A has moved his checkers to a legal position for his roll, but is still thinking about his move and the dice are still on the board. B is
getting impatient and doubles, A takes, and then insists to decide for a different move before he picks up the dice. B insists that the checkers
be returned to the alternative position before she doubled.
How would you rule?
A has moved his checkers to a legal position for his roll, but is still thinking about his move and the dice are still on the board. B is
getting impatient and doubles, A takes, and then insists to decide for a different move before he picks up the dice. B insists that the checkers
be returned to the alternative position before she doubled.
How would you rule?
On 20/04/2022 6:03 am, Axel Reichert wrote:
A has moved his checkers to a legal position for his roll, but is still
thinking about his move and the dice are still on the board. B is
getting impatient and doubles, A takes, and then insists to decide for a
different move before he picks up the dice. B insists that the checkers
be returned to the alternative position before she doubled.
How would you rule?
Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
An interesting question is whether one can come up with a position
in which the best move changes if you know ahead of time that your
opponent is going to incorrectly double. Seems like there must be
examples but I can't think of one offhand.
The US rules are lacking :-)
The WBGF rules cover this issue clearly and sensibly. https://wbgf.info/tournaments/rules
4.4(v):
"PREMATURE ACTION – If a player doubles before the end of the opponent’s turn, the double stands if it is otherwise valid. The opponent is then entitled to finish his turn knowing that the opponent will be doubling."
which is better than my description, because it allows the wronged
player to effectively penalise the player who's cubed out of turn.
Besides, in this case, it's a first roll cube, so presumably post-
Crawford, the only time one expects a first-roll cube.
My understanding is that "legal moves" generally refers to checker play
and not to doubling. For example, let's look at the USBGF rules.
https://usbgf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/rules.pdf
Besides, in this case, it's a first roll cube, so presumably post-
Crawford, the only time one expects a first-roll cube.
Axel didn't say anything about a first roll cube. Is there some context that I'm unaware of?
The WBGF rules cover this issue clearly and sensibly. https://wbgf.info/tournaments/rules
On 20/04/2022 6:03 am, Axel Reichert wrote:
A has moved his checkers to a legal position for his roll, but is still thinking about his move and the dice are still on the board. B is
getting impatient and doubles, A takes, and then insists to decide for a different move before he picks up the dice. B insists that the checkers
be returned to the alternative position before she doubled.
How would you rule?Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
On 20/04/2022 6:03 am, Axel Reichert wrote:
A has moved his checkers to a legal position for his roll, but is still thinking about his move and the dice are still on the board. B is
getting impatient and doubles, A takes, and then insists to decide for a different move before he picks up the dice. B insists that the checkers
be returned to the alternative position before she doubled.
How would you rule?Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
On 4/19/2022 8:01 PM, Simon Woodhead wrote:
On 20/04/2022 6:03 am, Axel Reichert wrote:
A has moved his checkers to a legal position for his roll, but is still
thinking about his move and the dice are still on the board. B is
getting impatient and doubles, A takes, and then insists to decide for a >> different move before he picks up the dice. B insists that the checkers
be returned to the alternative position before she doubled.
How would you rule?
Most rules require legal moves these days.My understanding is that "legal moves" generally refers to checker play
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
and not to doubling. For example, let's look at the USBGF rules.
https://usbgf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/rules.pdf
These state, "If a player touches the cube or makes any statement or
gesture that reasonably implies an intention to double, then they
must double at that time, or on their next turn if not yet legal.
Merely reaching for the cube does not by itself imply an intention
to double."
Therefore B is required to double. But that's not what's at stake
here, since B isn't trying to retract the double. The question is
whether A can change the move. The USBGF rules do also state, "While
testing a play, a moved checker should be offset above its intended destination," which at first glance might seem to suggest that if A
has actually moved the checkers to a legal final position, then he
is no longer "testing" the move and is done with the play. But the
tournament ruling guide says that "should" indicates a best practice
and not a mandatory rule.
https://usbgf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/ruling-guide.pdf
So A is permitted to change his move and B is required to double.
It also stands to reason that since B is the one who intentionally
performed an illegal action, A should be the one who is given the
benefit of the doubt in any ruling. But A should also be alert to
the possibility that his current play is best, and that B is deviously
trying to manipulate him into playing something else. There's an old
(and unethical) trick in chess that when your opponent reaches for a
piece to make a good move, you triumphantly say (just before your
opponent touches the piece), "Aha! You touched it! You have to move
it!" Then after arguing for a while, you say, "Fine, whatever. Go
ahead. Move something else. See if I care."
An interesting question is whether one can come up with a position
in which the best move changes if you know ahead of time that your
opponent is going to incorrectly double. Seems like there must be
examples but I can't think of one offhand.
Simon Woodhead <si...@bglog.org> writes:
The WBGF rules cover this issue clearly and sensibly. https://wbgf.info/tournaments/rulesThanks!
In our chouette we play according to (an abbreviated version of the) European Backgammon Federation Rules:
http://eubgf.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Tournament-Rules-EUBGF-Feb16.pdf
This has:
PREMATURE ACTION - If a player doubles before the end of the
opponent’s turn, the double stands if it is otherwise valid. The
opponent is then entitled to finish his turn knowing that the opponent
will be doubling
So it is clear that the double stands. But both the WBGF and the EUBGF
rules do not clarify whether the take implicitly "finished" the move
(which I think is reasonable).
Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
Although I came to a different decision, I actually like this way of thinking.
And I think Simon has TD experience so he would know better than me.
Just a small technical correction to a misreading.
Not "with the cube centered" because no one said that the cube was previously centered.
You mean that the cube should be moved to its previous position.
On 20/04/2022 5:26 pm, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
Although I came to a different decision, I actually like this way of thinking.I am strongly against the touch cube rule where even reaching
And I think Simon has TD experience so he would know better than me.
for it constitutes a double. I believe the cube should be at
least in the hands of the cuber, and preferably placed on
the playing surface as it should be.
If someone claims that their opponent has waved at the cube in
such a way that the rules would consider it a double, and asks
for a ruling, what is a TeeDee ToDo? [sorry!] One player says
cube, the other says I was just scratching my head. I simply
don't allow it, the cube must be physically moved. Saves a lot
of potential silliness.
On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:00:05 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
So it is clear that the double stands. But both the WBGF and the EUBGF
rules do not clarify whether the take implicitly "finished" the move
(which I think is reasonable).
I disagree that it is reasonable to assume that the take finishes the move.
"peps...@gmail.com" <peps...@gmail.com> writes:
On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 8:00:05 AM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:[...]
So it is clear that the double stands. But both the WBGF and the EUBGF
rules do not clarify whether the take implicitly "finished" the move
(which I think is reasonable).
I disagree that it is reasonable to assume that the take finishes the move.Well, the take is another premature action. Normally, premature actions stand, but here the non-finished previous action (the move) occurs on
the same side as the premature action. Hence, it would be a bonus for
the take if he were allowed to change his move. This seems unfair, since
he has transgressed as well (by the premature take). To summarize, I see
the following solutions:
1. Double is void, take is void. Back to finishing the move. (Simon, at first)
2. Double stands. (WBGF, EUBGF)
a) Take stands and "condones" the move. (Axel)
b) Take is void. Back to finishing the move. (Paul?)
c) Double stands, take stands. Back to finishing the move.
I do not like 2c, feels too chaotic.
2. Double stands. (WBGF, EUBGF)
a) Take stands and "condones" the move. (Axel)
b) Take is void. Back to finishing the move. (Paul?)
c) Double stands, take stands. Back to finishing the move.
I do not like 2c, feels too chaotic.
On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 1:01:18 AM UTC+1, Simon Woodhead wrote:
Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
Although I came to a different decision, I actually like this way of thinking.
And I think Simon has TD experience so he would know better than me.
PREMATURE ACTION - If a player doubles before the end of the
opponent’s turn, the double stands if it is otherwise valid. The
opponent is then entitled to finish his turn knowing that the opponent
will be doubling
So it is clear that the double stands. But both the WBGF and the EUBGF
rules do not clarify whether the take implicitly "finished" the move
(which I think is reasonable).
On 20/04/2022 5:26 pm, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
Although I came to a different decision, I actually like this way of thinking.
And I think Simon has TD experience so he would know better than me.
I am strongly against the touch cube rule where even reaching
for it constitutes a double. I believe the cube should be at
least in the hands of the cuber, and preferably placed on
the playing surface as it should be.
If someone claims that their opponent has waved at the cube in
such a way that the rules would consider it a double, and asks
for a ruling, what is a TeeDee ToDo? [sorry!] One player says
cube, the other says I was just scratching my head. I simply
don't allow it, the cube must be physically moved. Saves a lot
of potential silliness.
Simon Woodhead <si...@bglog.org> wrote:
On 20/04/2022 5:26 pm, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Most rules require legal moves these days.
B has doubled prematurely and therefore it's an illegal "move".
The game is reset to before A moved the checkers, with the cube
centered.
Although I came to a different decision, I actually like this way of thinking.
And I think Simon has TD experience so he would know better than me.
I am strongly against the touch cube rule where even reaching
for it constitutes a double. I believe the cube should be at
least in the hands of the cuber, and preferably placed on
the playing surface as it should be.
If someone claims that their opponent has waved at the cube in
such a way that the rules would consider it a double, and asks
for a ruling, what is a TeeDee ToDo? [sorry!] One player says
cube, the other says I was just scratching my head. I simply
don't allow it, the cube must be physically moved. Saves a lot
of potential silliness.
I was TD for over 100 small tournaments in the 70's and
I cannot recall ever having to adjudicate whether a cube
had been offered or not. We did not have a "reaching for
the cube constitutes a double" rule, but if we had, there
were certainly players who would have abused it.
--bks
...
I'm not in favour of the reaching rule either.
But the rule's absence can also be exploited.
A player can reach for the cube while scrutinizing the opponent's reaction
to dishonestly obtain the answer to the question "How would my opponent
react to a cube offer?"
...
On 4/20/2022 5:49 AM, Axel Reichert wrote:
2. Double stands. (WBGF, EUBGF)
a) Take stands and "condones" the move. (Axel)
b) Take is void. Back to finishing the move. (Paul?)
c) Double stands, take stands. Back to finishing the move.
I do not like 2c, feels too chaotic.It's chaotic, but the chaos is B's fault. The ruling should not
reward B's transgression.
The rule talks about "finishing his turn." It seems clear to me that
"turn" refers to his *current* turn, not his *next* turn, which has not
come yet.
So the question can only be whether the premature take, by finishing
his *next* turn, automatically finishes his *current* turn. This is
not directly addressed by the above rule, but surely some common sense applies here. Ruling in B's favor [...] makes no sense.
Timothy Chow <tchow...@yahoo.com> writes:
The rule talks about "finishing his turn." It seems clear to me thatVery good point!
"turn" refers to his *current* turn, not his *next* turn, which has not come yet.
So the question can only be whether the premature take, by finishing
his *next* turn, automatically finishes his *current* turn. This is
not directly addressed by the above rule, but surely some common sense applies here. Ruling in B's favor [...] makes no sense.
O. K., this is convincing for me. So it seems the consensus here boils
down to maximum punishment for the premature doubler "B": "A" may move
as he wished, and then still decide with a fresh mind on his take. I am
fine with this, because I find any premature actions extremely annoying.
Thanks for all the feedback!
peps...@gmail.com <pepstein5@gmail.com> wrote:
...
I'm not in favour of the reaching rule either.
But the rule's absence can also be exploited.
A player can reach for the cube while scrutinizing the opponent's reaction >> to dishonestly obtain the answer to the question "How would my opponent
react to a cube offer?"
...
If a player says to the other, "I'm thinking of cubing you,"
that would not consitute an obligation to double, nor would
it be a violation of the rules. IMO.
Even though B has transgressed, we might not want to discourage B's behaviour too much in the case of clockless games.
It's a common scenario where A knows that whatever A plays, the action is D/P.
However, A might be uncertain as to whether B will cube, and the optimal checker play in the case of this forgetting might be a tricky and time-consuming problem.
Therefore, we might not want to encourage B from cubing prematurely, and thereby saving time,
as A no longer has to move the checkers. It's a particularly good idea to be lenient on this,
if an exterior organisation is hosting the event such as a bar or restaurant which has to close at
a fixed time.
On Wednesday, April 20, 2022 at 6:36:25 PM UTC+1, Axel Reichert wrote:
O. K., this is convincing for me. So it seems the consensus here boils
down to maximum punishment for the premature doubler "B": "A" may move
as he wished, and then still decide with a fresh mind on his take. I am
fine with this, because I find any premature actions extremely annoying.
Thanks for all the feedback!
No, I don't agree with you on what others have said. I think Tim and I are both
members of the 2c society. The double stands, the take stands, the checker play is in
process and can be changed.
On 4/20/2022 1:29 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Even though B has transgressed, we might not want to discourage B's behaviourI would say that if the tournament directors find this line of reasoning persuasive, then they should write it into the rules, rather than write
too much in the case of clockless games.
It's a common scenario where A knows that whatever A plays, the action is D/P.
However, A might be uncertain as to whether B will cube, and the optimal checker play in the case of this forgetting might be a tricky and time-consuming problem.
Therefore, we might not want to encourage B from cubing prematurely, and thereby saving time,
as A no longer has to move the checkers. It's a particularly good idea to be lenient on this,
if an exterior organisation is hosting the event such as a bar or restaurant which has to close at
a fixed time.
the rules to say the opposite and then turn a blind eye. It's generally
not a good idea to encourage players to think that the rules don't
really mean what they say, and that the tournament directors may
deliberately choose not to enforce them if they have an economic
incentive.
But there wouldn't be a payment conditional on this cooperation so it's hard (for me) to understand
your "economic incentive" reference.
It is a very common situation in backgammon where every reasonable play leads to a D/P but
where the checker play matters in the event that the opponent forgets to cube.
How would you suggest that such situations be handled?
Perhaps the rules could mention that the player, who is waiting for the opponent's checker play,
has the option of pointing to the cube to make it clear that they haven't forgotten the cube?
On 4/21/2022 10:29 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
But there wouldn't be a payment conditional on this cooperation so it's hard (for me) to understandThe TD often wants to host the next tournament in the same place.
your "economic incentive" reference.
Current behavior affects future economic transactions.
The economic framing is very strange (to me) because of its indirectness. Yes, the TD might be a professional backgammon director (they do exist)
and might benefit financially from a good relationship with a host.
But the direct impact of speeding things along would be to finish the event on time
and make all parties (players, bar/restaurant staff etc) happy.
On 4/22/2022 3:35 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
The economic framing is very strange (to me) because of its indirectness. Yes, the TD might be a professional backgammon director (they do exist)It doesn't make happy the player whose concentration has been
and might benefit financially from a good relationship with a host.
But the direct impact of speeding things along would be to finish the event on time
and make all parties (players, bar/restaurant staff etc) happy.
disturbed and who seeks recourse from the TD, only to find that
the rules he has been scrupulously trying to follow, sometimes to
his own disadvantage, don't apply to his opponent, because (he is
assured) his opponent was just "making everyone happy."
It's an even race when someone gets an obviously winning lead by the 66 21 sequence.
While A ponders the 21, B points at the cube just to point out that B hasn't forgotten to double.
Is B breaking the rules?
Did B do the wrong thing?
I don't feel like asking whether B is obliged to double. Since B obviously would double, that
question seems irrelevant to me.
In chess, there are certainly cases when players have offered a
draw in order to manipulate the opponent psychologically. I think
this is fine, as long as the player doesn't make repeated draw
offers just to be annoying.
I actually strongly object to Praggnanandhaa's draw offer here: https://youtu.be/fBMcSky08BA?t=890
On 4/23/2022 6:21 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually strongly object to Praggnanandhaa's draw offer here: https://youtu.be/fBMcSky08BA?t=890I'm confused. I watched the clip but I didn't see a draw offer.
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:53:32 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
On 4/23/2022 6:21 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually strongly object to Praggnanandhaa's draw offer here: https://youtu.be/fBMcSky08BA?t=890I'm confused. I watched the clip but I didn't see a draw offer.
It's extremely clear at about 14mins 51 seconds into the clip. Praggnanandhaa moves his hand and says
"Draw?" I'm not sure how you managed to miss it. The draw offer is approx 1 second after the time corresponding
to the above link.
On 4/23/2022 8:24 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:53:32 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
On 4/23/2022 6:21 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually strongly object to Praggnanandhaa's draw offer here: https://youtu.be/fBMcSky08BA?t=890I'm confused. I watched the clip but I didn't see a draw offer.
It's extremely clear at about 14mins 51 seconds into the clip. Praggnanandhaa moves his hand and saysAh, I see it now!
"Draw?" I'm not sure how you managed to miss it. The draw offer is approx 1 second after the time corresponding
to the above link.
I do see an irregularity here, but it's not the one you mentioned. Praggnanandhaa offers a draw while his opponent is making a move.
The standard time to make a draw offer is after a player makes a
move and just before hitting the clock. It's partly because of
this convention that I initially didn't parse Praggnanandhaa's
action as a draw offer.
If a player offers a draw at a nonstandard moment, then there is
more reason to take into consideration a claim that the draw offer
was an attempt to distract or annoy the opponent. I don't think it
was an intentional attempt to distract or annoy; in a blitz game,
it's easy to mess up the exact timing of an action. On the other
hand, I agree that it was impolite, given the position---unless Praggnanandhaa was basically saying, "I know the drawing technique
here; let's not waste time." The position is, in fact, theoretically
drawn according to the tablebases, an Praggnanandhaa had been holding
the draw correctly for at least several moves prior to the draw offer.
But theoretically drawn is not the same as practically drawn, especially
in a blitz game, and Praggnanandhaa demonstrated that he did not, in
fact, know the drawing technique by blundering with ...Ka3? at 15:13,
and then making White's task easier by following it up with ...Ka2?
instead of, say, ...Rh5, which would have made White's task much more challenging.
Agreed. The distraction/annoyance was (probably) not intentional, but it was still wrong.
There is on youtube a much clearer instance of bad behaviour by Praggnanandhaa -- a
blatant attempt at a touchmove violation. But he's much more mature now, I'm sure, and
of course, good for him for being on track to be either the World Chess Champion or
a strong contender for the title.
On 4/23/2022 8:24 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 24, 2022 at 12:53:32 AM UTC+1, Tim Chow wrote:
On 4/23/2022 6:21 PM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
I actually strongly object to Praggnanandhaa's draw offer here: https://youtu.be/fBMcSky08BA?t=890I'm confused. I watched the clip but I didn't see a draw offer.
It's extremely clear at about 14mins 51 seconds into the clip. Praggnanandhaa moves his hand and saysAh, I see it now!
"Draw?" I'm not sure how you managed to miss it. The draw offer is approx 1 second after the time corresponding
to the above link.
I do see an irregularity here, but it's not the one you mentioned. Praggnanandhaa offers a draw while his opponent is making a move.
The standard time to make a draw offer is after a player makes a
move and just before hitting the clock. It's partly because of
this convention that I initially didn't parse Praggnanandhaa's
action as a draw offer.
If a player offers a draw at a nonstandard moment, then there is
more reason to take into consideration a claim that the draw offer
was an attempt to distract or annoy the opponent. I don't think it
was an intentional attempt to distract or annoy; in a blitz game,
it's easy to mess up the exact timing of an action. On the other
hand, I agree that it was impolite, given the position---unless Praggnanandhaa was basically saying, "I know the drawing technique
here; let's not waste time." The position is, in fact, theoretically
drawn according to the tablebases, an Praggnanandhaa had been holding
the draw correctly for at least several moves prior to the draw offer.
But theoretically drawn is not the same as practically drawn, especially
in a blitz game, and Praggnanandhaa demonstrated that he did not, in
fact, know the drawing technique by blundering with ...Ka3? at 15:13,
and then making White's task easier by following it up with ...Ka2?
instead of, say, ...Rh5, which would have made White's task much more challenging.
But I'm not a TD.
So there's also the question: What's a TD to do?
The answer (or rather the Gruntyized answer) is that a teedeetoodoo is a tune that a lot of people sing in the bath.
Paul
On 4/24/2022 8:01 AM, peps...@gmail.com wrote:
Agreed. The distraction/annoyance was (probably) not intentional, but it was still wrong.This is getting even further off topic, but I can't resist
There is on youtube a much clearer instance of bad behaviour by Praggnanandhaa -- a
blatant attempt at a touchmove violation. But he's much more mature now, I'm sure, and
of course, good for him for being on track to be either the World Chess Champion or
a strong contender for the title.
mentioning an incident recounted in Hesse's book "The Joys of
Chess," in which both players blundered, but you wouldn't know
this from just the game score, which does not record draw offers
that are not accepted.
What happened was that one of the players offered a draw before
making a move. The opponent insisted that the player follow
standard practice and make a move first, and only then would the
draw offer be considered. The player obliged, thought for a while,
and then suddenly noticed a crushing move that led to a quick
forced win. The player made the move. The opponent was shocked,
and immediately resigned.
According to the FIDE laws of chess, the draw offer was still in
force, so the opponent could have legally claimed a draw. The
resignation was therefore a blunder, and by extension, the draw
offer was also a blunder.
---
Tim Chow
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 233:48:57 |
| Calls: | 6,624 |
| Files: | 12,172 |
| Messages: | 5,319,635 |