What do you think of this?
Ilya Vinogradsky
that I would win the current game with the score of 2, so I would win
the match. One move before the end of the game my opponent offered to
resign. I assume that he was going to resign with a gammon option like
any decent self respectfull player. I accepted, but it turned out that
he resigned with normal option. So the score became 2-2. I went on and
won the match, but i became very pissed when i saw that he "cheated".
I don't think I'll ever play that person again. From now on I'll be
more careful in accepting resignations.
What do you think? Was is it just my blunder, and I should be pissed
at myself, not my opponent?
Ilya Vinogradsky - ilusha.
Usenet rec.games.backgammon gateway
could have just resigned single rather than g automatically. I've done
that a couple of times myself, but would immediate say 'oops', or
something like that. U have to be more careful next time
Igor
Stephen Turner
I have had people do this. Presumably they think they're not cheating,
just offering you one point and it's up to you if you take it. It's
particularly potent if the cube is already at 2 and they offer you
a normal resignation and you think '2 points, OK' and take it.
I think it's cheating. So to is offering a double to a novice player
when you're well up but you've got enough points that if they refuse
you win the match anyway.
There is a simple solution (well, I assume it's simple). Just say
"Bloggs offers to resign normal. You will win 2 points.
Type 'accept' or 'reject'."
Then you need not think what the right number of points they should
be offering you is.
Stephen Turner
Stochastic Networks Group, Statistical Laboratory,
University of Cambridge, CB2 1SB, England
e-mail: S.R.E....@statslab.cam.ac.uk
Michael J Zehr
>I was playing a three point match, losing 1-2. [About to win a gammon
>when opponent resigned a normal game and Ilya accepted.]
>
>What do you think? Was is it just my blunder, and I should be pissed
>at myself, not my opponent?
Some of the other followups have called this cheating. I guess it
depends on what one means by cheating. In most games, cheating means
breaking the rules. I don't know how it is in international
tournaments, but in US tournaments the rules are quite explicit that it
is up to you to correct irregularities in your opponent's play. If you
roll your dice, your opponent's play stands.
The only "rules" explicit in FIBS are no insults, no fascism or racism,
and no using more than one account. (These are displayed when one logs
in.)
On the other hand, cheating also means using deception. If the person
did it intentionally, then I would say it was deceptive. If it was
accidental, well, you accepted it, right?
Naturally you're free to decide never to play that person again (unless
forced to in a tournament), but in the absence of a formal list of
regulations, I wouldn't call your opponent's behavior "cheating."
-michael j zehr
Breanndan O Nuallain
>There is a simple solution (well, I assume it's simple). Just say
>"Bloggs offers to resign normal. You will win 2 points.
> Type 'accept' or 'reject'."
>Then you need not think what the right number of points they should
>be offering you is.
On a side, but related, issue, a possibility is to allow a player to
resign with an offer of points. For example, with the cube on 2 and it
looks like it will probably be a gammon, the losing player offers to
resign for 3 points to cut his losses in the hope that the winning
player will see it as a bird in the hand... I've made such offers in
cash games to a variety of responses from, "but that's against the
rules," to "fine, let's do it." Also, if a really ridiculous board
position arises and the players want to agree to scratch the game and
start another shouldn't that be an option? For example after four
consequtive 6-6s early in the game.
Do many players play this?
What do people think of it?
Would it be an interesting addition to FIBS?
,
Breanndan
lanc...@axp3.acf.nyu.edu
Several themes are presenting themselves on this thread:
(1) is resigning normal while losing a gammon ethical or not?
my answer: If it is inadvertent, no ethical breach has been committed.
You may take advantage of it as you please, though: Once I was playing a
fellow, and I resigned before noticing that it wasn't a gin position. (In fact,
I may have just hit a blot.) The fellow refused my resignation, and lost the
game. He won the match, I believe. ( This was a weaker player. Perhaps he was
playing on FIBS to try to improve his bg skills, and figured that gracious
behaviour towards a good player would improve his chances of playing me again,
thus helping to improve his game) There would've been nothing wrong with him
acceepting, esp. in a money or tourney match, where one is suppossed to pay
attention.
If it is deliberate, it is unethical. It seems to me that a number of
weaker players do this to test their opponents. I have had a few weaker players
do that against me, and while reading this thread, I used "look" at a few
matches, and in the first two matches I "looked" at involved that sort of
double. Either both cases involved mistakes, or there was something funny going
on. Note that the strong players don't pull that sort of stunt on each other,
escept by accident. (I have been guilty of that-- Once when I was playing
kitwoolsey and had a lot of watchers. Very embarrassing)
(2) Is it ethical for a stronger player to take advantage of the weaker
players' ineptness with the cube?
Absolutely. I would say that the major diffence between an intermediate player
like myself and a strong player like Kit Woolsey is cube handling. Also, that
is the main difference between a beginner and myself. It if fair to say that
the biggest part of bg play is the cube. Taking advantage of cube ineptness by
the opponent is no more unethical than taking advantage of a player who doesn't
know how to play an opening 3-1. I have advised weak players: If you want to
have a good chance at winning matches, play 1 pointers or other short matches
where the cube doesn't make much of a difference. If you want to learn how to
use the cube well, play longer matches. You'll get crushed a lot, but you'll
learn faster. A balance of different matchlengths might be best.
(3) The question of settlements has come up. The first time i played a money
match on FIBS, there was a settlement involved. (It was an unlimited match,
BTW). The extra partial point was kept track of on the side. Match play,
however. doesn't involve settlements.
(4) There are a number of players who play for money on FIBS. They tend to be
honest, because welchers are discovered quickly, and word gets around. There is
at least one FIBS player who welched a long, long time ago, and can't play a
money game to this day because of it. (although some have tried to use
different names).
-Bob Lancaster
David Forthoffer
behavior, and annoyed at yourself because you didn't catch it.
--
David Forthoffer NEC Technologies Printer Division
dav...@lpd.sj.nec.com 110 Rio Robles, San Jose CA 95134
"I'm not speaking for NEC unless I explicitly say so."
Willis Elias
was saying:
>I was playing a three point match, losing 1-2. Then it became obvious
*snip*
{description of ilusha's blunder deleted}
>
>What do you think? Was is it just my blunder, and I should be pissed
>at myself, not my opponent?
*snip*
Definitely. FIBS is pretty clear as to the terms of resignation.. maybe
your opponent erred in offering 'resign n' and you compounded the error by
accepting the terms. You could have rejected and clarified using kibitz.
in MHO anyway..
>Ilya Vinogradsky - ilusha.
- avernesse
=======================================================================
Willis Elias |
The Aerospace Corporation, | ASCII Art and Fortune Deleted for
El Segundo, CA | Brevity.
310-336-8653 |
wi...@bigsky.aero.org |
=======================================================================
Kit Woolsey
: I was playing a three point match, losing 1-2. Then it became obvious
: Ilya Vinogradsky - ilusha.
We are all human, and as humans we make mistakes. I have not
infrequently had opponents who I know are 100% honest make errors with
the resignation, generally accidentally resigning n when a gammon is
possible or probable. While it is possible that your opponent did so
intentionally, I think you should give him/her the benefit of the doubt
until proven otherwise and assume it was an honest mistake. My personal
procedure is to carefully examine any resignation offer, and if I'm not
getting what I expect to get I simple reject and there are no problems.
In other words, cover your ass yourself!
Kit Woolsey
Ilya Vinogradsky
: I was playing a three point match, losing 1-2. Then it became obvious
: Ilya Vinogradsky - ilusha.
I want to clear up some points in my post.
1. In that game no one owned the cube.
2. I pretty sure that my opponent resigned with 'n' option
intentionally. After I accepted the resignation, told him that I made
a mistake, and he said that it was "kinda funny" that i did. Basicly
he was hoping that i would make this blunder.
So I think he didn't brake the rulls of backgammon, but he broke the
rulls of ethical conduct. The only falt of mine is that i should have
caught it.
Ilya.
Durf Freund
There is a tendency these days, especially in the U.S., to blame someone
else for anything that happens. If you fall off a ladder, sue the
manufacturer; if you smoke yourself to near-death, sue the tobacco
companies; if you're in a bad mood, blame your boss/wife/kids/whatever;
if you lose at backgammon, blame the dice or your opponent's sneaky
maneuvers.
I don't buy it. We're all responsible for who we are and how we feel and
what we do. If you were careless or made a bad decision on FIBS, go look
in a mirror and say, "You did a dumb thing. Be more careful next time."
I don't even think it's unethical for someone to offer you the
opportunity to be a dunce (though I would not intentionally do so on
FIBS) -- the world is a harsh environment, and it pays to learn to take
care of ourselves.
Durf
Don C Rudolph
> There is a tendency these days, especially in the U.S., to blame
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> someone else for anything that happens.
[rest of article deleted]
Durf, I am sorry to say, I have to agree with your article. I'm not
sure the "especially in the U.S." part is true, however. I suspect this is
a human characteristic rather than a nationalistic one.
Don Rudolph -- d...@cup.portal.com
Matthew J Reklaitis
in this situation, I'd like to say this:
If you are on FIBS solely for the purpose of fun, then offering a normal resignation
in a sure gammon situation is sort of a practical joke. In this case, it *is*
funny if accepted.
After all, bg is a game. Although some people like to involve themselves in
the best strategies for winning - which
is completely fine, other people like
to not care so much and just play along -
which is completely fine also.
If being a joker is what is enjoyable to you, then I say go with it. No style
of play can be deemed "better" than any other in my opinion. Just play your
own game and enjoy!
---matt reklaitis