Am I too slow?
sevenout
"zzzzzzzz" or "go go go go" when its my turn to move because I take
more time then they do, I just started playing backgamon a month ago
after playing chess for the last 7 years and am used to being able to
take my time, is backgammon a much more faster paced game where if you
take 2 minutes to make a move you are too slow? I watch other people
play and always seems they just whip out the moves without thinking.
Bob Newell
I posted about this problem once before, as I have the same issue,
being a checkers player. Even in a *timed* game I got complaints for
taking 10 seconds on some moves. I asked an expert player who is a
tournament official, and she said I needed to practice until I get my
time down to a typical 5 seconds per move. Apparently fast-fast-fast
*is* the norm. But I don't have the reflexes and as a relative beginner
need some thinking time.
So what I do now is play on the turn-based sites such as Dailygammon.
That allows all the think time I want... but does not build speed. So I
play against GNU-BG off-line or Motif on-line and build speed, at least some,
by playing bots.
The whole fast-fast-fast business in live play is one of the most
distasteful things about my early experiences with backgammon --- that, and
since I'm not a gambler, the high-high-high tournament entry fees.
--
Gabriel Velasco
there is no time limit. If there is, remind them that there is a time limit
and that you are playing by that limit, or you will lose anyway if you run
out of time. Personally, when I play, I like to make my best move which is
not always the first one to come to mind.
-=Gabriel=-
"sevenout" <kingsta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c697b226.04041...@posting.google.com...
CuriousFellow
taking an inordinate amount of time, even for relatively simple positions. I
say understandably, because as more and more players become acquainted with
Snowie, GNU, etc. the amount of cheating will no doubt increase. Those who
can't provide me with a plausible explanation, or continue to exhibit the
same behaviour in other matches, I simply don't play. Unless of course the
post-game analysis indicates that they're new to the game, in which case
they deserve some slack. And the same can be said for players who typically
play at a decent clip (-10 secs/move) but take time to think when the
position becomes difficult. Timers bring an extra element into it. While I
have played on TMG, I normally don't, so they're not something I've had much
experience with. I think if the gaming site provides them, then there's less
justification for criticism of your opponent. If you consider the timer's to
be too generous, take it up with the site management.
There are also those players who lack the skill necessary to compete on a
level playing field. So they use tactics which are designed to upset or
otherwise bother their opponent into making inferior decisions. If you
suspect that you're playing against one of them, simply tell them to 'chill
and/or tune them out. If you're in a tournament odds are that it's got time
limits, and as long as you comply with those people don't have much cause
for complaint. And if they think they do, they can take it up with the tour
officials. If it's just a fun match, find somebody who more closely matches
your temperment and playing style.
"sevenout" <kingsta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c697b226.04041...@posting.google.com...
happyjuggler0
at very different paces, unless you play blitz chess. Backgammon IS a
fast-paced game.
In chess there is no luck per se, so as a general rule the longer you
think the more moves you can think ahead, and the more accurately you
can do so. In backgammon, each turn the odds of a single roll coming
up are 1/36 and the odds of any given dice combo of your roll followed
by your opponent's roll is 1/1296. All 1296 are equally likely to come
up. It gets even sillier after another move pair (your roll, your
opponent's roll) In other words you simply can't calculate ahead like
you can in chess. Once you understand the basics of backgammon you
realize that in many positions there is really only 1 good move, and
many there is only 2 good moves and a few with 3 or more good moves.
Unlike in chess, you can't think ahead like a "combinational" player
in chess would. You need to think like a "positional" player would.
Therefore the 2 or 3 (or 1) moves that you need to consider are going
to take much less time to decide upon, especially once you get some
experience.
That said, many players do move too fast and a few do move too slow.
If all or most of your opponents think you are moving too slow, you
are. Backgammon IS a fast paced game.There is also another category of
players who, while playing overall at a normal speed, will seriously
misallocate time. Post-contact bearin positions will lose you very
little equity if you know that you do not want to leave gaps on the 4
or 5pt and just try to bear in as fast as possible keeping that in
mind (don't worry about filling in the 1,2 or 3 points...they will
take care of themselves later). However many players will take 15
seconds or so going "hmmmm,should I play the 5 11/6 or 13/8?". This is
properly a 2 second decision max and if you get it wrong you will give
up very little equity. At the same time, this player will blitz out
his moves in prime vs prime games which are exceedingly difficult to
get right even with a lot of time spent and will cost you huge amounts
of equity if you get wrong. Prime vs prime requires thought. Another
stage of the game that requires thought is moves 2-6 (roughly). These
5 moves (or so) are a sort of no man's land where you have passed from
the easy first move and have yet to reach the realm of virtual
1-good-choice moves in types of positions that you are used to. They
often take time to properly play as well. Nevertheless, most positions
are indeed the type of positions where your rules of thumb you have
learned apply easily and the best move is easy to identify and play
quickly.
GamesGrid and TrueMoneyGames are both fast paced sites. A somewhat
slower site is the Zone, aka MSN Gaming Zone. Their software has
several bugs in it due to the fact that none of their progammers seem
to actually play backgammon, but you get what you pay for(it is free).
http://zone.msn.com/en/backgammon/default.htm is their address for
backgammon although they have a bunch of other games too. If you do
play there and are going to be slow, I highly recommend advertising in
the lobby of a room for "slow play at table [number you are at]"
otherwise you will have lots of players simply disconnecting on you. I
also suggest going to section 1 instead of 2 or 3 where the more
experienced players will be playing (for the most part).
Bob Newell
had in their description field the following friendly, polite, and
welcoming remark:
"READ: autoroll autobearoff fast fast fast or don't invite"
Somehow, I thought it was supposed to be fun.... but what do I know...
and I wasn't aware that GG had any kind of prize or award for finishing a
game the fastest.
--
lmfback
kingsta...@yahoo.com says...
Once you play more you'll speed up too. Until then you could try the
following:
When starting a new match, have a Options/Chat message (which you thus
can send easily) set which says "I'm learning and I'm slow, say ok and
I will press start". You'll loose half the players but there's always
someone else at the free tables.
Eskimo
--
//------------------------------
//Remove tämä all the way to and including soomee to mail directly.
//Ascended:W,V (genopolywish),P(ill ath), T,K,H,S,B,C,P,W
(naked),Ro,Ra,A,W,almost pacifist A
//In progress:PAIN
Carla
[...]
> The whole fast-fast-fast business in live play is one of the most
> distasteful things about my early experiences with backgammon --- that, and
> since I'm not a gambler, the high-high-high tournament entry fees.
>
While I do enjoy the fast pace playing speed of BG, I am very reluctant
to spend my money on entry fees. I am an intermediate player and would
like to be able to make some progress in the game without spending half
my salary on that. I do play on internet a lot, but it's not the same as
playing real tourneys.
I am currently trying to set up some tourneys while the pleasure of
playing the games and experimenting with the strategies is more
important than entry fees, and it seems to be successful, and does meet
some popular demand.
My question is: did anybody else try to set up such tournaments, and how
did it evolve with time ? Is it possible to play this game at a good
level WITHOUT money being a major factor to take into account ? Is there
any place in the world where BG is played live only for fun/competition
(elos) like chess for example ?
My other concern is vs children. Actually my kids are interested in BG
and would like me to set up some tourneys for them. But the gambling
aspect of BG is not suited for kids. Do any of you have any experience
with setting up tourneys for kids ?
Carla
Bob Newell
>Bob Newell wrote:
>[...]
>
>> The whole fast-fast-fast business in live play is one of the most
>> distasteful things about my early experiences with backgammon --- that, and
>> since I'm not a gambler, the high-high-high tournament entry fees.
>>
>
>While I do enjoy the fast pace playing speed of BG, I am very reluctant
>to spend my money on entry fees. I am an intermediate player and would
>like to be able to make some progress in the game without spending half
>my salary on that. I do play on internet a lot, but it's not the same as
>playing real tourneys.
>
The fast pace and the gambling aspect might serve to drive me out of back-
gammon and send me back to just playing checkers.... or I might just play
only on turn-based sites forever. The previous poster spoke of why BG
is faster paced than chess or checkers, with very convincing reasoning and
excellent suggestions for what to do about it (much appreciated in this
corner). Not being a jet fighter pilot, my reflexes aren't good enough to
do 5-second moves for the most part.
But the other part of it -entry fees- deserves a little further eluci-
dation. I don't want to spend on, say, airfares and hotels in Las Vegas,
and three-figure entry fees, to get knocked out in the first round (a
probability of 35/36 for this relative beginner) and then have to "buy
in" to further rounds, or play "side" events with additional entry fees.
As I've been told clearly by a well-known tournament organizer, BG
players like to be able to recover their costs and make some money on
the side. They are gamblers. It's the way it is.
That is *not* a criticism or moral judgment. If someone wants to spend
their money on BG instead of sports cars or fur coats, that is entirely
their option and their business. Many people enjoy gambling and have
the wherewithall to indulge. More power to them; I confess to a certain
amount of envy, if the truth be known. But it's not for me.
Even weekly club tourneys seem to have substantial costs; it's all about
building a prize fund. As I said, that's the way it is, take it or leave
it. Yet, BG is a fine game which requires much skill and surely years to
master..... so I have the option of playing on Dailygammon, I guess. Or,
perhaps with practice against bots, I'll build up my real-time speed, if
I choose to invest in the time and effort needed to do so. But I doubt
if I'll soon get past the idea of $1,000-$2,000 to play in a tourney and
get knocked out quickly.
By way of comparison, there is a checkers tourney in North Carolina this
month which costs $10 lunch included, and it is Swiss system so you're
guaranteed 5 rounds of play. Most checkers, chess, and go tys are Swiss,
or round-robin for smaller ones. People want to *play* as their primary
purpose. Again, not a criticism; it's just a different world.
So in a roundabout way to come back to the poster's point: if you have
success with a non-gambling tournament, great--- the model should be
imitated for those for whom the play's the thing. But I've been told
repeatedly that BG players are largely motivated by equity-- and that
means cash returns.
--
tallrock
played currently. I think, however, that people who are new to the game and
who want to play well, should play at a slower pace, in order to determine
game plans, wonder why their opponents played the way they did, etc.
It might help if you give your opponent a friendly warning at the start of
your match.
"Bob Newell" <bne...@linux.chungkuo.org> wrote in message
news:slrnc7u3h1....@linux.chungkuo.org...
dopeyest1
poor connection (lagging). Even a fairly inexperienced player should be able
to play "most" moves in 30 seconds or less but I have found those who just
simply take more time to decide which move to make. Oh well.....people are
in too big of a hurry in life most of the time anyways. :o)
If anyone would like to play in some good, competetive tournaments, feel
free to join us at: http://www.igl.net/fsback
We play at VU Games - http://hoylegames.sierra.com/ - in the "Competetive
Room". All tournaments are free of charge. (and we don't use move timers!!)
Douglas Zare
sevenout wrote:
Two minutes to make a move is generally considered
outrageously slow. No live tournament could let people
take so long to move, and you should be able to play faster
online.
You play chess. What if there were no clock on a friendly
club game, and your opponent took 1 hour to make each
move? You would quit so that you could play a few games
in the evening as opposed to watching your opponent
attempt to figure out what to do after 1. e4 c5. It sounds like
your play is analogously slow in backgammon.
To be polite to your opponents, play more quickly, or at
least warn them ahead of time that you play extremely slowly.
Experts are under no illusion that they always find the best
play within 5 seconds. However, taking longer doesn't
improve the quality of play much, and it greatly decreases
the quantity. As a beginner, you should try to play a lot. By
playing too slowly you mainly extend the time in which you
are inexperienced.
You don't need to match your opponents' speed, but try to
keep it under 15 seconds/move unless the position is
particularly strange and volatile or you are deciding
whether to take or pass. Play now and analyze later.
Douglas Zare
Bob Newell
>keep it under 15 seconds/move unless the position is
As previously mentioned, I was getting a *lot* of criticism for playing
10 seconds per move and was advised by a backgammon pro that 5 seconds
is the goal and the usual standard.... which I find very fast indeed,
even on average.
--
rugcutter
to move faster, benefit from your mistakes. Furthermore the ones who yell
the loudest and most often,invariably take all the time they need in
difficult situations.
"sevenout" <kingsta...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c697b226.04041...@posting.google.com...
Michael Sullivan
> The fast pace and the gambling aspect might serve to drive me out of back-
> gammon and send me back to just playing checkers.... or I might just play
> only on turn-based sites forever. The previous poster spoke of why BG
> is faster paced than chess or checkers, with very convincing reasoning and
> excellent suggestions for what to do about it (much appreciated in this
> corner). Not being a jet fighter pilot, my reflexes aren't good enough to
> do 5-second moves for the most part.
There are some world class players who tell me they can't generally make
the mechanics of a move in less than 8-9 seconds, so I wouldn't worry
about that. People will complain when you take more than 10 seconds on
a move where not so much equity is at stake.
> But the other part of it -entry fees- deserves a little further eluci-
> dation. I don't want to spend on, say, airfares and hotels in Las Vegas,
> and three-figure entry fees, to get knocked out in the first round (a
> probability of 35/36 for this relative beginner) and then have to "buy
> in" to further rounds, or play "side" events with additional entry fees.
> As I've been told clearly by a well-known tournament organizer, BG
> players like to be able to recover their costs and make some money on
> the side. They are gamblers. It's the way it is.
> That is *not* a criticism or moral judgment. If someone wants to spend
> their money on BG instead of sports cars or fur coats, that is entirely
> their option and their business. Many people enjoy gambling and have
> the wherewithall to indulge. More power to them; I confess to a certain
> amount of envy, if the truth be known. But it's not for me.
> Even weekly club tourneys seem to have substantial costs; it's all about
> building a prize fund.
If you are not already an expert player, you should consider playing the
intermediate division. AFAICT, "intermediate" is a term of art in
backgammon tournament parlance and can include just about anybody who
would be a clear underdog against world-class competition.
So if you are not 2000+ on dailygammon, or in the high 1700s on GG, I
doubt anyone would quibble at *all* with your playing the intermediate
section, which will have much smaller entry fees (usually <$100 even at
fairly big tourneys), and you'll have a much better chance of finishing
in the money than when you swim with the sharks. Personally I can't
imagine wanting to put $200+ at risk in an open division event until I
get expert enough to have a decent chance of finishing in the money.
And AFAICT, only at that point would the intermediate divisions cease be
quite challenging. I've heard people say that even the novice divisions
have a fair number of solid intermediate players.
I think the deal with BG is that the tournaments are set up to cater to
the world class players, players who expect to make money at these
tournaments, or at win enough to break even on average. The idea is to
make it possible to make real money playing the game.
If you aren't one of these people, you have to view the entry fees as
the cost of playing top over-the-board competition. If you just want to
play a fun tournament that doesn't cost too much money (but you won't
get to play with any famous names), then enter the lower divisions.
> By way of comparison, there is a checkers tourney in North Carolina this
> month which costs $10 lunch included, and it is Swiss system so you're
> guaranteed 5 rounds of play. Most checkers, chess, and go tys are Swiss,
> or round-robin for smaller ones. People want to *play* as their primary
> purpose. Again, not a criticism; it's just a different world.
Yeah, I'm used to the same thing with Go. The most I've ever paid to
play a tournament is around $200, and that's really a congress entry fee
(a 1 week all go all the time event with all kinds of events in addition
to the US open, including pro lectures and simul games). Even a big
just-tournament would only be $50 or so. And I much prefer the Swiss or
McMahon based movements common in go tournaments, which guarantee
everyone who shows up a game in every round.
If there were a backgammon event like this (fees primarily covered
costs, and several matches were guaranteed), I'd be much more likely to
play an OTB tournament. I will probably play one at some point anyway
just for the experience.
Michael
RedTop
the highest entry fee I have paid is $40 a day for the world
championships.
I have had VERY lengthy discussions about this with many of the top
US-based tournament directors - Howard Markowitz, Dave Cardwell, Butch
Meese, Carol Joy Cole. The fact is simple. These people go into
backgammon because they like money play. To them, backgammon without
money is like sex without a partner - it will do in a pinch, but you
certainly don't look for it.
I believe that BG could be played without stakes and be a lot of fun.
That is what we have done in GammonZone (www.gammonzone.net). We have
all levels of tournaments with a point system, a rating system, and a
ranking system from Life Master to Grand Master.
What is required is someone with the energy and desire to create a
live non-money environment. I am not that person. Bridge grew
spontaneously that way in the 20's and 30's. Bridge tournaments are
run by volunteers on a non-profit basis. Backgammon TD's expect to
make money.
In fairness, every human endeavor will evolve so that the best can
make money. In bridge, the best players hire themselves out as
partners or teammates, for fees ranging from $100 to $10,000 a day.
After travel expenses and the tournament rake, it's VERY hard to show
a long-term profit from tournament play. But still, without the money
element, the top players would probably gravitate toward a game with
more profit potential, like poker.
The lowest-stakes event I have played in was a weekly $10 game in
Falls Church, VA.
Backgammon COULD exist in a different paradigm, but it will take
someone to make it happen. The people who do this presently are
simply uninterested. That's not a bad thing (for them). For now,
though, the non-money action is online.
Carla
For the moment, I feel like volunteering for doing the non-profit job,
I'm not sure though how long I'd be able to do that, as I have a regular
job too and family responsibilities.
But I'd really like to see if it is possible to play backgammon like you
say bridge or chess is being played.
Actually, I do have an entry fee of 10 euros for my tourneys, but
winners (finalist and semi-finalist and consolation winners) win some
non money prizes like BG boards and books rather than direct money. I do
not keep any money for myself, and I do play in my own tournaments.
A last question would be:
Under these conditions, from your experience would you believe that a
rating system is :
- Necessary
- A nice thing to have
- just a small plus
Thanks,
Carla
RedTop wrote:
[..]
Bob Newell
>
>If you are not already an expert player, you should consider playing the
>intermediate division. AFAICT, "intermediate" is a term of art in
>backgammon tournament parlance and can include just about anybody who
>would be a clear underdog against world-class competition.
But you still are only guaranteed a couple of rounds of play... more
below.
>
>If there were a backgammon event like this (fees primarily covered
>costs, and several matches were guaranteed), I'd be much more likely to
>play an OTB tournament. I will probably play one at some point anyway
Again, the same well-known tournament official told me in clear terms
that such a ty would not draw players. I assume she meant that as a
general statement and not just top players, who *certainly* would not
show up.
I am in the process of planning a checkers ty in Santa Fe; there has
not been an NM championship in almost 20 years--- but more to the point,
I had actually thought about organizing a BG ty here too. Something
like 7 rounds Swiss system over the course of a weekend; all players
guaranteed 7 matches; entry fee more like $25; absolutely minimal prize
money and no "take" above expenses for the organizer. But I am told this
would not draw enough players; the "equity minded" BG crowd would not
see the opportunity to recover travel costs and would pass. Comments
on this anyone? Santa Fe is a beautiful place in the summer and fall :)
--
Grunty
> >>
> >>My other concern is vs children. Actually my kids are interested in BG
> >>and would like me to set up some tourneys for them. But the gambling
> >>aspect of BG is not suited for kids.
Children should play "plain" backgammon, that is, no doubling cube,
just like traditionally played in the Middle East. Oriental minds, not
money-addicted as ours, find addictive fun in that simple game. The
better technique is awarded the pure pride of winning.
Children should be taught in that game. Plenty of time to grow up and
learn to use the cube as the gambling tool it is.
I don't agree with those people who think playing non-money bg doesn't
make sense. They're a bit of sick, they would play dolls for money.
What doesn't make sense is playing non-money bg using the doubling
cube -- unless you're training to play for money.
Bucko
"Grunty" <grunti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4285b103.04041...@posting.google.com...
Playing with the cube adds another element of skill to the game. In fact,
in match play (the most sensible way to play if money is not involved), cube
handling requires even more skill than in "money" play. Although the cube
may well have originally been introduced by gamblers, that's no reason to
dismiss it out of hand.
One can wager on any game, even those of pure skill, like chess and Go, and
many do. As you say, there are people that would play dolls for money. One
can also play games that contain elements of randomness, such as backgammon
and bridge without betting, and many do, because those games are
sufficiently interesting in and of themselves.
Tournaments in both types of games are another story. Although tournaments
may contain a bit of the recreational about them, they are by their very
nature, competitive encounters, and therefore more likely to appeal to those
who would wager on their skill vs. another's. That aside, however,
tournaments cost something to organize and somebody has to pay for it.
Shouldn't it be the players? And if they are going to pay anyway, why not
charge enough to offer prize money to the winners in return?
Bucko
There's only one way to find out if it would work or not.
Gregg Cattanach
Playing a 'money session' (an undetermined number of games, not a match to a
set number of points) for no money doesn't really make much sense unless it
is just with a friend to while away the time. The type of backgammon for no
money that DOES makes sense is match play, and of course, this uses the
doubling cube. There are tons of internet tournaments all over the net that
have no money at stake, but they are extremely competitive and the prestige
and 'glory' of winning these tournaments makes this type of 'no-money'
backgammon completely viable and fun. Also, the rating systems at various
servers creates a situation where there is *something* at stake on every
match, if only these rating points.
I play tons of backgammon for no $$ on the internet, and play tons of
backgammon in person (local club and large weekend tournaments) for lots of
$$. Both are fun and I take each of them seriously. One other feature of
free internet play is you easily get a log of the match, so you can analyze
it with your favorite bot and learn something new from your mistakes (and
successes).
One other comment about the various formats for tournaments. Most
backgammon players at a tournament really do play FOR the money. Chess
tournaments often use a Swiss system and give every player a chance to play
6 or 7 matches even when they have no chance of winning any prize. In
Chess, most players pay their (usually very small) entry fee only to finance
the tournament expenses and create a few prizes, but the main point is to
get to play (rating points are also always at stake, which is often the
'currency' of a chess tournament, in truth). I can't imagine anyone at a
backgammon tournament wanting to continue to play once they have no chance
to win a prize. What usually happens to those players is they enter other
side events or play private money games or chouettes (where again, money is
at stake). Backgammon with the cube by its essence IS a gambling game.
Nobody really likes to gamble for no money.
Gregg C.
Zengirl
I've never played backgammon for money and fully intend not to change
this ideology. I play it because it's a fun game. It involves luck and
skill and experience and it's enjoyable. That's all! If I win the
reward is that I'm pleased with myself; if I lose I'm disappointed
that I didn't play so well or had bad luck.. Simple.
What's money got to do with it??
Z.
Bob Newell
>
>Tournaments in both types of games are another story. Although tournaments
>may contain a bit of the recreational about them, they are by their very
>nature, competitive encounters, and therefore more likely to appeal to those
>who would wager on their skill vs. another's. That aside, however,
But this clearly doesn't apply to Go, Chess, and Checkers. Those tourn-
aments may be extremely intense but it isn't about money at all. It's
about rating points, about where you finish in the pack. The average player
is out of it after the first or second round but almost always plays
every round thereafter.
>tournaments cost something to organize and somebody has to pay for it.
>Shouldn't it be the players? And if they are going to pay anyway, why not
>charge enough to offer prize money to the winners in return?
>
But that's the problem.... "enough" is often a lot. Even the novice
sections cost more than most Chess tournaments, and a whole lot more
than Checkers.
>
--
Bob Newell
>to win a prize. What usually happens to those players is they enter other
>side events or play private money games or chouettes (where again, money is
>at stake). Backgammon with the cube by its essence IS a gambling game.
>Nobody really likes to gamble for no money.
Yet, it works just fine on the internet, as you pointed out, and there are
round robins and all sorts of formats, including single/double elimin-
ation, in internet play. The main difference seems to be that the cost
of playing on the internet is anything from $80 a year or so down to zero.
The cost of going to a tourney, entry fees aside, can be in the $500 to
$1000 range depending on location, etc. The BG players want to be able
to recover that cost. I asked a well-known organizer and official why
there was little major tourney action in Hawai`i and her answer was
immediate: the cost of airfare lowers the equity too much, and the prizes
would have to be quite substantial to attract players. It *is* all
about money, which is why I'm reluctant to attempt a low-entry Swiss
tournament in Santa Fe (well, let me do the checkers ty first and see how
things look). I fear it would fall flat on its face if the top prize was
$50 or so, financed through excess of revenue over expenses with $10 entry
fees.
(Of course, the checkers ty, with a $10 entry, is likely to draw less
than two dozen people. But in today's world checkers is a WEE bit less
popular than BG :))
--
Gregg Cattanach
> would have to be quite substantial to attract players. It *is* all
> about money, which is why I'm reluctant to attempt a low-entry Swiss
> tournament in Santa Fe (well, let me do the checkers ty first and see how
> things look). I fear it would fall flat on its face if the top prize was
> $50 or so, financed through excess of revenue over expenses with $10 entry
> fees.
>
> (Of course, the checkers ty, with a $10 entry, is likely to draw less
> than two dozen people. But in today's world checkers is a WEE bit less
> popular than BG :))
>
> --
If you want to get something started in Santa Fe, you really need to
'create' the local club action first. If you have a weekly tournament on
Tuesday nights or something, you can easily have entry fees of $10 (and
maybe a $10 sidepool for the 'high rollers'), and get lots of play for very
little money. The organizer should keep 10-15% of this, and if you can find
a local bar that will have you without charging extra, there's your club!
Basically any 'big' regional backgammon tournament is supported by that
location's local club. I can't think of any location that runs a big event
that also doesn't have an active local club.
One way to have a full 6-8 round Swiss event where everyone plays every
round is to award 'match' money. I think the Chicago Memorial day
tournament does this where the field is still competing for the top prizes,
but you get $10 for every match you win, even if you've gone 0-7, you still
get to play that 8th match for something. That actually would work pretty
well to created enough incentive to have everyone play every round, (if
that's your desire).
Gregg C.
Grunty
> On 19 Apr 2004 09:51:31 -0700, grunti...@yahoo.com (Grunty) wrote:
>
> What's money got to do with it??
Again, money's got to do with the use of doubling cube, not with your
enjoyment.
The cube was invented to gamble. Of course you can play for NO money
using the cube, but then its only effect is to shorten the games, and
it has no *substance* in it. It gets significance when you assign it a
value, be it cash or chickpeas.
Bucko
This is incorrect. It is true you can play a match to a set score without
the doubling cube, as is done in the Middle East, but being able to
double/take correctly adds an additional skill to the game. How well you do
it will affect the number of matches you win over time.
happyjuggler0
checking out the following links before setting up a tournament. You
might also consider contacting someone on the club list or Carol Joy
Cole for helpful hints if you want to start a local backgammon club.
http://www.chicagopoint.com/usaclubs.html#anchor1976703
http://www.chicagopoint.com/calendar.html
Bob Newell
>checking out the following links before setting up a tournament. You
It would be some time before I actually took action on organizing anything
in my area (months or years even). For one thing, I would need to go to a
tourney or two just to see how it works. For another, I need to get
the NM checkers tourney going as a first priority - a much easier task
since checker players just want to play checkers, not recover costs.
Yes, expensive is in the eyes of the beholder. To most working people
a $1,000 tournament experience is expensive. To some others, it is
the cost of a vacation or the cost of entertainment. I am in the first
category, though unashamedly envious of the second.
>might also consider contacting someone on the club list or Carol Joy
>Cole for helpful hints if you want to start a local backgammon club.
>
Carol is a very friendly and patient source of information, not to mention
a world-class organizer.
>http://www.chicagopoint.com/usaclubs.html#anchor1976703
>http://www.chicagopoint.com/calendar.html
And thank you for the references!
--
Grunty
> being able to double/take correctly adds an additional skill to the game.
> How well you do it will affect the number of matches you win over time.
That's ok, but isn't my point.
I'm just saying that cube play is truly meaningful when you're playing
for some value. It was added on the game as a raising tool, and works
pretty much like poker chips.
If you play with the cube for no value, you're certainly adding
another skill in play, but are missing the essence of the cube. You
can't purchase or exchange anything with rating points, for instance.
Gregg Cattanach
The cube is perfectly effective in match play even if the players are
playing for zero dollars. This happens thousands of times a day on the
internet.
I agree that a 'money' session played for no money makes the cube (and the
entire game) pointless. Everything's a take for $0 a point.
Gregg C.
Zengirl
I use the doubling cube whenever I see fit - which is not that often
really, but when I do it adds another SCARY dimension - the stakes get
higher and the game becomes even more tense. I lose or gain no money
though. I prefer it like that, it has its own magic, but I feel no
derision toward those who want to bring money into it, it's just not
the way to go for me. I like it that there is no money in the games
for me - money comes into this world far too often already in my
opinion..
Z.
happyjuggler0
> a $1,000 tournament experience is expensive. To some others, it is
> the cost of a vacation or the cost of entertainment. I am in the first
> category, though unashamedly envious of the second.
I perfectly understand your point here but I think you (understandably
so) missed my point (my fault). It is perfectly reasonable and
feasible to have local tournaments for nominal stakes (by anyone's
standards). Consider these links from your neck of the woods,
relatively speaking. I do not mean to imply that you could easily
travel to these tournaments, just that you may be able to get a better
grip on your local area's chances of fielding such an event than if I
included Chicago or New York as examples.
http://community-2.webtv.net/ArizonaBackgammon/doc/
http://users.adelphia.net/~pgibsonmfic/ Check out the calendar of
events, the first 2 tournaments, one of which is quite
inexpensive...they also have a "big" tournament coming up soon too
which may or may not interest you. Again, if you are a local then the
airfare/hotel type expenses are not applicable and the "big"
tournament's entry fees are in the eye of the beholder. For a
semi-annual event it may be worth it for someone of relatively modest
means who lives in LA.
http://www.sdgammon.org/ Check out the weekly tournaments
link...somewhere there is an explanation of the coupon thing...they do
it so they get the playing site.
http://www.westtexasbackgammon.org/ginfo.html
All of these "live", or offline, clubs offer tournaments in the $10 or
so entry fee range and don't qualify as high,high,high entry fees in
anybody's book. Obviously they will attract virtually only locals,
this is the point of starting a local club, so you have a base of
players to start out with. You might need to do all the work of
setting up and promoting the first club meeting yourself, but you may
be able to finagle some local BG diehards to help out after that.
Please note the side pools too...they are there for those who may
prefer to play for somewhat larger stakes. Only those who play in the
side pool are eligible to win of course, and the high finisher (or top
2 in some cases perhaps) of the side pool wins that pot even if he/she
only finishes 4th overall for example.
Hardy Hübener
How about having a look a the playing speed of some very good players?
The only documentation of speed of play that comes to my mind is found in
Antonio Ortegas excellent books "Costa Rica 1993" and "Costa Rica 1994".
Both books contain the annotated final matches of the 2nd and 3rd Tournament
of the Americas:
1993: Wilcox Snellings vs. Mike Senkiewicz (15 pts)
1994: Mike Senkiewicz vs. Mike Svobodny (15 pts)
+-------------+
| Statistics: |
+-------------+
+--------1993-------+ +-------1994------+
Senkiewicz Snellings Senkievicz Svobodny
total time 51:40 36:00 36:54 57:11
max. time cube < 0:30 0:50 1:15 1:15
max. time checker 2:20 0:55 1:30 1:30
average * 0:13 0:09 0:08 12:00
(* average time for cube _plus_ checker play decision)
So in 1993 no single decision took more than 1 minute, in 1994 the maximum
time was 1:30 for both players. Most decisions took only 3 or 4 seconds.
How do those top player make their decisions so fast?
Senkiewicz: "I think about cube decisions during my opponent's turn to play.
Obviously I can't take that with checker plays. This would account for all
my time beeing used for checker plays, mostly technical ones."
Snellings: "On the matter of time used in matches, I would say in general I
use a bit less time than my opponents. This is due to a confidence that I
have found the best play, however close, and the theory that further
deliberation is simply a waste of mental energy and may actually detract
from some inner 'feel' or sense of the flow of the game."
Okay, most of us are no champions (yet), and especially a beginner will need
some time for his decisions. But the more you get used to the match, the
more, you practice the game and study reference positions, the faster your
speed of play will become. And: Use your opponents decision times for your
own cube decisions!
Its not really a pleasure, to play a player that needs one minute or more
for each decision :-)
Do you have some other statistics on speed of play?
Seeing you soon on FIBS,
Hardy / Hardy_whv
Bob Newell
it together.
--
Ric
And look, no speedo joke! ;^)
Ric
"Bob Stringer" <bob101...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:qlub805fhvlku0d4v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "Gregg Cattanach"
> <gcattana...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
> >Nobody really likes to gamble for no money.
>
> Not so. I've been playing in local tournaments for 3 years
> or so and have played in 3 bigger tournaments, including the
> one in Las Vegas, and the money/gambling element means
> absolutely nothing to me. It's simply the price I *have* to
> pay for having a good time, because virtually everyone else
> in the game insists on money being a part of it.
> --
>
> Bob Stringer
>
> In order to reply by e-mail, please replace
> "1nospam" with "0" (a zero) in my address
Bob Newell
>absolutely nothing to me. It's simply the price I *have* to
>pay for having a good time, because virtually everyone else
And, obviously, you are in a financial state where paying it is not
an issue. But I am *most* appreciative of those who pointed me to
the $10 weekly matches. $10 a week is not unreasonable for a hobby;
it's what - the cost of a lunch out. So it appears, after all, that
there is room for everyone, and that is good news indeed.
--
Adam Stocks
"Bob Stringer" <bob101...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:qlub805fhvlku0d4v...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:10:52 GMT, "Gregg Cattanach"
> <gcattana...@prodigy.net> wrote:
>
>
> or so and have played in 3 bigger tournaments, including the
> one in Las Vegas, and the money/gambling element means
> pay for having a good time, because virtually everyone else
>
I have found the same to be true Bob. In my opinion, the reason a stake is
played for can be broken down into 3 fundamental parts, listed in no
particular order:
i) A (modest) stake to make the player try to play at his best
ii) A (modest) stake to convince his opponont that the player is trying to
play at his best
iii) A (larger) stake to provide a significant $ winning opportunity for one
or both players
Personally I only tend to play for money for reason ii). I do find this
sad, as there is no theoretical reason why backgammon's money oriented
culture needs to be the status quo. It all seems to stem from the fact that
games with a chance element attract lots of 'gamblers' whose prime
motivation is to win $, and to get the 'buzz' from sudden changes of fortune
caused by the chance element - the very part of the game most 'serious'
players dislike the most. Yes, there is a 'dirty dichotomy' in the game,
but I acknowledge that it is unlikely to change for the forseeable future.
A big obstacle to this is the fact that the international tournament
hierarchy is limited by time restrictions as far as formats are concerned,
and thus we have the situation where the world championships have to be
decided within a week or so's timeframe. This means that the only way a
tournament can gain international credibility is to have bigger prize funds
than its competitors - hence we have the world championships of players who
have $4000+ to (probably) set fire to.
Adam (who is in a bad mood today because he doesn't have $4000) lol.
Bob Newell
>players dislike the most. Yes, there is a 'dirty dichotomy' in the game,
>but I acknowledge that it is unlikely to change for the forseeable future.
And, though this is *very* different than what I'm used to as a checkers,
go, and chess player, enough said. I can live with it, or I can play the
other games. (Or split the difference and play the $10 club matches.)
--
RedTop
there was no prize money. For that matter, many bridge tournaments
are conducted as round-robins, and the withdrawal rate because people
are doing poorly is - zero. I think in all my years I have once seen
a pair say "We're doing badly, let's stop trying and start doing
random things" (and they were disciplined for that).
One thing IS different in bridge. Bridge being a partership game, the
very best players are paid to play with others as partners or
teammates. The U.S. won world team championships in (I think I have
this right) 1979, 1981, 1988, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2001 and 2003 with a
paying sponsor. Many other players have won lesser titles with a
professional partner or team.
The point is that there is an avenue in bridge by which the best
players can make a living. There is not enough of a market in bridge
for lessons and books to support more than a small handful of players.
However, tournaments really can't do that either. How many people can
really hope to profit in the long run after travel expenses? Very
very few, if any.
RedTop
adds a dimension of skill. In fact, the cube involves far MORE skill
in a match context, because cube decisions vary tremendously with
match scores.
The cube is meaningful when you are playing to win - whether for money
or a match where money is or isn't involved. For that matter, even if
you're playing a long "money" session for $0 a point just for pride
between two people, the cube is meaningful.
The issue is not cubeful vs cubeless - it's money vs non-money.
Grunty
> That's just plain silly.
I guess this is a formula to express disagreement...
> If you are playing to win a match, the cube adds a dimension of skill.
I said the same: "If you play with the cube for no value, you're
certainly adding another skill in play".
> In fact, the cube involves far MORE skill in a match context, because cube
> decisions vary tremendously with match scores.
Ok.
> The cube is meaningful when you are playing to win - whether for money
> or a match where money is or isn't involved. For that matter, even if
> you're playing a long "money" session for $0 a point just for pride
> between two people, the cube is meaningful.
In non-money play, I would say the cube is "effective" (as Gregg did)
because it still can serve to earn points; but yet "meaningless"
because you don't need it to play "for pride".
Non-money play (match or game) should be cubeless, since there are no
stakes to raise. Non-money score points should be TO BE PLAYED, NOT TO
BE RAISED.
Playing non-money matches WITH the cube, is just making it a more
complex intellectual exercise, but it's sterile from the point of view
of the cube's essential meaning - a gambling tool.
When you're playing a match for fun, it doesn't make sense to shorten
the fun by using the cube. You want to win the match reaching the
score limit by playing, not by taking shortcuts. This is the reason
why oriental native players can't or don't want to understand the
cube, because they're playing for nothing, for pure and simple fun.
Nobody needs any raising tool in order to enjoy the game.
The objective of the cube is not to enjoy the game, but to earn money
out of the game.
Quoting Gregg: "Backgammon with the cube by its essence IS a gambling
game."
> The issue is not cubeful vs cubeless - it's money vs non-money.
The discussion evolved to argue about the correlation between both
concepts.
happyjuggler0
them, in addition to me and one of my brothers, evolved into very
strong amatuer players by simply playing against each other and with
the help of a couple of books. It did not occur to us to play matches
and my parents were quite adament about no gambling, so we played
"money sessions" without money. And we used the cube of course, since
those are the rules of the game, as are gammons and backgammons. We
kept a running tally of the score from a given session much like we
would have if we played for money. Our cube play was not the best, but
we learned the basics and when I discovered online backgammon a year
or so ago I was well poised to compete at high percentile compared to
other online players, in large part due to my cube skills such as they
were (aka pretty lousy by my gnu trained mind now).
Playing a money session with the cube but without money is not
pointless, useless or silly unless one of the players chooses to make
it so. Playing a money session (with or without money) without the
cube IS NOT BACKGAMMON and anyone who chooses to teach their kids the
wrong rules of the game in an attempt to keep them from gambling at a
later age is doing them a disservice. They will gamble or not and
simply playing a game will not lead them there. Teach them the proper
rules. They will learn the proper rules eventually if they keep
playing the game, but if they learn later they will be forced to play
catch up and their self esteem will take a blow due to the
unneccessarily large number of matches they will lose (probably
online, kids being what they are these days) due to their non-existent
cube skills.
Finally I want to point out that backgammon is a game of probabilities
and teaching kids backgammon WITH the cube will greatly increase their
chances of actually enjoying math (backgammon IS applied math) and
whether or not they eventually enjoy math they will have learned
useful lessons about probability at an early age which will suit them
well in a world where many people can't make heads nor tails of
probability or statistics (a very similar field) and are thus quite
vulnerable to scams from crooks or salesmen and just plain old bad
math from politicians, government and news organisations.
Bob Newell
context for understanding the use of the cube and further makes the
imlied point that backgammon *can* be played with a very high degree of
enjoyment without money being involved. I only wish your view were the
more widespread and prevalent one.
It's my impression based on limited exposure to date that the view of back-
gammon as a high-level intellectual exercise, which I have certainly found
it can be, is a view that is more or less accepted as background infor-
mation rather than primary information. That is, while most players would
agree with the statement that backgammon is an intellectual game, they
might not give that as their motiviation for playing.... which is the money
factor.
--
RedTop
no accident that the doubling cube was invented at the Mayfair club,
which also hosted rubber bridge games). Yet these options are allowed
in tournaments in which no money is involved.
People play basketball for money, or for fun. If you play on the
playground and agree to use the 3-point rule, is that sensible only
when you're playing for money? No, it's a dimension of skill.
In backgammon, anything that adds skill to the game is generally a
good thing, because there is so much luck. Playing a match, why
shouldn't my assessment of whether my match-winning chances are better
if I do or don't double, and my opponent's assessment of whether he's
better off taking, figure into who wins?
Dick Adams
> I play on TMG's play money tables and my opponets are always typing
> "zzzzzzzz" or "go go go go" when its my turn to move because I take
> more time then they do, I just started playing backgamon a month ago
> after playing chess for the last 7 years and am used to being able to
> take my time, is backgammon a much more faster paced game where if you
> take 2 minutes to make a move you are too slow? I watch other people
> play and always seems they just whip out the moves without thinking.
I play on FIBS and am 1650+ player. Taking two minutes to make a
move is excessive if it is regular. Most moves should take under
10 seconds. One or two minutes to decide on a double is NOT
excessive.
But harrassing a player for being slow as unacceptable in backgammon
as it is in poker.
Dick
Adam Stocks
"RedTop" <red...@redtopbg.com> wrote in message
.........doubling cube was invented at the Mayfair club.....
In all the literature I've come across, it says that the exact origins of
the cube are essentially unknown, other than that it was probably invented
in the 1920's, probably in America. Which Mayfair Club ? When ? Who ?
I'm not disputing your statement, just curious :)
Adam
Grunty
(snip)
> In backgammon, anything that adds skill to the game is generally a
> good thing, because there is so much luck. Playing a match, why
> shouldn't my assessment of whether my match-winning chances are better
> if I do or don't double, and my opponent's assessment of whether he's
> better off taking, figure into who wins?
The cube is not an inherent part of backgammon, but an ingrafted part.
In fact, the cube could be used in a similar way at diverse games
others than bg.
You can play any game the way you most enjoy it.
And add rule over rule at your will (first the cube itself, then
Jacoby, then Crawford, then what-ever) just to fit your particular
interest in the game. Many preferring mental demanding games will
adopt the cube even if no money involved. Many preferring to wager
will adopt the cube to raise the stakes. And many preferring just to
play *true* backgammon, won't need the cube in order to find enough
challenge at the game.
Not that I disregard cube play, in fact I get some income out of it.
I'm just trying to put it in its appropriate context: the gambling
context, for which it was created.
Jim Fouch
<snip>
> In backgammon, anything that adds skill to the game is generally a
> good thing, because there is so much luck. Playing a match, why
> shouldn't my assessment of whether my match-winning chances are better
> if I do or don't double, and my opponent's assessment of whether he's
> better off taking, figure into who wins?
Indeed - and I wonder why some folks think backgammon with a cube available
is gambling but that cubeless 'backgammon' is not. Both cube play or
checker play require skill - one is just harder to learn than the other.
I have never played backgammon for money only because it does not appeal to
me, but I think cubeless backgammon would be so boring I would have switched
to Othello by now.
Cheers, Jim.
Gregg Cattanach
> You can play any game the way you most enjoy it.
> And add rule over rule at your will (first the cube itself, then
> Jacoby, then Crawford, then what-ever) just to fit your particular
> interest in the game. Many preferring mental demanding games will
> adopt the cube even if no money involved. Many preferring to wager
> will adopt the cube to raise the stakes. And many preferring just to
> play *true* backgammon, won't need the cube in order to find enough
> challenge at the game.
>
> Not that I disregard cube play, in fact I get some income out of it.
> I'm just trying to put it in its appropriate context: the gambling
> context, for which it was created.
There isn't any thing more *true* or *pure* about backgammon without the
cube, just the opposite. Cubeless backgammon takes half of the skill
involved in *real* backgammon out of the game (assessing your chances to
win/lose/get gammoned/win a gammon from a position and applying that to a
cube action).
Gregg C.