| |
BGonline.org Forums
Exhaustion Take 3 - Is that a die on a checker!?
Posted By: Stick
Date: Saturday, 26 August 2017, at 6:59 a.m.
From what I see as the original post by Bill Riles aka USBGF Pres back in October of 2016 it is said: 'Allowing dice landing on checkers to constitute a valid roll, a development that will both accelerate the completion of matches and will protect the player rolling in his or her home board from otherwise lost game clock time'
My plan here is to cover all points in relation to this rule change which I still find mind boggling. Let's address, as we already have in the past, the idea that this accelerates matches to any point of significance or saves anyone any clock time.
Marty Storer first mentions in this post that:
I know a very, very well-respected player who once stated in my presence that he prefers to play moving clockwise (e.g. as X in Magriel's book) because he gets extra equity from opponents' steaming when rolling cocked on top of checkers during bearoffs. The home boards are on the opponent's right, so the opponent will roll dice on top of checkers in bearoffs with greater frequency.
Extra equity from someone steaming and cocking their dice during bearoffs. How ridiculous is this?
First point, steamers don't get low on time. Steamers are notoriously fast players. If someone disagrees with this point I'm all ears. Even if this weren't true...
They cock their dice during a bearoff. You know how many times I can shake + roll and eventually move my checkers during a bearoff before my delay time runs out? I'm guessing 3x. It's a bearoff for Christ's sake. The plays are generally automatic. Now there is the uber rare instance where, and follow me here because it happens so often (/sarcasm) you are playing a player who can get in time trouble and will get in time trouble during this specific match and you get into situations during a bearoff where he is forced to roll to the more cluttered side of the board and he cocks his dice several times and it costs him precious clock time, like 10 seconds overall and that is your massive gain in equity. Glad we turned the rules of bg upside down to get ahead of this.
Later it is mentioned here and there that the new rule saves 'time and energy' and as I pointed out somewhere along the way, I am so thankful for all the energy I saved by not having to reroll. Sometimes after a long match I'd go straight to the intravenous IV like professional athletes after a long fought contest and now, thanks to the new rule, energy saved = energy earned! Aren't backgammon players lazy and out of shape enough as it is. Let them get their workout in by rerolling a few times per match. There is no way in the holy name of Starlord that this rule change has saved time or energy as we can witness by the endless posts on this forum or the complete waste of everyone's time and energy at the beginning of a tournament that uses this rule where they spend 3-5 minutes explaining the damn rule that is saving us so much time!!
As Bill Riles goes on to say later in the same thread 'I played a fifteen point match last night with the new rules. I had exactly one occurrence of a die on a checker, my opponent had two. It was inconsequential. As already pointed out at the time, you can't have it both ways. The rule can't be both a way to accelerate matches and save clock time and have it be inconsequential.
In yet another post by Albert Steg he makes a very valid point in which I am in total agreement. In fact, going back through all this rule crap I've noticed Albert and I seem to be on pretty much the same page. He is wise beyond his years!
Anyway, as Albert goes on to say on a couple points, if we could wave a wand and start over with everyone having a blank slate of permitting dice on checkers to stand I would and there would be no real problems. Guess what though, we can't. To me it's like guns in the US. The only solution? No guns. Is that possible? No way, no how. Guns are out there and you can't magically take them back. The die on a checker rule has been around even recreationally for at least as long as I've been alive because even my family who only knows how to play BG is by pulling the 1970s set out from under the couch even knows to reroll when the dice are on a checker. Since we can't start from scratch the changing of the rule is an unnecessary pain in the ass. I have to check before every tourney or every chouette which rule is in place. Or maybe I forget to check and then the first time it happens one of us has to get up and go ask one of the staff members the rule. Maybe I'm playing in side games with the non tournament going crowd, I roll and move. They look at me like I've lost my mind as they tell me to reroll. Duh...
These posts aren't the most well organized I realize but we'll deal with it. Let me take a moment to address a couple items that do not concern me at all with the new rule.
- I do not fear change. Change is great if there's a valid upside that's worth it. I have tried the new rule. Personally it makes little difference to me. It is forever annoying knowing in the back of my head that going in to any tournament, whether local, ABT, or overseas, and any chouette or money game, I have to clarify this redonkulous and unneeded rule change.
- I am not worried about rulings that arise from the new rule. A ruling will rarely be needed. It should be noted though with the old ruling a ruling was never needed.
- I am also not overly worried about people having done something for the past X decades slipping back into old habits and having it cause an issue though I bet this does happen. When it happens hopefully the players agree on the roll because the dice have been picked up. If not, that will be a sticky situation. Players will get used to it though the benefits, if any exist, do not outweigh the costs of this rule being changed.
As Bill Riles says in this post 'Were the die on a checker rule not included in the 2016 USBGF Rules I think they would have been accepted (reluctantly by a very few) and we all would have avoided the ongoing rules fiasco which has consumed so much valuable time, energy, and effort and has caused so many disagreements and, yes, even hard feelings and ego attacks.'
I agree with that sentiment. As noted, this rule change has done the exact opposite of saving anyone time or energy either during or outside of the tournament arena.
Once again even I have to agree with CMC.. There was no compelling need to make this rule change, period.
Joe Russell opines It was broke!!! [sic] Perhaps we have a different idea of meaning of the word 'broke'? As many have mentioned and as you can see in this post all seemed to be in fine working order before this rule change. I neither think that our going to a die on a checker being a valid roll nor what any other federation did to change the setting (resetting delays and whatnot) needed to be done. I would love to be privy to these back alley talks where people convinced other people that this was not only a real issue aka broken, which it clearly wasn't, but also that the suggested fix would actually fix something instead of cause more problems than it would solve.
I remember Rory's last Chicago tournament where I'm sitting in the back of the room listening to the pre tournament speech. Things that have to be covered but then seem to go on way too long. Then he gets to the part about dice being legal when landing on a checker. Serenity Now!! Any time that could possibly have been saved during the tournament itself was used up in that pre tournament speech explaining the rule and what you should do if there is a dispute. 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. This is something that sort of has to happen at every tournament until it becomes the norm totally obliviating most perceived benefits of the new rule to begin with.
If a goal of the USBGF is to eventually have one standard set of rules this change was not the way to go. Most everyone seems to agree it wasn't (and still isn't) worth the time and aggravation that has stemmed from it and it's far from over.
Now, what I plan to rant about in another post needs to be mentioned here. I believe baffle boxes are preference now? In other words, if one player wants to use a baffle box then it will be used for the match. Baffle boxes are already supposed to virtually eliminate the die on checker issue right? It's like we're overcorrect something that wasn't an issue to begin with at this point. If you would have made baffle box preference and left out the die on checker being legal not only would you have saved me a great deal of eye strain and early onset carpel tunnel, but there would have been a lot less backlash against the proposed rules which will continue for year(s) to come.
Stick
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.