bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: FW: [Bug-gnubg] Interesting backgammon scoring system_OK?

 From: Øystein Johansen Subject: Re: FW: [Bug-gnubg] Interesting backgammon scoring system_OK? Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 22:05:16 +0200 User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.6 (Windows/20050716)

```Jakob Garal wrote:
> The problem is that I cann't explain shortly all matters, which I
> have investigated. That's why I have written a book "Fair Backgammon
> Tournament Rules", that will be printed next month (I hope :-)).

I still believe the game will be a bit different. However, the game will
maybe improve with this scoring system. I'm looking forward to dig
deeper into this, and I don't want to reject this just because it's a
different game.

> But some remarks I think it'll might done:
>
> 1. there are two variants of this game: for money and tournament
> play. I can improve, that the proposed changes of scoring system by
> tournament play coming very closed to money-game or may be might be
> the same. I don't know - this problem is not decided.

I'm not sure I fully believe this. I have to dig further into this and
try some more games.

> 2. "Fair" rules in my opinion are not minimum of luck!!!! It is a
> great mistake, if you think that I want to minimize the luck factor.
> NO! It is impossible in general, because of the main properties of
> the playing components of this game (s. the book above).

This is an important point. Backgammon is about estimating a random
variable value of the game. There must be luck, else it's not a random
variable.

If we want minimum of luck and more skill, we have to make a different
set of rules.

> 3. Fair tournaments rules means, as I think and propose: Equal number
> starting(opening) rolls, games and matches for all tournament
> participants during one tournament.

This makes it "fairer", since unluck on an 8 cube often loses the match,
and you have no more games to equalize.

The opening roll, also make it "fairer", even though it only delays the
random factor for one roll. So, it doesn't improve the fairness much,
but at least it improves it a tiny little bit, and since it's possible
to apply this in the rules, it's ok.

> 4. Correct scoring system means, as I think and propose: The
> possibility to COMPARE the matches with different number of games.

I can't comment on this, as I've not studied this deeply enough.

> 5. The last point give us the possibility to create correct rating
> system, like "Lehman" rating system in Bridge.

Same as above: I can't comment on this, as I've not studied this deeply
enough.

> For more understand try to check this system by playing.
>
>
> www.fairbg.com
>
> It'll be easy :-)
>
> Let me know, if you want to check it together with me.
>
> May be during the play you'll be more familiar with it.
>
> Thank you for your attention
>
> Best regards from Aachen
>
> Jakob Garal

Since you in advance know the number of games to be played, each match
will take about the same time. This make tournament organizers happy,
and maybe there will be less waiting for the players. Long matches and
waiting can be really painful.

-Øystein

```

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature