Is it wrong to double to end a game early?
Matt Senecal
really has it out for you). You don't think you'll make a gammon, so you
offer a double (knowing your opponent will refuse) just to end the game
early. Is this considered bad play style?
Douglas Zare
It's not bad. It's what you are supposed to do. The doubling cube is a
powerful weapon and this is an appropriate use for it.
Now for the refinements:
1) If you are a roll away from winning a normal game, just play it out rather
than double. Doubling makes it look like you think your opponent will make an
idiotic mistake or will click on the wrong button.
2) If you really don't have any chance to lose the game, and you have a tiny
chance of winning a gammon, you may double, but that is a gift to your
opponent. The technically correct move is to play on for the gammon. Keep in
mind that if you don't double now you could double next turn, and if your
opponent would still have to pass, then you haven't risked anything by
rolling.
3) This is backgammon. The dice might be angry with you. If there is no
chance of a gammon, double rather than tempting fate. I've turned around a
ton of games where my opponents could have correctly doubled me out but
didn't.
4) If the chance that you lose is miniscule, some opponents will be annoyed
that you don't double.
Douglas Zare
Hank Youngerman
resignations in such situations.
For example, let's say I am trailing in a race by 55 pips to 50 and my
opponent rolls 66. Even if I roll 66 in return, I will be down 26 to
31 and it will be a pass. If he has cube access, I may not even roll,
I'll just concede.
Likewise, often your opponent may be perfectly willing to concede but
if HE does it will look like bad form, trying to con you out of your
gammon chances, whatever they are.
I would say that more often than not, if you are 99%+ to win, it is
MORE sporting to double the opponent out than to make him play it out.
But even if you are 99.9%, why risk that 0.1%. We've all lost games
like that.
On Wed, 1 Aug 2001 12:50:25 -0700, "Matt Senecal" <msen...@inri.com>
wrote:
Jason Lee
I'd say it's bad style to NOT offer the double, since you're playing to
conclusion a game whose outcome is clear.
JLee
--
Jason Lee jl...@math.ucsd.edu http://math.ucsd.edu/~jlee/
"For all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these:
'It might have been.'"
-- John Greenleaf Whittier
Carlo Melzi
> 1) If you are a roll away from winning a normal game, just play it out rather
> than double. Doubling makes it look like you think your opponent will make an
> idiotic mistake or will click on the wrong button.
This is quite an interesting subject.
I was used to double my opponent out even if last roll situation,
mostly because of the fact that when I analized my matches with
Snowie2 it considers a 100% mistake not do double.
However, more than once my opponent accused me of considering him an
idiot.
I really believe that no offence should be taken from such a behavior.
What do you think ? Do you really consider bad behavior to double in
such a situation ?
Best regards,
Carlo Melzi
Matti Rinta-Nikkola
> that you don't double.
Maybe so, but there should not be any reason to be annoyed because
your opponent can allways resign the game if he does not want to
play on and take his winning chance you are offering to him.
Matti
Daniel Testa
> In many cases, mutual respect between opponents will lead to
> resignations in such situations.
>
> For example, let's say I am trailing in a race by 55 pips to 50 and my
> opponent rolls 66. Even if I roll 66 in return, I will be down 26 to
> 31 and it will be a pass. If he has cube access, I may not even roll,
> I'll just concede.
>
checker
distribution a more important factor in deciding whether it's a pass
or
a take than pip count?
For example, in your example, let's say the opponent has 4 checkers on
the three point, 5 on the two point, and 4 on the ace point. You have
a nicer board with
1 checker on the five and six points and 2 each on the other points.
I would probably take a double in this position having three less
checkers to bear
off.
Michael Strato
longer throw the dice needed to win and will resign.
Similarly, if I see my opponent can't win, I'll double to
end the game. Either is easy to figure out with a quick
glance at the situation on the board.
However, if my opponent (or I) has two checkers on the one
point (or some other obvious scenario) I think it is rude
to double. First of all, it is so much easier (and saves
time) if one clicks to get a roll and bears off the
checkers than to double. Secondly, accidents can happen and
the opponent might click on the wrong button. Personally, I
would not feel right about stealing the extra points.
In live tournaments, during bearoffs, the players recognize
when it is over. It's a silent affair. They just re-
position their checkers to start the next game.
I have been doubled by opponents online when all they had
to do was roll and bearoff to win. It is usually done to me
when I am ahead in the score of the match, so I take it as
steam on their part, or a psychological tactic.
One day, I jokingly asked one of these opponents at the
start of the next game, "Why did you double?” His simple
reply was, "Sue me!"
So I said, "Sue you? I was going to beaver!”
Another great counter-tactic to use in such a situation
(since the clown appears to have so much free time on his
hands) is to make him wait by thinking long and hard.
Hopefully, he'll ask "what's taking so long" and one can
tell him to "hold his horses" while you make this very
tough decision. I bet that will teach him!
Michael
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
spurs
This is the main reason the cube was introduced..... so we don't have
to play those "already won" or "already lost" games to a long boring
conclusion!
--
spurs
Roy Passfield @ Oxnard, California
http://www.dock.net/spurs
"Making a living is NOT the same as making a life"
(Roy Passfield, 1999)
axa
wrote:
>You're ahead and are pretty much assured of winning the game (unless fate
The cube is a weapon and should be used to gain maximum points, to
bully and to put an opponent out of his misery. Use it how you wish
but mis-use it at your peril.
Adam Stocks
1-point. It does raise quite an important philosophical question. Of course,
purely from the accepted sportsmanship viewpoint, it is taken by many to be
slightly rude to double when you have 0% MWC, but on the other hand, from a
totally purist gaming viewpoint, there is nothing theoretically underhand
about hoping you opponent will make a 'take' blunder. Snowie is programmed
to take into account its opponent's cube error rate, such that, since an
error will, in practice, always be present, Snowie will have a very slight
chance of a take from a lost position. It would be interesting to hear
Snowie's programmers' opinion on this.
At what (very low) level of skill of players does such a cube action become
acceptable ? Maybe never, but this question is subjective, since not all
similar situations are clear cut.
"Matt Senecal" <msen...@inri.com> wrote in message
news:9k9mtl$s54$1...@newpoisson.nosc.mil...
neghe Onegu
bearing off ( having rolled a big double ) or you should have used the
cube earlier. Just do what you think is quicker.
Offering the cube with 0 mwc is bad style. Simply don't do things in
the net you wouldn't do with the distance to your opponent being
only a real backgammon board.
Greetings Artur
Daniel Murphy
<riff...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Snowie is programmed
>to take into account its opponent's cube error rate, such that, ...
I don't believe this is true. To my knowledge Snowie always makes the
best theoretically possible play (as far it can determine), and does
so without considering any opponent's cube or checker play error rate.
Gregg Cattanach
redouble in a 'gin' position (like 2 checkers left to go), it won't flag
either action as an error, because it doesn't change your equity in any way.
Snowie assumes a rational opponent, so it doesn't assume any 'vig' for an
incorrect take in this kind of position.
Gregg
"Carlo Melzi" <cam...@tin.it> wrote in message
news:15b7bcdb.01080...@posting.google.com...
Gregg Cattanach
(see my previous post).
Gregg
"Adam Stocks" <riff...@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:9kcolt$nli$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk...
spurs
You are winning easily..... only a few rolls left..... Opponent
will easily avoid backgammon if he does not roll extraordinary badly
or you don't roll maximum doubles. Opponent resigns...... You
reject.... (seen those sequences before!) Opponent goes "Huh....
you think this is a gammon?" implying that from his viewpoint there
can be NO gammon and you must be stupid to prolong the match..... of
course he WON'T resign again (if you own cube you can't double him out
anyway!) even when the gammon becomes a non-factor.
I personally think it is a form of cheating, and it is surely a sign
of disrespect, to resign single when a gammon is still even marginally
possible.
Then there is another possible scenario...... play out the game to
the bitter end in case the opponent rolls wasted doubles during his
win.... or let the rolling continue to perhaps change a streak....
we hope! Anyway this could be a consideration in on-line gammon with
the electronic randomness! Could this be another "cheating" manoevre?
:>
--
spurs
Roy Passfield @ Oxnard, California
http://www.dock.net/spurs
"Making a living is NOT the same as making a life"
(Roy Passfield, 1999)
"Gregg Cattanach" <gcattana...@prodigy.net> wrote in message news:<Mrlb7.2475$is4.23...@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com>...