FIBS Board backgammon forum

   An idea I have been thinking about goes as follows:

A win = 10 points + the addition of your opponents checkers that have not been "born off"
example...opponent still has 7 checkers to bear off when you win, you score 17 points

a Doubled win would = 20 + 7, a Redoubled win would = 40 +7, etc.

Of course, a Gammon win would = 35 points & a Doubled Gammon would = 55 points, etc.

A Match could consist of a set number of games with the high score at the end winning, of course.

I think this opens up new possibilities for tactics & strategies. Even in a "dead lost" race, every play would still be crucial.

Any thoughts would be most appreciated.

This might be fun for private play, but I don't think it will fly for any of the set minds of those in the know/power.   

I have always thought the points should be actual, rather than using some kind of formula for rating and experience that is now used would be more fair, but what do I know?     The way it is now, amounts to some sort of handicap system which I also disapprove of.   

socksey



"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom." -- Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in Physics, 1923

I've known people who keep score like that.  It makes for a boring game, because as soon as it becomes apparent that one player is behind, the trailer runs his backmen  to minimize the damage instead of staying and fighting for the win.

As for the current "handicap" system of FIBS, it works very well.  Without it, those concerned about their rating wouldn't ever want to play anyone with a higher rating. As it is, anyone can play anyone and the point distribution at the end of the match is fair. Want head-to-head non-handicapped play?  Fibsleagammon, or the the various tourneys are always there.

QuoteI have always thought the points should be actual, rather than using some kind of formula for rating and experience

If you do that, the ratings of players that win a majority of their matches will rise towards infinity, those who lose most of their matches will sink towards 0 and beyond.

Quote from: ah_clem on March 27, 2010, 02:08:26 AM
  "I've known people who keep score like that.  It makes for a boring game, because as soon as it becomes apparent that one player is behind, the trailer runs his backmen  to minimize the damage instead of staying and fighting for the win."

  Based on the value of a win ( which can be always modified ),one would always fight for it. The "extra" points gained per checker would, for the most part, be miniscule.
More of a tiebreaker method, if needed.

This scoring method could be used in a tourny format. Set number of games per round per opponent. All play all, or Swiss System. As an ex Chess competitor, I am sure this would be fairly easy to run.

I also think the following format would be most interesting.

  Let us start with a small event, 10 people. Each person would play
each other, say, 10 games. ( round robin ) Allowing no more than, say, a "double &
redouble" with the Cube.

  When all the "matches" have been completed the winner/winners would
be based on their Percental Score, similar to Duplicate Bridge scoring.

  The Percental Score is not based on the total games played,but on the --- Total Points Scored/Total Points
example using an individual match:=player A scores 11 pts=vs player B who scores =6 pts
player A = 11/17 for 64.7% & player B = 6/17 for 35.3%

For large turnouts, a Swiss format could be used. I suspect a 10 game match would take
no more than about 2 hours. A much faster format then even in some Chess events.