgammon: If I figure out how to play ordinary backgammon decently,
I'd like to play on a larger board, with more pieces, and perhaps 8-sided
dice. It is difficult to find a good starting position, but there would be new
ways to win, perhaps with multiple primes cutting one's opponent in 3. Instead
of doing that, shorten the dice: Any die which turns up a 6 must be rerolled.
It should be easier to prime, easier to roll doubles, easier to hit if
something is within range, and harder to blitz.
5) Play other games with a doubling cube. This even works for spectator sports
with, say, cube actions allowed during commercial breaks; which team you back
initially is chosen by the winner of a 1-point match of backgammon.
As you might be able to tell, I don't mind distorting the game, but I think
one should recognize the changes and make sure that they do not warp one's
play of the real thing.
Douglas Zare
Steve Mellen
luck as well. If it seems unfair that the last joker should win, it is no
less unfair to decree that the next-to-last joker shall win...
In article <XQ%s4.1269$j61....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
"Andrew Loewy" <andy...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply. Plenty to think about..
> Clearly for an ace point game, you are right, the probabilities are
> significantly distorted, to the point where it would indeed be
> out of sync with how we are used to playing. On the other hand, if one
> specifically excluded the use of a rollover when you are bearing on an
> opponents blot in his home board, you could keep the good features. I mean
> how often after you have bravely put together a strong board and put 2 of
> the opponents checkers on the bar, do you then see the opponent escape with
> 55 hitting a builder on his way out. You go from a 95% win to a 35% win in a
> single throw. 'Taint fair and justice can be served with this option.
> Andrew Loewy.
Andrew Loewy
Geoff
the book: "Winning Backgammon" by John Leet published in 1998. This book
devotes a whole chapter to the _rollover_, and strategy throughout the book
is based on keeping the rollover in mind.
Andrew Loewy <andy...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:R5Rs4.4746$2E1.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> It's been suggested and I think it makes excellent sense that a single
> rollover..to be applied only a single time per game..either your own throw
> or the opponents, should be an option. It clearly will take some of the
> excruciatingly unfair element out of the game and add a layer of strategy
> that I think many of us would welcome. I have found no evidence of the
> rollover option on any of the servers.
> What do folks here think of the option...is it used in any tournaments?
Julian Hayward
Andrew Loewy <andy...@earthlink.net> writes
> It clearly will take some of the
>excruciatingly unfair element out of the game
In what way unfair? Luck works both ways equally. If you don't like any
element of _luck_ you're playing the wrong game...
--
Julian Hayward 'Booles' on FIBS jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk
+44-1344-640656 http://www.ratbag.demon.co.uk/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I always said I wanted to be somebody - I should have been more specific.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Loewy
is being suggested is that if you arrive at a certain position thru both
luck and skill and your position can be destroyed by a single 1 in 17 or 1
in 35 shot, you should have one chance per game to prevent that. This adds
skill to the game because now you have to figure when the best time is to
use your rollover.
On the other hand it is easy to see where the option does indeed rob the
game of some of the extreme thrill element that I guess a lot of people find
may give them a rush.
Julian Hayward <Jul...@ratbag.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:JF3ryKA6...@ratbag.demon.co.uk...
Daniel Murphy
>
> It's been suggested and I think it makes excellent sense that a single
> rollover..to be applied only a single time per game..either your own throw
> or the opponents, should be an option. It clearly will take some of the
> excruciatingly unfair element out of the game and add a layer of strategy
> that I think many of us would welcome. I have found no evidence of the
> rollover option on any of the servers.
The "rollover" is not used on any servers. It's not used in any
tournaments. Andrew's questions came up back in 1997. I liked Michael
Zehr's response then:
__________________________________________
From: ta...@athena.mit.edu (Michael J Zehr)
Subject: Re: A new backgammon rule - your opinions please...
Date: 02 Oct 1997 00:00:00 GMT
Message-ID: <61150v$7...@senator-bedfellow.MIT.EDU>
References: <610igi$11...@ns4-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>
Newsgroups: rec.games.backgammon
>In article <01bccf42$d1749180$7365c6d0@ed-s-pc>, "Edward D. Collins" <ecol...@inficad.com> writes:
>>Doesn't just about everyone hate losing a game/match because your opponent
>>rolled a "miracle" roll at some point in the game? Don't you feel that you
>>were "cheated" out of victory?
>>
>>Proposed rule addition: [roll over option, either your own roll or to
>>cancel your opponent's]
rec.games.backgammon, August 14, 2018:
Geez, there I was in the finals of a big tournament, my opponent had
checkers on his 2 and 3, and I had three on my 4 point, and I rolled a
55, and should have won, but was cheated out of my victory because my
opponent had saved his one "do over" til the very end.
:-)
Seriously though, it is fun to play around with backgammon variations.
Of course what everyone is hoping is that they'll invent the next
hypergammon, analyze it to death, and then as it's gaining popularity
win lots of money. So... what racing lead do you need to double or
take if both you and your opponent have a "do over" left? What if you
do and she doesn't? She does and you don't?
Yup... my Pappy used to tell me, "If ever a man comes up to you on the
street and says he has a new backgammon variation never before tried,
and offers to play you at it for money just to see what it's like,
then sure as the sun rises every day, if you sit down with him and
play, that man will go home with all your money." :)
Do these rules increase or decrease variance? At first glance the
rules sound like they decrease it, but do you blitz more often knowing
you can make your opponent reroll the double that enters three times
and hits? Does your willingness to blitz more often more than make up
for the reduced variance of being able to cancel jokers and root
numbers? If you've saved your "do over" then bearing off safely takes
less skill, even though you have an extra decision to make.
-michael j zehr:
______________________________________________