Is this legal?
John Heckler
Does he have to move 24/21, 21/17, or can he move 4/1 and claim he cannot
move the 4? It is my understanding that you have to move the entire roll
if you can, therefore, in this case O would have to run one of his back
men, right?!?! Thanks in advance for you help :)
jt
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
+------------------------------------------+ X: score: 0
| X | | X X X X O |
| X | | X X X X O |
| X | | X X X |
| | | X |
| | | |
v| |BAR| |
| | | |
| | | O O |
| | | O O O |
| | | O O O O |
| | | O O O O |
+------------------------------------------+ O: score: 0
12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
BAR: O-0 X-0 OFF: O-0 X-0 Cube: 1 O rolls 3 4.
---
================================================================================
John Heckler = =
Lexis-Nexis = "Please don't dominate the rap = hec...@lexis-nexis.com
Post Office Box 933 = Jack, if ya got nothin' new = (513) 865-6800
9393 Springboro Pike = to say" = ext 4895
Dayton, OH 45401 = =
================================================================================
James Eibisch
>Sorry, this is a newbie question... It is O's turn and he rolls a 3-4.
>Does he have to move 24/21, 21/17, or can he move 4/1 and claim he cannot
>move the 4? It is my understanding that you have to move the entire roll
>if you can, therefore, in this case O would have to run one of his back
>men, right?!?! Thanks in advance for you help :)
>
>jt
>
> 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
> +------------------------------------------+ X: score: 0
> | X | | X X X X O |
> | X | | X X X X O |
> | X | | X X X |
> | | | X |
> | | | |
> v| |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | O O |
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O O O O |
> | | | O O O O |
> +------------------------------------------+ O: score: 0
> 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
>
> BAR: O-0 X-0 OFF: O-0 X-0 Cube: 1 O rolls 3 4.
You're right - O has to run a back man 24-21 21-17. You have to use your
full roll whenever you can.
--
_
James Eibisch ('v') N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
Reading, U.K. (,_,) http://metro.turnpike.net/J/jeibisch/
=======
chrisw
>Sorry, this is a newbie question... It is O's turn and he rolls a 3-4.
>Does he have to move 24/21, 21/17, or can he move 4/1 and claim he cannot
>move the 4? It is my understanding that you have to move the entire roll
>if you can, therefore, in this case O would have to run one of his back
>men, right?!?! Thanks in advance for you help :)
>jt
> 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
> +------------------------------------------+ X: score: 0
> | X | | X X X X O |
> | X | | X X X X O |
> | X | | X X X |
> | | | X |
> | | | |
> v| |BAR| |
> | | | |
> | | | O O |
> | | | O O O |
> | | | O O O O |
> | | | O O O O |
> +------------------------------------------+ O: score: 0
> 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
> BAR: O-0 X-0 OFF: O-0 X-0 Cube: 1 O rolls 3 4.
Correct, O would have to play 24/21, 21/17. Anything else would be
illegal.
---
chrisw on FIBS
Guam, USA
"Where America's day begins"
Albert Steg
> Sorry, this is a newbie question... It is O's turn and he rolls a 3-4.
> Does he have to move 24/21, 21/17, or can he move 4/1 and claim he cannot
> move the 4? It is my understanding that you have to move the entire roll
> if you can, therefore, in this case O would have to run one of his back
> men, right?!?! Thanks in advance for you help :)
Yes, O has to run, employing his full roll. Guidelines:
1) You must play both dice if possible.
2) You may play the dice in any order (subject to #1).
3) If either number can be played, but not both, the higher number must be
played.
Those three rules should cover any situation that arises.
Albert
John Heckler
>3) If either number can be played, but not both, the higher number must be
>played.
What would be an example of you being able to move either, but
not both? Just curious. Thanks for all the replies. This seems
to be a very friendly news group :) Or maybe you all are just
looking at this as an investment for when I eventually start
playing on FIBS ;-) ;-) ;-)
Cheers,
jt
Alan Cathcart
21-17 is the only permissible move.
Patti Beadles
John Heckler <hec...@meaddata.com> wrote:
>What would be an example of you being able to move either, but
>not both?
Here's a contrived example.
Black has two checkers each on white's 1,2,3, and 4 points. White has
two checkers on the 6 point, and one on the 9 point. White to play a
4 3.
Only one checker can move. White must play 9 5 (leaving a triple shot)
since he has to play the larger number.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles | 2.7% may be huge, but I'll put
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com | my money on the 97.2% side.
http://www.gammon.com/ |
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | Now also pa...@velo.com
KAMccoll
+24-23-22-21-20-19-+---+18-17-16-15-14-13-+
| X O O O | | |
| X O O | | |
| 11 | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| X | | X |
| X X X X | | X |
| X X X X X | O | X |
+-1--2--3--4--5--6-+---+-7--8--9-10-11-12-+
O rolls 4-3 from the bar. Since O can't take both the 4 and the 3.
according to the rule, O MUST come off the bar with the 4 and
does not play the 3.
Kate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~ Kate McCollough ~~~~~ "I dwell in Possibility-" ~~~~
~~~~~ mcc...@gti.net ~~~~~ Emily Dickinson ~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Turner
>
> In article <4fd69k$2...@meaddata.lexis-nexis.com>,
> John Heckler <hec...@meaddata.com> wrote:
> >What would be an example of you being able to move either, but
> >not both?
>
> Here's a contrived example.
>
> Black has two checkers each on white's 1,2,3, and 4 points. White has
> two checkers on the 6 point, and one on the 9 point. White to play a
> 4 3.
>
> Only one checker can move. White must play 9 5 (leaving a triple shot)
> since he has to play the larger number.
>
A more common example is when White has one chequer left, which is on the bar,
and Black has two chequers on each of his 3 to 7 points. White rolls 1 2 and
must enter on Black's 2 not 1. Here the legal move coincides with White's
preferred move anyway.
--
Stephen R. E. Turner
Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory, University of Cambridge
e-mail: sr...@cam.ac.uk WWW: http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/~sret1/home.html
Fred Trivett
jeib...@revolver.demon.co.uk (James Eibisch) wrote:
>hec...@meaddata.com (John Heckler) wrote:
>
>>Sorry, this is a newbie question... It is O's turn and he rolls a 3-4.
>>Does he have to move 24/21, 21/17, or can he move 4/1 and claim he cannot
>>move the 4? It is my understanding that you have to move the entire roll
>>if you can, therefore, in this case O would have to run one of his back
>>men, right?!?! Thanks in advance for you help :)
>>
>>
>> 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
>> +------------------------------------------+ X: score: 0
>> | X | | X X X X O |
>> | | | X |
>> | | | |
>> v| |BAR| |
>> | | | |
>> | | | O O |
>> | | | O O O |
>> | | | O O O O |
>> | | | O O O O |
>> +------------------------------------------+ O: score: 0
>> 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
>>
>> BAR: O-0 X-0 OFF: O-0 X-0 Cube: 1 O rolls 3 4.
>
>full roll whenever you can.
>
ok, that answered, then why do computer backgammon games allow you to do one
or the other???
my .02 worth ......ftri...@sunbelt.net
Daniel Murphy
Bad programming. If you paid as much as 2 cents for a computer bg program
that lets you to make illegal moves, I'd say you spent too much. Junk it
and buy one that (at least) plays by the rules.
Nick Wedd
>(Fred Trivett) writes:
>
>>>You have to use your full roll whenever you can.
>
>>ok, that answered, then why do computer backgammon games allow you to do one
>>or the other???
>>my .02 worth ......ftri...@sunbelt.net
>
>Bad programming. If you paid as much as 2 cents for a computer bg program
>that lets you to make illegal moves, I'd say you spent too much. Junk it
>and buy one that (at least) plays by the rules.
>
different rule set.
There is a set of rules which no-one around here seems to mention, that:
1.) Allows you to use part of a throw so as not to be able to use the
rest of it;
2.) Forbids you to put more than five pieces on one point.
I first came across these rules on a leaflet that came with a backgammon
set that I bought here in England. I have heard them described as "Old
English". IMHO, they make for a poorer game, as back-games are easier
to set up, and too successful.
Nick.
--
Nick Wedd Ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk 72133...@compuserve.com
Ben Fairbank
Ni...@maproom.demon.co.uk says...
>
>There is a set of rules which no-one around here seems to
mention, that:
>1.) Allows you to use part of a throw so as not to be able
to use the
> rest of it;
>2.) Forbids you to put more than five pieces on one point.
>
>I first came across these rules on a leaflet that came with
a backgammon
>set that I bought here in England. I have heard them
described as "Old
>English". IMHO, they make for a poorer game, as back-games
are easier
>to set up, and too successful.
>
>Nick.
>--
in her eighties who was visiting this country. She too
played that one could have not more than five checkers on a
point. More interesting, however, was the way she said the
opening roll was played in England. The player who casts the
higher die has a choice of playing the roll as it lies, OR
rolling again and playing the resulting roll. Thus one can
have the chance of opening with doubles, for example. Anyone
ever hear of that rule in England?
Ben F.
Christian Griesbeck
>In article <31168a15...@158.152.1.37>,
> jeib...@revolver.demon.co.uk (James Eibisch) wrote:
>>
>>>Sorry, this is a newbie question... It is O's turn and he rolls a 3-4.
>>>Does he have to move 24/21, 21/17, or can he move 4/1 and claim he cannot
>>>move the 4? It is my understanding that you have to move the entire roll
>>>if you can, therefore, in this case O would have to run one of his back
>>>men, right?!?! Thanks in advance for you help :)
>>>
>>>jt
>>>
>>> 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
>>> +------------------------------------------+ X: score: 0
>>> | X | | X X X X O |
>>> | X | | X X X X O |
>>> | X | | X X X |
>>> | | | X |
>>> | | | |
>>> v| |BAR| |
>>> | | | |
>>> | | | O O |
>>> | | | O O O |
>>> | | | O O O O |
>>> | | | O O O O |
>>> +------------------------------------------+ O: score: 0
>>> 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
>>>
>>> BAR: O-0 X-0 OFF: O-0 X-0 Cube: 1 O rolls 3 4.
>>
>>full roll whenever you can.
>>
>
>ok, that answered, then why do computer backgammon games allow you to do one
>or the other???
If the computer looks for all legal moves first and only allow you to move
one of the moves found to be legal - this is the only move he allows.
- Thats clean Software - but it takes some effort.
So some programs (including my own) don't verify this composite movements.
I for example only verify:
- Are there stones on the Bar to be moved first?
- If you try of bear of a stone are you allowed to do so?
- If your move the lower number
- is one legal move left for the higher number?
- if not is there one legal move for the higher number,
if you don't take the smaler number?
(that prevents 99% of all illegal moves)
Try in the program you use to get a computer suggestion:
If he offers you a illgegal move, don't use it anymore.
If he only allows you to do illgegal moves (but don't sugest it to
you), don't worry, all moves are legal until marked by your opponent
(the computer) as illegal! - so you can beat him :-)
|| Christian Griesbeck
| grie...@stud.uni-frankfurt.de
- beaten by his own program :-(
Albert Steg
> About three years ago I played a game against an Englishwoman
> in her eighties who was visiting this country. She too
> played that one could have not more than five checkers on a
> point.
I encountered players in Scotland who played by this "5 on a point" rule.
My own guess is that the variation is born of the fact that on most bg
sets the proportions are such that 5 checkers fill up a point perfectly.
The notion that that represents a limit is a natural misconception. Of
course, as soon as someone puts it in print somewhere, it gathers
legitimacy.
It's a bad rule because (1) BG is already a game with limited enough
options, (2) It would make for all sorts of artificial problems in the
bearoff, such as not being allowed to play an only available 5 from the
6-point to a stacked ace-point, an unfair forfeit of 6 pips in a race, and
(3) until the endgame it is not desirable to stack more than 5 checkers on
a point--stacking checkers is its own punishment, so it doesn't need to be
banned.
More interesting, however, was the way she said the
> opening roll was played in England. The player who casts the
> higher die has a choice of playing the roll as it lies, OR
> rolling again and playing the resulting roll. Thus one can
> have the chance of opening with doubles, for example.
Since any opening is (generally) regarded as advantageous, it seems
equitable to bar that player from getting such an overwhelmingly good
opener as a set of doubles. The fact that the second player has that
chance somewhat evens the score.
Albert
Patrick McDaid
>Bad programming. If you paid as much as 2 cents for a computer bg program
>that lets you to make illegal moves, I'd say you spent too much. Junk it
>and buy one that (at least) plays by the rules.
OK, for a newbie to the n/g, would you care to put my money where your
mouth is, and suggest one or more Good bg programs? I have a bg game on
Expert Fav games, but it allows illegal moves as already discussed here.
A program either available in UK or OZ would be useful.
Marina Smith
I have met both these rules here in England. While many people seem to
believe in the not-more-than-5-on-a-point one, I have only heard of
the opening-roll-choice one, not met a proponent. While Albert is
right, 5 chequers do "fill up" the point, it is not helpful that some
instructions perpetuate the "rule". When we first started our Reading
club, all the locals who played were convinced of the 5-on-a-point
rule. It turned out that all had been taught by the same person.
mas on fibs.