July 04, 2015, 03:21:02 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Help Stog get your avatars back, click here Wink
http://www.fibsboard.com/announcements/pruning-maintenance/msg25940/#msg25940
 
   Home   Forum Chat links PLAY NOW! Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10
 31 
 on: June 15, 2015, 08:26:30 AM 
Started by ikeaboy - Last post by dorbel
In the Plakoto variation of tavli, your home board is on the opposite side to normal, but why I don't know.

 32 
 on: June 15, 2015, 06:58:43 AM 
Started by ikeaboy - Last post by ikeaboy
Hi all,

I am new to FIBS, but not new to Backgammon. I have a basic question which I cannot see answered in this forum, but I may have missed something. Sorry if this has been covered a gah-zillion times already. I know that the set-up for ordinary backgammon can be arranged for either clockwise or counterclockwise play, but I have never heard a rule about whether a player can choose a homeboard on the opposite side of the board, ie player x bears off on what would traditionally be player y's homeboard. I am asking since many phone apps allow you to chose all four options as your homeboard. The other day, I thought I would try this with a friend and he said it was not allowed, which seems odd to me -- why should the choice of homeboard make a difference as long as the checkers are set up properly for play in that direction? Maybe it is illegal, but considering all the variations on Backgammon that exist, that seems a bit odd. Can anyone answer this? Best, Ikeaboy.

 33 
 on: June 14, 2015, 07:39:08 PM 
Started by socksey - Last post by socksey
14 Jun 15



Supreme Champion:    kostasr
Worthy Adversary:    rebbeler
3rd place tie:    
Nyo
socksey
5th place tie:    
Thensie
andreas

 34 
 on: June 13, 2015, 07:57:29 PM 
Started by socksey - Last post by socksey
13 Jun 15



Supreme Champion:    rebbeler
Worthy Adversary:    Thensie
3rd place tie:    
socksey
kostasr
5th place tie:    
zbilbo
andreas

 35 
 on: June 12, 2015, 08:09:28 PM 
Started by zbilbo - Last post by socksey
12 Jun 15



Supreme Champion:    kostasr
Worthy Adversary:    Thensie
3rd place tie:    
rebbeler
socksey

 36 
 on: June 12, 2015, 07:58:32 PM 
Started by takeonme79 - Last post by takeonme79
While pondering my previous reply I've thought of a new variant that is totally deterministic.

Before the game, a table of many successive dice rolls is made, using a random number generator or by rolling the dice yourself and recording the results.
The table is observable to both players.
Instead of rolling the dice during the game, the players use the table to see what their roll is. They may also look ahead and see their opponent's next throw, their own throw after that and so on.

The players calculate as far as possible, but just as in chess, you find there are limits to your calculation and therefore you need to maintain good structure on the board to help in the long term.

Interestingly, if both sides have perfect calculation until the end of the game, then this variant is a 100% luck game as one side is destined to win because of more favourable dice. In practice you can play the same dice throws again but with reverse colour moving first so that each player has a go with each of the sets of dice throws.

I call this variant Chessgammon. I wouldn't really want to play it myself, since I used to play chess and I've moved away from it because it involves too much move-after-move calculation. However I just want to put it on the net and claim it in case no one else has suggested this before (someone probably has).

 37 
 on: June 12, 2015, 07:29:33 PM 
Started by takeonme79 - Last post by takeonme79
You still haven't given any reasons why your proposals will mean that luck will be less important. You also haven't shown why you think bg is 75/25 skill/luck.
Also It's an interesting assertion, but do you have any reason for thinking this?

The 75/25 ratio is something I've read and I feel that's about right although of course there is no objective way of calculating a precise ratio. However, the specific numbers do not matter. I suggested that *if* 75/25 was correct then I'd like to push the ratio to 85/15 or further. If 75/25 was inaccurate and the ratio was something like 65/35, then likewise I would like to push the ratio somewhere towards 80/20. The precise numbers don't matter, just that I would like to push the game towards more skill.

By reducing the amount of luck you need to rely better on correct evaluation of position and probabilities.
Also It's an interesting assertion, but do you have any reason for thinking this?

Let's say a game was 5% skill and 95% luck. Then it's hardly worth your time thinking as the results of your strategy are not going to be a major factor in the outcome of a game based mainly on luck. I've just extrapolated that to conclude that the more skill a game has the more important the strategy becomes to the outcome of the game.

I agree that the argument is far from watertight. However, let me rephrase what I want my variant to achieve:

'I would like there to be a variant of backgammon where consistently playing better moves than the opponent and evaluating positions better than them is more likely to win you the game than in standard backgammon'.

Now that I have changed my requirement to the above, I believe that my variant would achieve that. Doubles often turn the losing side into the winning one and is often the culprit behind why a strong player might sometimes lose to a weaker one. My second proposal will also eliminate one particularly lucky throw and introduce a new element to the game which I think computers may find hard to handle well.

Whether my proposals achieve what I want is testable! Find a person you know is weaker than you by a reasonable margin. Play 20 games of standard backgammon and 20 games of my variant and see whether you win a significantly higher number of games under my variant. I haven't tested it yet but I would love to if I manage to find a willing lab rat.


 38 
 on: June 11, 2015, 08:31:12 PM 
Started by takeonme79 - Last post by dorbel
You still haven't given any reasons why your proposals will mean that luck will be less important. You also haven't shown why you think bg is 75/25 skill/luck.
Also
Quote
By reducing the amount of luck you need to rely better on correct evaluation of position and probabilities.
It's an interesting assertion, but do you have any reason for thinking this?

 39 
 on: June 11, 2015, 05:33:44 PM 
Started by takeonme79 - Last post by takeonme79
I think the opposite. By reducing the amount of luck you need to rely better on correct evaluation of position and probabilities. As I see the game at the moment, your opponent has a good chance of beating you just through 1 or 2 lucky throws at the right time and your calculation means nothing if that happens. This happens too often for my liking. The proposals I made don't remove any randomness from the game since you're still dealing with 36 outcomes each roll, but they do reduce the effect of a couple of lucky throws. You still have to analyse and calculate as much as before.

 40 
 on: June 11, 2015, 03:42:26 PM 
Started by takeonme79 - Last post by ah_clem
The essence of backgammon is evaluating probabilities and if you reduce the randomness (or luck) the game loses a lot of what makes it so interesting.

That said, if you're looking for results that are more skill-based than luck based, play Nackgammon with long matches - I think you'll find that the skill factor outweighs the luck factor.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 ... 10

Please Donate just a wee amount by clicking here or we will have to stick more bloody small ads here again...thx :) Fresh Air
Terms & Conditions | Privacy policy | Accessability

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines | Sitemap Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 8.992 seconds with 26 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.1s, 2q)
TinyPortal © 2005-2012