Jack-gammon and Lack-gammon...
Murat Kalinyaprak
rgb for the past couple of weeks, but I had finally
"discovered" FIBS and have been spending time there
playing instead of posting articles here.
Anybody who likes backgammon should join FIBS right
now and stop playing against computer programs... I
had heard about it years ago but kept thinking that
the interface was character-based only, that "FIBS"
was the plural of "FIB" (i.e. several servers) and
that they were charging membership fees... Too bad
I found out so late that none of the above is true.
For the ones who may have the same misimpressions,
FIBS is a single "free" server with graphics-based
interfaces available as shareware/freeware. So, if
you haven't yet, go join without delay...
My first days there were overly enjoyable. After a
couple of weeks however, the excitement is wearing
off and I have some observations/opinions to share
or discuss with others.
The biggest problem I have is that I feel I am not
playing "backgammon" anymore, but some bastardized
varieties which I would like to call "jackgammon"
and "lackgammon"...
"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling
cube. I think all it does is to emphasize what is
called the "luck factor". After getting a few good
rolls doubling with a big grin is no indication of
skill whatsoever in my opinion. To the contrary it
is the worst way of saying "I got lucky, now take
this!". I find doubling acts during the stages of
close bare-offs expecially disgracing to what was
once (and some places still is) "backgammon"...
Now please don't think that I'm complaining because
I can't use the cube. I did actually surpass by far
my own expectations about using the cube... For the
first 50-60 games, I stuck to 1-pt (cubeless) games
but (although timidly), I had to eventually start
playing with the cube. As long as I was "trying" my
best with it, I was doing rather fine and my rating
steadily rose to near 1700 playing against players
who were sometimes rated way over me.
Yet, I never came to like playing with the cube and
started playing "*against it*". What I mean by this
is trying to play ignoring it (not doubling when I
could and going for gammon instead or accepting the
double without much regard to odds and playing out
the rest of the game). Interestingly, I'm not doing
any worse despite this attitude and my rating stays
around mid/high 1600's. Yesterday, one player very
candidly commented that I had kept beating him and
that he was wondering why my rating wasn't rising
above his... Seemingly I'm able to turn enough "bad
takes" around and win enough gammons (thus matches)
that my rating is at least not sinking.
One turn off is being called a "lucky who makes the
wrong moves and cube decisions"... The guy doubles
and I resign 3 times in a row, then I get him bad
enough to perhaps win even a 3 point backgammon, I
roll 65 exposing two blots at once, he misses and
right away comes the remark "You are so lucky"...
I ask him if his rolling many doubles is not luck.
He says no. For him that's part of the game but
making wrong moves/decision and getting away with
it is luck... I beat some guy with a better rating
and he calls me "Lucky bastard". So I offer to play
until my luck runs out. This time he accuses me of
having a certain "attitude". Then what do I do? We
start a new match, I let him win 6-0 knowing that
on the last move of 7-0 I will drop the game. I end
up winning the 7th game but drop before my last move
anyway with a comment that this should teach him a
lesson. He goes berzerk raising a ruckus about my
being a dropper in the "shout section", leaving me
messages swearing at my mother, interfering in my
games with others, etc... I double against a better
rated player and he takes it, perhaps hoping I will
mess up later. Unfortunately, in no time he has 7
men stacked behind a 5-prime, 1 on the bar and one
more blot sure to get hit. And, somehow his line
gets disconnected... (That game was later resumed.)
I guess all this is part of life in the "jackgammon"
and "lackgammon" world...
What I call "lackgammon" is the 1-pt games without
gammons or backgammons. If you can't win a gammon
(or a backgammon) why is the word used in the name
of the game...?
I think my backgame is stronger than average and I
seem to do rather well with 1-pt games, but there
is just not much excitement in it if you can kick
back and play without worrying about risking to
lose any more than 1 point no matter what. It sure
does "lack" something...
After so many hundred games I played on the FIBS,
I don't feel like I played "backgammon" yet... It
just doesn't exist there. I suppose players could
privately arrange/agree to play 5 point matches
without the cube (and preferably without 3 point
wins, but I don't mind this as much) and I may try
doing that later on. In the meantime, even playing
"jackgammon" and "lackgammon" on the FIBS is more
fun than discussing whether computer programs cheat
in this group...
MK
PS: Anybody who would like to play rated or non-rated
friendly games with me can find me there as "muratk"...
BTW: How's JF doing...? Is the dice bug fixed yet
and/or the dice algorithm pulished by chance...?
EdmondT
Murat, I don't think you are giving the game a chance, and if you do you'll
enjoy it even more. You have basically decided to create situations where you
limit your experience to about 65% of the game, by avoiding cube play and
matches, as opposed to one point games.
>"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling cube. I think all it does
is to emphasize what is called the "luck factor". After getting a few good
rolls doubling with a big grin is no indication of skill whatsoever in my
opinion.<
I don't agree that the cube favors people who are on a lucky streak at all. On
the contrary, it allows you to let them win 3 or 4 one point games, when they
are getting their lucky rolls, and then win all the ponts back in one game.
Without the cube, you'd be forced to win each of those games back individually.
I agree with you that its really annoying when people ignore all the good luck
they have had in a game, then complain about your luck. I had a game last nite
where the guy rolled a series of 4 doubles, 6's, 5's and 4's, and I tighted up
my position, closed up my home board, and eventually hit him when he left a
blot while bearing off. He immediately said "Lucky shot." Although he was an
ignoramous, all I said was "Do you mean my hit or all the doubles you threw?"
>I let him win 6-0 knowing that on the last move of 7-0 I will drop the game. I
end up winning the 7th game but drop before my last move
anyway with a comment that this should teach him a lesson. >
I think doing this is a bad idea, and will eventually get you in trouble having
games in FIBS. If the guy is a jerk, just don't play him and gag him. But
dropping is considered a no-no.
Anyway, my advice to you is to recognize that you are used to playing BG in one
specific way, and that there is alot of fun in using the cube. Its just that
you aren't used to it.
Casual_Observer
I think Murat raises an interesting question of which,
as a FIBS player, I have never even thought. Money
Play. A game in which one would get credit for the
final value of the cube * game value applied to his/her
rating. FIBS is so "match" oriented that I am not even
sure I really ever noticed the absence of pure Money Play.
I guess someone, Marvin or Kit, would have to address
this one. Is such an arrangement feasible within
the current structure of the FIBS operating
environment.
BTW, I am accutely aware that in money play one's
rating is not one of the big concerns. However, if
you eliminate the $$, you can simply look upon
this type of non-match type game as another form
of BG play to be experience rated at the final score.
I will admit that I have not reviewed the ratings
calculations closely enought to try to estimate
the effect of a 512-0 final score on both player's
ratings. Perhaps this would skew the entire rating
system.
Just a thought/question.
As to Murat's aversion to the cube, I can only
point out that it has become integral to the
game. I am not sure I see much difference, in terms
of adding features to a game, between the cube and
the introduction of the bunt, by some genius, into
baseball. All part of the strategy of the game.
Have Fun,
Richard
P.S.: Murat - Still waiting for the complete text
of your JF and shower saga.
Patti Beadles
jacoby.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ | The deep end isn't a place
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | for dipping a toe.
Vince Mounts
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <6tqa1h$m9l$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
<snip>
>The biggest problem I have is that I feel I am not
>playing "backgammon" anymore, but some bastardized
>varieties which I would like to call "jackgammon"
>and "lackgammon"...
>
>"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling
>cube. I think all it does is to emphasize what is
>called the "luck factor". After getting a few good
>rolls doubling with a big grin is no indication of
>skill whatsoever in my opinion. To the contrary it
>is the worst way of saying "I got lucky, now take
>this!". I find doubling acts during the stages of
>close bare-offs expecially disgracing to what was
>once (and some places still is) "backgammon"...
I have the complete opposite opinion. I orginally learned to play cubeless
for 1 point matches. So gammons and backg's didn't count except for bragging
rights. I really liked the game and found it very interesting/challenging.
When I started to play at FIBS I learned what the cube was all about and
discovered suddenly that there was a whole hell of a lot more to the game
than I had previously thought. And this is why.....
The cube requires you not only to be able to make the best move but to be
able to accurately assess the position and decide how much ahead or behind
you are. To decide exactly how likely you are to win a single game, a gammon
or how likely your opponent is to win. The reason is the rule for redoubles.
Only the cube owner can redouble so you must know how likely it is that you
will be able to redouble later. In long matches or money games the rule is
somewhere around 25% chances the reason is this. If you have 25% chance (1
in 4) then by playing a given position out 4 times and dropping 4 times you
loose 4 points(-4). If you instead take 4 times then 3 times you loose 2 (-6
total) and once win 2 (+2 total) for a grand total of -4 which you will
notice is the same as when you dropped. IF your chances are better that 25%
then it is more of a take and below 25% you actually loose less points by
dropping. This is where the extra needed skill comes in. You must be able to
determine what your chances are because if, as you describe, you take when
you don't have the needed 25% over time you will loose more points than you
should be. Now gammons and match score play _very_ heavily on the 25% number
but I think you can see that there is actually more skill(alternately stated
as knowledge of the game perhaps) required to make good doubling decisions.
>
>Now please don't think that I'm complaining because
>I can't use the cube. I did actually surpass by far
>my own expectations about using the cube... For the
>first 50-60 games, I stuck to 1-pt (cubeless) games
>but (although timidly), I had to eventually start
>playing with the cube. As long as I was "trying" my
>best with it, I was doing rather fine and my rating
>steadily rose to near 1700 playing against players
>who were sometimes rated way over me.
>
>Yet, I never came to like playing with the cube and
>started playing "*against it*". What I mean by this
>is trying to play ignoring it (not doubling when I
>could and going for gammon instead or accepting the
>double without much regard to odds and playing out
>the rest of the game). Interestingly, I'm not doing
>any worse despite this attitude and my rating stays
>around mid/high 1600's(1638 to be exact ;-0). Yesterday, one player very
>candidly commented that I had kept beating him and
>that he was wondering why my rating wasn't rising
>above his... Seemingly I'm able to turn enough "bad
>takes" around and win enough gammons (thus matches)
>that my rating is at least not sinking.
Again. Even though you turn them around you still aren't going to do it
often enough,,, in the long run you will loose more points this way. If you
are turning them around because you are a very talented checker player then
just imagine how strong you will be when you learn how to properly evaluate
which games can be turned around and which ones it is unlikely to occur.
Wait till a few of those bad takes gets you gammoned at 4 pts and it will
become clearer why sometimes a drop is just correct.
Don't be a dropper :((
>
>What I call "lackgammon" is the 1-pt games without
>gammons or backgammons. If you can't win a gammon
>(or a backgammon) why is the word used in the name
>of the game...?
invite <player name> unlimited
This will start a game where the cube can be used if you want and gammons
count. You are playing a 1 point _MATCH_. It is the same concept as when you
play a longer match. A 7 point match that you win 12-2 is no better than
winning 7-2. Its the same concept,,,, its a match,,, so just get to the
needed points and you win,,, extras don't do anything.
>
>I think my backgame is stronger than average and I
>seem to do rather well with 1-pt games, but there
>is just not much excitement in it if you can kick
>back and play without worrying about risking to
>lose any more than 1 point no matter what. It sure
>does "lack" something...
Again play unlimited. What you may be looking for is the ability to play say
a 3 point match but disallow the cube. To be honest I am not sure this is
possible on FIBS. Patti? Anyone?
>
>After so many hundred games I played on the FIBS,
>I don't feel like I played "backgammon" yet... It
>just doesn't exist there. I suppose players could
>privately arrange/agree to play 5 point matches
>without the cube (and preferably without 3 point
>wins, but I don't mind this as much) and I may try
>doing that later on. In the meantime, even playing
>"jackgammon" and "lackgammon" on the FIBS is more
>fun than discussing whether computer programs cheat
>in this group...
>
Again I think you should re-examine your view of the cube. Once you actually
understand what the needed skills are to use it properly a whole new game is
availablle to you. Personally I was about at the point of BG burnout until I
discovered the cube and have not grown bored again over the ~3 yrs since
then.
Rodrigo Andrade
>privately arrange/agree to play 5 point matches
>without the cube (and preferably without 3 point
>wins, but I don't mind this as much) and I may try
>doing that later on.
That would be very nice. There could be a feature where you would just turn
the cube off for the match. Gammons and Backgammons would still count,
however.
The reason for this is that an opponent got REALLY, REALLY mad at me when I
turned the cube. He was from Israel, as far as I can remember, and had never
played w/ the cube! He threatened dropping the match if I decided to use the
cube again, so I just played on for gammons...
RODRIGO
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat, I don't think you are giving the game a chance, and if
>you do you'll enjoy it even more. You have basically decided
>to create situations where you limit your experience to about
>65% of the game, by avoiding cube play and matches, as opposed
>to one point games.
I'm not avoiding them. You may have misunderstood my
saying that I had avoided them at the beginning. My
experience is now nearing 500 games with probably no
more than 100 or so of them being 1 point matches. I
just haven't come to like cube play much...
>>"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling cube. I
>>think all it does is to emphasize what is called the "luck
>>factor". After getting a few good rolls doubling with a big
>>grin is no indication of skill whatsoever in my opinion.
>I don't agree that the cube favors people who are on a lucky
>streak at all. On the contrary, it allows you to let them win
>3 or 4 one point games, when they are getting their lucky rolls,
>and then win all the ponts back in one game. Without the cube,
>you'd be forced to win each of those games back individually.
But, without the cube you may have not lost those
games in the first place. If it were a matter of
"temporary" luck, the other guy's luck may have
changed/ran out before the end of each of those
first 3 or 4 games. Things can turn around several
times during a played-out game. The cube magnifies
the "luck factor" by allowing one player to cash
in at the first chance things look good for him...
The chance to win back points that you are talking
about above, is actually not a function of the cube
but a function of multi-point matches. It may be
interesting to you that this was one reason I had
switched to muti-point match plays even though they
involved the cube. A lot of people wouldn't accept
1 point invitations because a few "lucky" rolls take
away the "one and only game" and more points per
roll along with it. With multi-point matches, one
has hope/possibility of winning even at N-0...
Even with a history of only a few hundred cubed
games, I already learned how to double automaticly
at the beginning of each game following "crawford".
I think so far I won more of the crawford games
than my opponents and actually won quite a few
matches where I was 0 before the crawford and
automaticly doubled each following game. But still
I just don't like such tactiques and can't derive
much accomplishment/enjoyment out of it even in
cases where I'm the benefiting party...
>>I let him win 6-0 knowing that on the last move of 7-0
>>I will drop the game. I end up winning the 7th game but
>>drop before my last move anyway with a comment that this
>>should teach him a lesson.
>I think doing this is a bad idea, and will eventually get
>you in trouble having games in FIBS. If the guy is a jerk,
>just don't play him and gag him. But dropping is considered
>a no-no.
I'll take the advice. First I thought I would get
even with him by trying to beat him even more but
as soon as I accepted the match I wondered why even
bother playing for any reason at all with somebody
who went as far to call me not just "lucky" but a
"bastard" along with it... So that's why I decided
to lead him on and then drop. I don't regret it in
this case because the next time I logged in he had
left me a message saying "Your momma is here and
we are having lots of fun". My act had accomplished
its goal...
Besides that, interrupted games seem to be a daily
occurrence and I/we must have resumed at least a
couple of dozen of them. I still have 6-7 to be
resumed with most of them being interrupted/dropped
against me, sometimes for reasons like the guy had
to go to work or was too tired to finish, etc...
>Anyway, my advice to you is to recognize that you are used
>to playing BG in one specific way, and that there is alot of
>fun in using the cube. Its just that you aren't used to it.
Time will tell. I'm already getting used to it
alright but haven't discovered the fun in using
it yet. Maybe I will some day...
MK
Addendum: Well, I guess I'm not going to discover
the fun of using the cube anytime soon... I just
finished a couple of matches and I'm pissed like
hell...
I creamed the you-know-what out of a guy with a
backgammon while cube was at 2 on the first game
of a 5 point match. I am sure with some luck as
well as skill. I felt bad enough that I was typing
a message of apology along with an offer of rematch.
In the meantime he had already invited me. I think
there is a bug in the BBT program so that if you are
typing a message and happen to hit the space bar,
you end up accepting the invitation that pops up on
your screen at the same time. I thought fine, I would
have accepted his invitation anyway. So we started
playing and exchanged messages that I was glad luck
seemed to be on his side so far this time. At a 3-2
advantage, he had the cube and redoubled to 4. I was
puzzled as to why he did but accepted it almost in a
reflex. Then I realize that we were playing a 9 point
match. Poor little soul had lost some freaking precious
points and now we had to play a marathon so that he
could get them back and some more... When I commented
that I should be more careful when accepting invitations,
his sending me a smiling face didn't amuse me at all.
*Somehow* I ended up winning that game as well and the
4 points but my mood/feeling for the game was already
completely gone. I was wondering if we would have to
play a 49 point match next, in case I happened to win
this 9 point one also... The last two games (me being
ahead 7-5) ended up being close and each time he got
ahead by one pip during the bearing off, he doubled.
And I accepted them with the feeling that "Fine, take
your stinking points and let's get done with it" and
he finally won 9-7..
More than at any other stage of the game, I just hate
seeing the cube being used during a close bear-off.
In my opinion, it demeans the game so much that at
that point one may as well flip a coin to determine
who wins... Hey, while at it, why not even flip a
coin to determine who wins the next game too...? Why
bother with that *nonsense of playing* something
called "backgammon" at all...?
Well folks, if you all think that what you/I are
playing with the cube is "backgammon", you are
deceiving yourselves and missing out on what I in
my humble opinion consider the "real thing"... If
it's going to happen at all, it sure looks like it's
going to take a very long time before I develop any
taste for this "jackgommon" stuff...
I hope the FIBS implements an additional match
category to play 5 point matches without the cube.
Whether backgammons count 2 or 3 points is not a
major issue as they happen rarely and the extra 1
point could be justified in a way. Other minor
variances in traditional rules aren't important
either (i.e. re-rolling opening rolls, winner
getting to roll first in the following game, etc.)
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak wrote...
>>"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling
>>cube. I think all it does is to emphasize what is
>>called the "luck factor". After getting a few ...
>I have the complete opposite opinion. I orginally learned
>to play cubeless for 1 point matches. So gammons and backg's
>didn't count except for bragging rights.
In this case, I wouldn't blame you for being of the
opposite opinion at all because 1 point matches ain't
"backgammon" either (I like calling it "lackgammon")...
>The cube requires you not only to be able to make the best
>move but to be able to accurately assess the position and
>decide how much ahead or behind you are. To decide exactly
>how likely you are to win a single game, a gammon or how
>likely your opponent is to win.
So what...? As a good (hopefully) player, one would
assess his position at every stage of the game and
adjust his plans/make his moves accordingly... Cube
puts an immature end to the story and you never get
to hear the rest. That's fine if you want to gable
all out. Of course, there is some/little/tiny? gamble
in every move in backgammon, but no single move by
itself has enough effect to put an end to the game.
All the cube does is to "magnify" the effect of even
one single roll to raise it to that level... If the
sky is the limit, why settle only for a "doubling"
cube...? Why not use a "quadrupling" cube that goes
4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096...?
>>the rest of the game). Interestingly, I'm not doing
>>any worse despite this attitude and my rating stays
>>around mid/high 1600's(1638 to be exact ;-0).
Did you add this...? :) Earlier this evening it was
1669 and currently it's 1647. I hope we don't have
to adjust and report the exact number in each post.
I'm trying to keep the rating stuff from dictating
how I play and against whom I play. If I break the
1700 mark or god forbid go any higher, it will be
unintentional, I promise... :) If I have to mind my
rating, even 1638 is plenty good enough for me,
considering I'm basicly a beginner with the cube
and trying to play as higly rated players as I can.
(BTW: thanks to all good players who accepted my
ambitious/daring invitations despite the sometimes
huge differences in our ratings).
>>above his... Seemingly I'm able to turn enough "bad
>>takes" around and win enough gammons (thus matches)
>>that my rating is at least not sinking.
>Again. Even though you turn them around you still aren't
>going to do it often enough,,,
That's true as far as "not enough to raise my rating
any higher"...
>in the long run you will loose more points this way.
It's not happening yet but who knows, maybe this will
happen also to actually sink my rating way below...
>If you are turning them around because you are a very
>talented checker player then just imagine how strong you
>will be when you learn how to properly evaluate which
>games can be turned around and which ones it is unlikely
>to occur.
What you are missing is that I'm not interested in
cashing my chips after a few good rolls, I want to
*play*... Play "backgammon", that is...
>Wait till a few of those bad takes gets you gammoned at
>4 pts and it will become clearer why sometimes a drop is
>just correct.
I didn't say I was accepting all doubles. Most of the
time I try to do what "I'm supposed to do" and doing
well enough, and I was emphasizing that I'm able to
hang in there *despite* my "wrong" takes...
Sometimes what determines whether I take a double is
how much time do I still have in the game. There has
been enough times I took a double based on this and
won (perhaps making the other side regret it instead)
that my rating hasn't sunk to 1200's yet...
In fact, this is one challenge/fullfillment/enjoyment
I get out of cubeful matches. To show the other guy
that it ain't over (despite what calculations say)
until the fat lady sings... As far as accumulating
points for rating, it may be self-destructive. But
if playing for points/rating is not what turns you
on, what else is left to do...?
>Again I think you should re-examine your view of the cube.
>Once you actually understand what the needed skills are to
>use it properly a whole new game is availablle to you.
Yes, despite my remarks about how I feel about it,
most of the time I'm just trying to learn how to
use it "properly", etc. just beacuse in places like
FIBS I have no choice but to do what everybody else
are doing... Beyond FIBS, I would like to play in
on-line tournaments like Bibi's (which I signed up
for) and to do that I have no choice but to learn
how to play using the cube even if I would prefer
to not do so...
MK
Vince Mounts
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <6tvnsb$gmc$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
>>The cube requires you not only to be able to make the best
>>move but to be able to accurately assess the position and
>>decide how much ahead or behind you are. To decide exactly
>>how likely you are to win a single game, a gammon or how
>>likely your opponent is to win.
>
>So what...? As a good (hopefully) player, one would
>assess his position at every stage of the game and
>adjust his plans/make his moves accordingly... Cube
>puts an immature end to the story and you never get
>to hear the rest.
What is your point? That you can't stick around and get lucky even with bad
chances? How is this somehow more skillful?? The decision of when to cube is
not an easy one. When playing weaker players I often win more than points
than I should because, 1) the opponent cubes too early because they over
evaluate their position and later I can recube and win points that way.
Because they have cubed to early they end up loosing more points(in the long
run) than they would if they had not doubled but waited. 2) the opponent
cubes too late. They get in a double/take situation but have too many fears
of the position and so they wait. When they finally do cube its after they
have lost their market and its an easy drop. Or sometimes they never make it
to the drop point and get hit and lose the game. This may have happened with
or without a double but I was never required to play for double the stakes
in order to wait for my shot. 3)Sometimes a weaker player will play on for
an unlikely gammon and end up getting hit and losing. If they had just cubed
they could have had their 1 point and gone on with the match 4) Opponent
takes a what they should drop and I win 2 points where I should win 1 or
sometimes even win 4 instead of 1. 5) The opponent drops what they should
take and I get a free point when they should stay and "fight" it out. These
are not "luck" they are bad/unskilled decisions by the opponent. At any
rate it should be clear clear that using the cube requires an additional
skill that the format of play you describe does not require, which was what
my original post was arguing for. Your statement that the cube increases
luck factor just doesn't hold up. Both sides will eventually _roll_ an equal
number of good games that leave a double/drop position so these will cancel
out just as they do in the format you describe. The more skilled player will
reach these positions more often than opponent due to _skill_ rather than
dice. And the more skillful player willl see that a cube is in order more
often also. So all in all the more skilled player is still more likely to
win. The only difference is that the cube requires the additional skill
beyond chequer play. Your argument that you have to evaluate the position
anyway isn't quite right. Picking the best play is different than putting
hard numbers to the chances available.
>That's fine if you want to gable
>all out. Of course, there is some/little/tiny? gamble
>in every move in backgammon, but no single move by
>itself has enough effect to put an end to the game.
This is true with cube in play 95% of the time. It is no one roll or
skillful play that gets you to the drop point.
>All the cube does is to "magnify" the effect of even
>one single roll to raise it to that level... If the
>sky is the limit, why settle only for a "doubling"
>cube...? Why not use a "quadrupling" cube that goes
>4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096...?
Yeah you could. It really wouldn't change much just need to play for more
points,,, 13 pointer instead of 7 pointer (3 cubed games and a single game).
17 instead of 9(4 cubes and a single). Of course gammons being worth half as
much as a cubed game would change tactics but would still be a very similiar
skill involved.
>>>above his... Seemingly I'm able to turn enough "bad
>>>takes" around and win enough gammons (thus matches)
>>>that my rating is at least not sinking.
>
>>Again. Even though you turn them around you still aren't
>>going to do it often enough,,,
>
>That's true as far as "not enough to raise my rating
>any higher"...
>
>>in the long run you will loose more points this way.
>
>It's not happening yet but who knows, maybe this will
>happen also to actually sink my rating way below...
So you are claiming that you are so incredibly good that a 20% winning
chance in your hands is actually 50% or even better? This is a silly
statement and shows only that you can't yet evaluate winning chances very
well. If you look at a position and think you could win 1 in 4 times either
1) you win roughly 1 in 4 times,,, 2) due to bad luck you win less than 1 in
4,,, 3) due to good luck you win more than 1 in 4,,, or 4) you win at
different rate than 1 in 4 because your original estimate was incorrect. In
the long run 2) and 3) should cancel out and you are either evaluating the
position correctly or not. Perhaps these games that you took are actually
correct takes to begin with and not drops that your superior ability aloow
you to win as you seem to claim. Its not that your rating will sink its that
you will never rise any higher until your cube decisions improve. The vast
majority can play a reasonable checker game,,, enough to win even against a
much higher rated player at a reasonable rate. It is cube handling that
really separates the good from the bad in backgammon. Without the cube there
is just too much that is dependant on the dice to get the big
differentiation that you see in FIBS ratings and experience in person at a
tournament. Again this is because the cube requires the very difficult skill
of estimating long term winning chances from a given position not just
picking the good moves from amoung many possible moves.
>
>>If you are turning them around because you are a very
>>talented checker player then just imagine how strong you
>>will be when you learn how to properly evaluate which
>>games can be turned around and which ones it is unlikely
>>to occur.
>
>What you are missing is that I'm not interested in
>cashing my chips after a few good rolls, I want to
>*play*... Play "backgammon", that is...
>
>>Wait till a few of those bad takes gets you gammoned at
>>4 pts and it will become clearer why sometimes a drop is
>>just correct.
>
>I didn't say I was accepting all doubles. Most of the
>time I try to do what "I'm supposed to do" and doing
>well enough, and I was emphasizing that I'm able to
>hang in there *despite* my "wrong" takes...
>
>Sometimes what determines whether I take a double is
>how much time do I still have in the game. There has
>been enough times I took a double based on this and
>won (perhaps making the other side regret it instead)
>that my rating hasn't sunk to 1200's yet...
>
>In fact, this is one challenge/fullfillment/enjoyment
>I get out of cubeful matches. To show the other guy
>that it ain't over (despite what calculations say)
>until the fat lady sings... As far as accumulating
>points for rating, it may be self-destructive. But
>if playing for points/rating is not what turns you
>on, what else is left to do...?
If you are playing higher rated players maybe you should consider that they
are probably doubling when it is still right to take(i.e. you have enough
winning chances left).
>
>>Again I think you should re-examine your view of the cube.
>>Once you actually understand what the needed skills are to
>>use it properly a whole new game is availablle to you.
>
>Yes, despite my remarks about how I feel about it,
>most of the time I'm just trying to learn how to
>use it "properly", etc. just beacuse in places like
>FIBS I have no choice but to do what everybody else
>are doing... Beyond FIBS, I would like to play in
>on-line tournaments like Bibi's (which I signed up
>for) and to do that I have no choice but to learn
>how to play using the cube even if I would prefer
>to not do so...
And in any tournament in the real world the cube is in play. And in money
games/chouette, and on every server on the internet that I have ever played
at or heard of. You are a vast minority on this point. Like I said before my
history of the game is similair to yours,,, I statred playing cubeless. It
is a tough transition,,,, just hang in there you will eventually get it and
hopefully then you will see just how much the cube actually adds to the
game. If not oh well its your enjoyment of the game at stake not mine
luckily. This is my last post on the subject. If you never get it and see
how much the cube adds to the game then I hope you can find a game you like
better or find people to play in the format you enjoy. Good luck in your
search. take care.
>
>MK
Ian Shaw
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <6tqa1h$m9l$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
>
[snip]
>The biggest problem I have is that I feel I am not
>playing "backgammon" anymore, but some bastardized
>varieties which I would like to call "jackgammon"
>and "lackgammon"...
>
>"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling
>cube. I think all it does is to emphasize what is
>called the "luck factor".
>
>What I call "lackgammon" is the 1-pt games without
>gammons or backgammons. If you can't win a gammon
>(or a backgammon) why is the word used in the name
>of the game...?
>
>
>MK
By extension of your naming principle, I suppose the game I learned to play,
with no three point wins, was simply "gammon".
I was told that this, along with the cube, was "just an American thing". My
first set, bought in Greece, had no cube no dice cups, and only one pair of
dice.
I still hate using dice cups; I much prefer the feel of the dice rattling in
my hand.
Ian
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in <6tvnsb$gmc$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
>>So what...? As a good (hopefully) player, one would
>>assess his position at every stage of the game and
>>adjust his plans/make his moves accordingly... Cube
>>puts an immature end to the story and you never get
>>to hear the rest.
>What is your point? That you can't stick around and
>get lucky even with bad chances?
That's looking at it from one end. From the other
end, the question becomes if the player ahead can
stick around...? :)
>How is this somehow more skillful??
How...? By the very same arguments that have been
previously made in this newsgroup, that the luck
factor is best eliminated through volume. It has
been argued that 100 games is not enough but 1000
or more are needed to decide whether one is better
than a certain bot for example. Similarly, a game
lasting 100 rolls/moves instead of 10 rolls/moves
would be a better indicative material that could
be offered to argue for skill as opposed to luck...
>... At any rate it should be clear clear that using the
>cube requires an additional skill that the format of
>play you describe does not require, which was what my
>original post was arguing for.
I don't deny that it takes skill to use the cube
but I don't see it as "additional" to the game,
because at the same time it takes away some of the
other skill while also magnifying the luck factor...
>Your statement that the cube increases luck factor just
>doesn't hold up. Both sides will eventually _roll_ an
>equal number of good games that leave a double/drop
>position so these will cancel out just as they do in
>the format you describe.
Fine. The question is why magnify the luck factor
in the short run and then wait for good/bad rolls
to cancel out each other in the long run...? Why
not play in a format that allows good/bad rolls
to cancel out each other much more quicly (i.e.
within each game vs. across many games/matches)?
>The more skilled player will reach these positions more
>often than opponent due to _skill_ rather than dice.
Let's first eliminate the subject of using the cube
during bearing off stage as a disgrace to the game
and nothing more. I don't think anybody would argue
that not rolling a 2 or rolling a double on the very
last roll has anything to do with skill whatsoever.
Now, accepting what you are saying above as valid,
the question that can be asked if the degree of
skill is proportionate to how far into the game the
more skilled player reaches the said positions (on
the average). For example, going by the FIBS ratings,
if I'm rated at 1600 and playing against somebody
rated at 1900, could we expect that he will reach
such positions after 8, 10, 16 or "N" moves...? If
you/others think there is a substanciable essence
behind your argument, let's conduct an experiment.
I'll be glad to volunteer to be the underdog as
someone who doesn't (yet:) worry about his rating
all that much. All you have to do is to find some
volunteers with higher ratings (i.e. more *skilled*)
who will be brave enough to consistently double after
"N" moves into the games ("N" beinng relative to
their ratings/skills). Since your saying "more often"
should mean at least better than 50% of the time,
they shouldn't be risking much, if anything, especially
against a lower rated/less-skilled-with-the-cube player.
Let's try it and see what happens...?
>>All the cube does is to "magnify" the effect of even
>>one single roll to raise it to that level... If the
>>sky is the limit, why settle only for a "doubling"
>>cube...? Why not use a "quadrupling" cube that goes
>>4, 16, 64, 256, 1024, 4096...?
>Yeah you could. It really wouldn't change much just need
>to play for more points,,, 13 pointer instead of 7 pointer
>(3 cubed games and a single game). 17 instead of 9(4 cubes
>and a single).
Oh, no, no... No such work-arounds to "demagnify"
what the cube "magnifies". As the point I'm trying
to make requires, so far I have been talking about
5-point cubed and cubeless matches (or any equal
numbers). With the "quadrupling" cube, if you make
a "bad take" and loose, it's "Wham! 4-0! Crawford
time"... As "highly skilled" players playing for
points (or hard cash), we aren't going to waste time
with boring checker-plays now, are we...? That's for
the lessers players... All we have to do is, with the
"quadrupling" cube we have to do our calculations to
4 digit accuracy instead of 2 digit accuracy with the
"doubling" cube. That's what will set "men" apart
from "boys"...
Otherwise, what's the use? Let's say a player beats
me 5-3 without the cube. If we increase the match
length to 10 and replay the same scenario, here is
what will happen: I will never double and he will
at the most will get to double only once during each
game as I will always take but never redouble either.
So, there will be *at least* 8 games played but the
"points score" will be 10-6 instead. If he fails to
double every game, then there will be possibly many
more than 8 games to finish the same *1 match*. So,
what does the cube do beyond "inflating" points
(perhaps for gambling purposes) and eliminating long
"boring" checker plays...? Not much...
>>>in the long run you will loose more points this way.
>>It's not happening yet but who knows, maybe this will
>>happen also to actually sink my rating way below...
>So you are claiming that you are so incredibly good that
>a 20% winning chance in your hands is actually 50% or
>even better? This is a silly statement and shows only
>that you can't yet evaluate winning chances very well.
This is not a matter for bragging about anything. I'm
just making an observation and you're free to evaluate
it anyway you want and call it whatever you want...
After reading yours and other's previous comments on
this subject, yesterday evening I got on the FIBS
with the intention of trying to be as careful as I
can and to do the best I can with cubed matches. I
played against a couple of players in the high 1600's,
several in the 1700's and a couple in the 1800's. My
rating went from 1647 to 1681 within a few of hours.
Only one player made comments about my being lucky,
and I can't negate that luck might have to do with
some of it but I wouldn't be too quick to believe it
was all a streak of luck as I lost a couple of matches
in between also. I don't know what the future holds
for my rating on FIBS, etc. but this was good enough
to prove to myself that what I had said previously
was not in trying to be intentionally "silly" here...
>... It is cube handling that really separates the good
>from the bad in backgammon. Without the cube there is
>just too much that is dependant on the dice to get the big
>differentiation that you see in FIBS ratings and experience
>in person at a tournament...
I think the exact opposite. An interesting experiment
could perhaps be made with players like the elderly
Armenian men that "edmont" was talking about a few
weeks ago. I would like to see some highly rated
players from the "cube world" play against them with
all cube decisions made automatically for both sides
by a bot capable of computing "hard numbers" as
accurately as they can ever get. If I had to bet one
dollar, I would bet that the skill of those Armenian
men would reach the cube point more often, if not
always quicker.
>And in any tournament in the real world the cube is in play.
>And in money games/chouette, and on every server on the
>internet that I have ever played at or heard of. You are a
>vast minority on this point.
You mean a minority within minority...? The fact that
the "news/noise makers" (i.e. money games, tournaments,
internet, books, neural-net trained robots, etc.)
promote a certain variation of the game isn't enough
to make the hundreds of millions (yes literally!) of
people in Middle-Eastern countries, etc. the minority.
The fact that perhaps as high as 90+% of adult males
in those countries on the average play quite a decent
games quietely for only cookies and teas doesn't make
what they play a less skilful game either...
>,,, just hang in there you will eventually get it and
>hopefully then you will see just how much the cube
>actually adds to the game. If not oh well its your
>enjoyment of the game at stake not mine luckily.
As the name implies, the high point of the game is
winning gammons as well the entire matches. Even
after I put myself in a cubed match environment, I
would rather skip cashing an early 1 point than to
give up the thrill of going for a gammon. Luckily,
lost FIBS points don't cost me dollars out of my
pocket and I can spend them freely:) for such an
enjoyment. As long as we have at least an idea of
what we each/all are missing out of, or are giving
up willingly, I guess there is no harm in each/all
feeling lucky for his/their own sakes...
MK
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in <6tqa1h$m9l$1...@news.chatlink.com>...
>>"Jackgammon" is backgammon played using a doubling
>>cube. I think all it does is to emphasize what is
>>called the "luck factor".
>>What I call "lackgammon" is the 1-pt games without
>>gammons or backgammons. If you can't win a gammon
>>(or a backgammon) why is the word used in the name
>>of the game...?
>By extension of your naming principle, I suppose the
>game I learned to play, with no three point wins, was
>simply "gammon".
Valid point. Such a name change wouldn't bother me...:)
>I was told that this, along with the cube, was "just
>an American thing". My first set, bought in Greece,
>had no cube no dice cups, and only one pair of dice.
>I still hate using dice cups; I much prefer the feel
>of the dice rattling in my hand.
And the dice are so tiny that you can hold them between
the thumb and the index finger. Locals will throw/roll
the dice sometimes with very exaggerated hand/wrist/arm
movements as though possessing/displaying some rolling
skills that would land them the numbers they want. Some
are said to achive that by holding the dice a certain
way and controlling how many times they roll over, or by
just sliding one and making one roll (and produce the
rolling noise), etc. When it matters, it's good practice
to enforce rules like both dice have to hit the rim of
the board and roll/bounce back...
MK
Phill Skelton
>
> In <6u1e43$m2n$1...@camel29.mindspring.com> Vince Mounts wrote:
>
> >... At any rate it should be clear clear that using the
> >cube requires an additional skill that the format of
> >play you describe does not require, which was what my
> >original post was arguing for.
>
> I don't deny that it takes skill to use the cube
> but I don't see it as "additional" to the game,
> because at the same time it takes away some of the
> other skill while also magnifying the luck factor...
>
> >Your statement that the cube increases luck factor just
> >doesn't hold up. Both sides will eventually _roll_ an
> >equal number of good games that leave a double/drop
> >position so these will cancel out just as they do in
> >the format you describe.
>
> Fine. The question is why magnify the luck factor
> in the short run and then wait for good/bad rolls
> to cancel out each other in the long run...? Why
> not play in a format that allows good/bad rolls
> to cancel out each other much more quicly (i.e.
> within each game vs. across many games/matches)?
> >... It is cube handling that really separates the good
> >from the bad in backgammon. Without the cube there is
> >just too much that is dependant on the dice to get the big
> >differentiation that you see in FIBS ratings and experience
> >in person at a tournament...
I think Murat and Vince are both right on their own terms. Using the
cube does make games shorter on average, and since the average
number of points scored per game increases, a match will be over in
less games. The shorter the length of the match, the more luck
comes in to play. This far, I agree with Murat. If you take
two players who make perfect cube decisions every time, then you will
find that the difference in checker play skill is reduced by use of
the cube - the better player might win an 11 point match 70% of the
time without the cube but only 60% with the cube.
Without the cube a player needs 100% winning chances to claim the
win. With the cube, just over 75% will do. If you don't see that
this increases the effect of luck, consider what happens if you reduce
the % need to claim the game to just a 50.5% winning chance. After
a good opening roll you can claim the match (barring a good comeback
by your opponent), and after a bad one he claims.
Where confusion comes into this is that in 'western' backgammon,
a good player has an advantage over a weaker one both in checker
play and in cube use. Players tend to develop both skills at the smae
time and think of them as part of the same 'backgammon' skill .
This means that the better player is more likely to win if the cube is
in play than if it is not - the better player would still win an 11
point match 70% of the time without the cube, but 80% with the cube.
I'm using better in the sense of being better in both areas of the
game.
So when a good player of 'eastern' backgammon plays the western
variant, he correctly observes that the use of the doubling cube
reduces his cheker play advantage over his opponents, because
although he has better checker skills, the western player has a
better understanding of the cube. This is a double benefit (no pun
intended) because he gains more points for a win and loses less for
each loss, and because the checker play difference is diluted by the
luck factor discussed above.
Phill
Marina Smith
Kalinyaprak) raised apoint I had been wondering about:
<snip>
>... hundreds of millions (yes literally!) of
>people in Middle-Eastern countries, etc. the minority.
>The fact that perhaps as high as 90+% of adult males
>in those countries on the average play quite a decent
>games quietely for only cookies and teas doesn't make
>what they play a less skilful game either...
In the middle East (Europe and Asia) do women get to play backgammon
outside the home? An Iranian ex-colleague of mine was taught bg by his
mother, but I have never heard of women players from there. A friend
went to Greece and got lots of games in cafes, but only men were
playing. My ex-colleague was angry every time I beat him (which was
most times) because I was female. Was this just him or is that the
usual attitude? I fear that if I go on holiday to a bg-playing
country, I won't get a look in or, if I do play, and win, that I will
be ostracised or patronized. Prejudice on my part maybe, but I am
willing to part with it. I'd just like to find out if it's worth going
to Greece or Turkey (or indeed Armenia) or if I will just get annoyed.
Marina / mas on fibs 1630-ish
--
Marina Smith - Reading, UK. To email me, remove XX from my address.
Ian Shaw
Murat Kalinyaprak wrote in message <6u7gtb$s4i$2...@news.chatlink.com>...>>[snip]
>>I still hate using dice cups; I much prefer the feel
>>of the dice rattling in my hand.
>
>And the dice are so tiny that you can hold them between
>the thumb and the index finger. Locals will throw/roll
>the dice sometimes with very exaggerated hand/wrist/arm
>movements as though possessing/displaying some rolling
>skills that would land them the numbers they want. Some
>are said to achive that by holding the dice a certain
>way and controlling how many times they roll over, or by
>just sliding one and making one roll (and produce the
>rolling noise), etc. When it matters, it's good practice
>to enforce rules like both dice have to hit the rim of
>the board and roll/bounce back...
>
>MK
And the dice tend to slide rather than roll much more on the wooden surface
of the board than they do on a "western" cloth covered board. Maybe I should
be practising my rolling action as much as my cube action ;¬). Mind you,
check out Kit Woolsey's post on the BG Newsgroup Archive for tales of the
shennanigins one can get up to with a dice cup.
I am naturallly curious so, after 10 minutes experimenting, I reckon one can
get a number to come up on 1 die about 1/2 to 1/3 of the time:
Just drop the die in with the desired number face up or face down, give a
cursory shake (side to side, mind you) and roll out with a low, smooth
motion.
Test conditions were: 15" board, dice about 1/2" square (not presicion
dice), dice cup about 3.5" deep x 1" wide x 2.5" long with a small ridge
about 1cm below the rim, NOT PLAYING AGAINST ANYONE!!!!
It's always struck me as odd that the dice cups should be so narrow. It's
almost as if they are designed to prevent the dice rattling around. I
suppose that the size is limited to what will fold inside the board.
I've never tried just rolling from hand skillfully, so I don't know how
difficult that would be.
I wonder if we'll soon see posts from Jellyfish and Snowie along the lines
of "Player x cheats with manual dice".
Ian.
Ian Shaw
Marina Smith wrote in message <360aa4c9...@news.demon.co.uk>...
[snip]
>In the middle East (Europe and Asia) do women get to play backgammon
>outside the home?
[snip]
Prejudice on my part maybe, but I am
>willing to part with it. I'd just like to find out if it's worth going
>to Greece or Turkey (or indeed Armenia) or if I will just get annoyed.
>
>Marina / mas on fibs 1630-ish
I've seen women playing in Greek cafes; no-one over 30-ish though, so it
might be a new trend. On the whole, it appears to be much more of a male
thing to sit around in cafes, full stop. I'm no expert on Greek culture
though, merely a regular holidaymaker.
Ian
Murat Kalinyaprak
>Murat Kalinyaprak raised apoint I had been wondering about:
>>... hundreds of millions (yes literally!) of
>>people in Middle-Eastern countries, etc. the minority.
>>The fact that perhaps as high as 90+% of adult males
>>in those countries on the average play quite a decent
>>games quietely for only cookies and teas doesn't make
>>what they play a less skilful game either...
>In the middle East (Europe and Asia) do women get to play
>backgammon outside the home?
Probably not much and even not much at home either...
>An Iranian ex-colleague of mine was taught bg by his
>mother, but I have never heard of women players from there.
If you mean in tournaments, etc. that wouldn't
be surprising at all. The ratio of players who
take it to that level is probably disproportionate
(or reversely proportionate) in the West vs. East.
A Middle-Eastern woman making a semi-career out of
playing backgammon would be so much more unlikely...
>A friend went to Greece and got lots of games in cafes, but
>only men were playing.
Cafe's themselves are mostly a "men's thing". It
would be surprising to see many women in "cafes"
to begin with, let alone seeing them playing bg
in cafes.
>My ex-colleague was angry every time I beat him (which was
>most times) because I was female. Was this just him or is
>that the usual attitude?
I wonder if it just came across to you that way?
Are you sure he wouldn't get upset if he was
beaten by a man...? I bet he would, but maybe
more so when beaten by a woman...
>I fear that if I go on holiday to a bg-playing country, I
>won't get a look in or, if I do play, and win, that I will
>be ostracised or patronized.
You would definitely attract interest and my guess
is that you will even get some recognition at least
from the spectators, if not from your opponents
(especially if you beat them). Their friends may
praise how good/better you are than them, to rub it
in to them even further too... :)
>Prejudice on my part maybe, but I am willing to part with
>it. I'd just like to find out if it's worth going to
>Greece or Turkey (or indeed Armenia) or if I will just get
>annoyed.
I doubt that you would get "annoyed". I hear it's
getting more popular among younger generations of
women because they hang around in cafes more with
men during college years, etc. Even 20 years ago
they would frequent cafes but they seemed to have
never developed an interest in bg then. Guys are
sometimes very loud and noisy playing bg, slamming
pieces on the board as though they wanted to break
the thing, etc. Girls usually played cards among
themselves or with the guys, or prefered to just
sit beside and talk. As far as within family, I
can maybe use mine as an example (which is average
middle-class family). Of my three sisters, one
probably doesn't know how to play at all. One knows
enough just to not be left out but would play only
within family and probably wouldn't be interested
in seeking to play even with her close friends. One
sister plays at a decent level and would enjoy
playing against anybody in any social gathering.
I don't think it's directly related to women's
liberation, etc. either. For example, it's said
that the ratio of female doctors and college
professors in Turkey is higher than in USA. But
you would hardly see any women there among road
or power line repair crews, etc. There is still
a stronger distinction between "men's things"
and "women's things". Although much less so than
say 100 or 50 years ago, for some reason bg seems
to be still seen as somewhat of a "men's thing".
Other's observations may differ from mine, but
since you were inquiring, I thought I would offer
what I could come up with...
MK