[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

The Opening Bell Curve

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Tuesday, 5 June 2007, at 1:27 a.m.

In Response To: The Opening Bell Curve (Strato)

I appreciate Dr. Garal's enthusiasm! And yours, Michael. But where Dr. Garal says:

Fair Tournament Rules should give to each participant of competition:

  • (1) equal quantity of matches;
  • (2) consisting of equal quantity of games;
  • (3) each of which has the fixed sequence of rolls.
I don't think it is unfair that:

  • (1) players in a non-Swiss tournament play an unequal number of matches;
  • (2) tournament matches might not consist of the same number of games, or that a match might have an odd number of games;
  • (3) the opening roll is random.

And when I look at a sample match score pad -- to see one you'll have to go to http://www.fairbg.com/go/114/DesktopDefault.aspx and from the Menu choose Scoring / Examples

I see

(1) a very complicated scoring system

As long as we are looking for the fair scoring system for this game in a tournament variant, the following regulations seem to be correct taking into account:

1. the victory in a match;
2. the value of the doubling cube fixed at the moment of the end of a game;
3. the quality of the win (how close was the loser to the double loss or vice-versa to the simple win in a game);

4. possibility to compare the results of matches having different number of games (which allows to introduce a fair system calculation of a player’s rating).

Thus, how can we take into account all these proposals?

To do this, we shouldn’t introduce any new rules. We simply have to insert a new scoring system for each game and for the entire match. We call this system a "balanced tournament table to calculate results of a game and a match".

Scoring of the match result essentially takes place in the following way:

1. The number of the loser’s checkers remained on the board is counted.

2. According to the number of remained checkers and taking into account the value of the doubling cube, the respective value of the prize game for a winner is found from the Small Match Points (SMP) table.

3. After that the specified value of the small match points is converted into International Match Points (IMPs) according to the IMP table.

4. Both values (SMPs and IMPs) are recorded in the match protocol as well as the number of remained checkers, value of the doubling cube and the first (start) throw in every game.

5. These procedures (steps 1-4) are repeated until the last game of a match has been played.

After that the result of a played match is finally scoring. All the match points (in IMPs) accumulated by each side are summed up and their difference is calculated. The one who accumulated more these points in the match is a winner. The result of a match is determined according to the difference value of IMP's and the given number of games in the match by the special Victory Points (VP) table.

(2) that replaces a match to X points and its everchanging match equities with a series of discrete, repetitive money-type games, albeit with a different scoring system;

(3) suggested, I think, with a lack of appreciation for optimal use of the doubling cube under current tournament match play rules.

"Question: Why did the question regarding the scoring system come out? After all, we already have some system to determine a winner in a game and a match.

"Answer: The system applied was invented (suggested) to score during money-games and by no means could be intended to make such calculations in tournament matches. After all, a doubling cube used in money games is a coefficient by which the stake settled by players for a victory in a game should be multiplied. There are NO stakes in tournament play. However, the scoring for a victory in a game and a match is nonetheless made by the same system (using the same scoring rules of the money game).

And where Dr Garal sees

Disadvantages: none

I see several, including:

  • (1) the scoring system is overly complicated

  • (2) scoring by number of checkers opponent has not taken off is not superior to scoring by points accoring to whether a single game, gammon or backgammon is won

  • (3) a match to X points with equities that change according to the score is ever so much more interesting than a match consisting of a series of unrelated money-type games.

So for now perhaps my negative opinion would not contribute much to discussion in the www.gammonlife.com forum.

Dr. Garal is also the inventor of the backgammon board/recorder that Achim Müller took photos of in his Nordic Open reports -- that's cool (links at fairbg.com).

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.