Game: Backgammon

Thread: amusing short backgammon video

russ — 2008-10-09T08:52:12+00:00

Amusing short video about a couple playing backgammon with sexy flamenco music and, um, a silly punchline:
Youtube Video
or here:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=786278345788265572

Image

Lgb-JohnDoe — 2008-10-04T09:45:55+00:00

Backgammon - Game in CD-Cover - Travelbox

Thread: Re: Maverick Ending to a good session

ytter — 2008-09-30T01:16:03+00:00

Yea, when doubles is rolled to start, the game is worth 2, then you re-roll the starting move. If doubles are rolled again, it is worth 4, and so on.

My father-in-law is the Backgammon shark, I'm just trying to hold my own!

Thread: Re: Maverick Ending to a good session

Badgeroonie — 2008-09-29T19:20:49+00:00

I reckon that this method is used instead of the doubling cube, rather than with it.

Thread: Re: Maverick Ending to a good session

KrisVerbeeck — 2008-09-29T16:33:03+00:00

supertris wrote:
It's more a (very common) house rule. Officially rolling a double to start doesn't increase the value of the game, but many people play that it does.

I've heard a few people advise new backgammon players not to agree to this rule, as it can let betting get out of hand and they can end up losing a lot to a backgammon shark :-)

I would not play by that rule.

You offer the doubling cube when you are in front. In 7 point matches that luck start would allow the player who is behind catch up from a 6-2 deficit in one game. You can't play the doubling cube in the first game after one players is one point short of winning.
He offers the doubling cube and you have to take it. Meaning that the game will allow him to make 4 points in one game.

Thread: Re: Maverick Ending to a good session

supertris — 2008-09-29T10:58:27+00:00

It's more a (very common) house rule. Officially rolling a double to start doesn't increase the value of the game, but many people play that it does.

I've heard a few people advise new backgammon players not to agree to this rule, as it can let betting get out of hand and they can end up losing a lot to a backgammon shark :-)

Thread: Re: Maverick Ending to a good session

Badgeroonie — 2008-09-29T09:27:28+00:00

I've never heard of the dice deciding how much a game is worth. Is it the initial roll that's used?

Thread: Maverick Ending to a good session

ytter — 2008-09-29T03:31:23+00:00

My Father-in-law is a backgammon guru. We were over at his place, and he casually invited me to a game. So we got started.

Forgive me the details, but I managed to win the first 2 games, then he won 1. Then I won again, then he won 3 straight games, which put him in the lead, 4 to 3 games.

The kids weren't quite ready to go, so we decided to play one more. We both rolled, and lo and behold, double 4's! The game was worth 2! That meant that even down one, I could take the win for the entire match. We rolled again, and we were off, him leading out. In previous matches, each of us had risked a little here, and risked a little there, but this last game was nearly unforgiving. I'm usually a risk-taker, so I occasionally hit his pieces, gambling that he couldn't hit me back, which went about 50-50 for him getting the role he needed. But even so, we were constantly covered. It wasn't long before we were both in the clear, and in the race to see who would clear out the fastest. He had the superior position, but I managed to even things out with a double 4's.

With 5 pieces left on my side and 3 on his side, it was my role. Now was the time to see how lucky I could be. I rolled and.... a 5 and a 3. I got 2 off, but now I had 3 remaining on the 5, 3 and 2 spots.

He rolled the dice and it didn't come up doubles, so there was still a chance. He had 1 left, and I had 3. I looked him straight in the eye, with little hope, and said "Maybe if I pull a Maverick, and roll without looking, I'll get what I need." I kept my eyes on his and tossed the dice. He glanced down and broke the news to me.

"You got it."

I looked down at pair of sixes, looking back at me.

Thread: Re: Backgammon on TV (World Series of Backgammon and other shows)

Moves — 2008-09-26T22:07:59+00:00

Thanks for the video but why don't you have a rating for Backgammon? Hmmm??

- Moves

Thread: Backgammon on TV (World Series of Backgammon and other shows)

docreason — 2008-09-26T19:00:18+00:00

Here is one example of Backgammon on TV:
Youtube Video

Can look for others by looking up World Series of Backgammon on YouTube.

Thread: Dice often your foil, but a classic still

Talisinbear — 2008-09-03T16:04:53+00:00

If you are a fan of board games at all you probably realized a long time ago that they aren't exactly the sort of recreational activity that will get you on television no matter how good you are. Fishing might. The same can be said of darts, lawn bowling, and even poker.

However, one board game does occasionally find its way to the television screen, and that is backgammon.

Backgammon makes it to TV where most do not because of a few simple factors.

To begin with the game is hugely popular across much of the western world, so it has something of a built in fan base. The same popularity means structured championships and tournaments with players who are dedicated to the game.

The popularity comes from a couple of factors too. To start with few games are any older in historical terms than backgammon, which can trace its roots back thousands of years. It is reported backgammon may be the first game to be mentioned in written history, going back 5,000 years to the Sumerians of ancient Mesopotamia. During the 1920's, archaeologists unearthed five boards from a cemetery in the ancient town of Ur. Boards from ancient Egypt have also been recovered from the tomb of Tutankhamen.

The second thing that makes this game intriguing for many is the way backgammon combines a need for strategy from the player, but if the strategy fails, luck just might turn the tide since piece movement is dictated by the roll of the dice. And, as any boardgamer knows dice can be fickle and down right cruel at times.

The game is stunningly simple, yet addictive and challenging in that simplicity. Each player has a set of 15 pieces which they must move from their starting positions, around, and then off the board. Dice are thrown each turn, and the player decides which of his men to move based on the outcome of the roll. Players can capture each other's men, forcing the captured men to restart their journey around the board. The winner is the first player to get all 15 men off the board.

The game plays rather quickly too since the options for movement while important, are quickly understood so decisions do not drag out the contest. The quickness of the game is another key for backgammon being television fare.

For those who aren't a fan of dice rolls determining your fate, Jim Winslow and Ton Braunlich created the game No Dice in 1987. This game has a decidedly backgammon like feel, but uses a combination of board marketings and piece locations to determine how far pieces can move. The goal remains the same, to clear all your pieces around the board before the opponent. This is a very clean, and again quick variant, and should appeal to dice haters.

However, backgammon is a game everybody should try at least once. It may just be the right combination of strategy and luck to become a favourite.

Image

pete belli — 2008-08-30T17:57:04+00:00

1973 Reiss Games AutoBackgammon - Board

Image

pete belli — 2008-08-30T17:55:06+00:00

1973 Reiss Games AutoBackgammon - Box with description

Image

pete belli — 2008-08-30T17:46:54+00:00

1973 Reiss Games AutoBackgammon -- Box

Image

tommynomad — 2008-08-27T23:25:02+00:00

Locals playing in 'Downtown' Railay Bay, Thailand

Thread: Re: Rules of the game Backgammon

gmauunoo — 2008-08-27T18:13:26+00:00

Backgammon is a very famous board game. It resembles to another board game called Ludo. In backgammon two players play the game. One has white color pieces and other have colored pieces. A pair of dice is used for the game play. The player with high numbers from the dice has the first turn. The objective of the game is to take all the pieces to the other end. If there are two pieces on a spot then your opponent can not place its piece on that box. If a single piece is place on a spot then if player role the dice and got the numbers to reach that box, he checks the piece and piece is returned to the starting position.

------------------------
Backgammon game

The smallest good deed is greater than the grandest intention.

Image

Groomporter — 2008-08-26T13:33:29+00:00

A table decorated with a four-player Backgammon game and a Chess board by MacGregor Historic Games

Thread: Re: Rules of the game Backgammon

voynix — 2008-08-26T00:27:11+00:00

Backgammon is an amazing game. Enjoy!!

Thread: Re: Rules of the game Backgammon

droberts441 — 2008-08-25T22:43:17+00:00

Great link above. Is there a particular rule or question you have, or just want the rules in general?

Image

Groomporter — 2008-08-25T18:38:26+00:00

A portable fabric Backgammon set from Macgregor Historic Games

Thread: Re: Rules of the game Backgammon

WillT — 2008-08-25T18:13:17+00:00

Google is your friend. Backgammon rules.

Thread: Rules of the game Backgammon

williams — 2008-08-25T17:47:56+00:00

What are the rules of the game Backgammon?

Image

aleacarv — 2008-07-24T16:43:41+00:00

Game by brazilian's publisher Estrela

Image

DarkS0uL — 2008-07-22T23:06:05+00:00

Backgammon on the online website ItsYourTurn.com

Image

Joseph Hill — 2008-07-22T22:41:19+00:00

Backgammon at YourTurnMyTurn.com

Thread: Re: Greek Variant

Paulos35 — 2008-07-01T18:23:12+00:00

very good variants although the classic game of Backgammon is definitely the best of all.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

whac3 — 2008-06-30T20:45:26+00:00

freechinanow wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Space is limited on a ship but I did have a few games I found more interesting for repeated play.

I bet we are all wondering what those games are Moshe!

Everyone in my family but my mother owned a few games. My family is a chess fanatic. He also had the backgammon set, All the King's Men-- not so good-- and some others I forget. I only remember the latter because I inherited it or rather saved it from being thrown away by my mother. One sister had the non-descript games Monopoly, Payday, Risk, Clue and Life but my second sister had better games like Skirmish, Mastermind and a couple of others I forget. My last sister had mostly card games Uno, Skip-Bo, etc., and 21B Baker St.. I had Castle Risk, Scotland Yard, Parcheesi-- a bad birthday gift--, Pente, Battle Ship-- same as Parcheesi, Advance to Boardwalk and my own chess set.

My favorites were chess, Castle Risk, Scotland Yard and Skirmish. Also that second sister is the one who pointed me to BGG when we got talking about collecting and I remarked that the only things I could be said to collect are books and board games. I'd been looking for "better board games" for years at that point without thinking of it as a hobby per se.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

freechinanow — 2008-06-30T00:31:06+00:00

whac3 wrote:
Space is limited on a ship but I did have a few games I found more interesting for repeated play.

I bet we are all wondering what those games are Moshe!

Also, I have considered what everybody has been saying about whether BG is an easy or difficult game to learn. What I think would be more appropriate to say is that it is a frustrating game to learn - at least for when I was a child. With chess - or other abstracts - the play always seemed straightforward. With BG I found that I had a hard time thinking about this abstract, well, abstractly! I had to see it in action before I could truly get a handle on what it was about. Once again, a subjective opinion, but I do have friends that agree. Although, they also say that backgammon just looks boring, and they would rather play other games. Too bad for them!

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

frankinla — 2008-06-29T23:26:09+00:00

swaits wrote:
I think the luck in backgammon is certainly more easily managed than in, for instance, Thebes.

Seriously, more BGGers should take the 5 minutes to learn how to play this. It's a great game. Accessible, fun, deep.

Yeah, I totally agree. I was thinking about people I know who dislike any games with dice (because they prefer to crush me with their superior intellect, which they usually do!). They wouldn't play Settlers, either.

Also agree backgammon's a serious game. Saying backgammon is easy is like saying the Tour de France is easy because you know how to ride a bike. I miss playing. I think I'll go pick up a meaty backgammon book or two and get back into it.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

whac3 — 2008-06-29T23:06:29+00:00

swaits wrote:
frankinla wrote:
Disagree that eurogamers would be predisposed to like it, though. Waaaaay too much emphasis on the dice to sit well with the hardcore euro guys I know.
I think the luck in backgammon is certainly more easily managed than in, for instance, Thebes. How about Settlers? I think skill is going to win more often in BG than in SoC. It's untestable, of course, but that's my gut feeling. That's why I think most Eurogamers should like BG.

@Moshe: There is more to this than roll-and-move. There are very tight decisions in most games. One can play conservatively, or aggressively.

Seriously, more BGGers should take the 5 minutes to learn how to play this. It's a great game. Accessible, fun, deep.

If you come to Jerusalem, you have a standing invitation for a game of shesh-besh as we call it and I'll even-- if it's not shabbat-- make some REAL coffee, cooked in a pan like it's supposed to be!

I do know how to play but you are right that perhaps I ought go back and give it a try again.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

swaits — 2008-06-29T22:54:22+00:00

frankinla wrote:
Disagree that eurogamers would be predisposed to like it, though. Waaaaay too much emphasis on the dice to sit well with the hardcore euro guys I know.
I think the luck in backgammon is certainly more easily managed than in, for instance, Thebes. How about Settlers? I think skill is going to win more often in BG than in SoC. It's untestable, of course, but that's my gut feeling. That's why I think most Eurogamers should like BG.

@Moshe: There is more to this than roll-and-move. There are very tight decisions in most games. One can play conservatively, or aggressively.

Seriously, more BGGers should take the 5 minutes to learn how to play this. It's a great game. Accessible, fun, deep.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

whac3 — 2008-06-29T21:40:04+00:00

freechinanow wrote:
swaits wrote:

On repeated plays, for me, the best thing is playing with the cube, and for money. Without the cube, the game could be less interesting over time. And, adding money into the mix makes the cube a bigger part of the game.

I have never played with the doubling cube, but I agree it would probably make the games more exciting, and terminate them if they reach a point where a winner is clearly in view before the end of the game. I often found that the bearing off endgame was somewhat redundant if one player was quite a bit behind the other player. Betting in the game forces the apparent "loser" to stop the game before having to play out the inevitable. However, it can get quite tense even without the doubling cube if both players are neck and neck right to the very end.

One thing I think that makes the traditional naval version more interesting than the standard game is that one essentially moves all the pieces together through three stages. One must first bear all pieces onto the board in the home area and can only then move about the board. Then one must move all pieces into the opponent's home area before bearing off. Finally, when bearing off, rolls must be exact. This gives roll management a bit more depth to it.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

whac3 — 2008-06-29T21:33:04+00:00

I also disagree that the game is difficult to learn for children and I have sene plenty playign it. I did so myself as a child. My family has a long history of sea-faring and so the version called Acey Ducey among other names is quite traditional.

I agree that this game is not just the simplest roll-and-move game but, as the reviewer points out himself,Where the skill of each player really takes place is how well one can manage the lot they have been dealt. the main strategic question is essentially how to best use a given roll. Thus certainly this is to an extent a roll-and-move game. As a matter of fact, I stopped playing this game as a kid for precisely that reason; it just wasn't that interesting. Space is limited on a ship but I did have a few games I found more interesting for repeated play.

Thread: Re: Buff de Baldriac- the only variation you will ever want to play!

omarthetentmaker — 2008-06-29T20:51:05+00:00

The thing Acey-Deucy and Buff de Baldriac has in common is the fact that all pieces start off the board. I'm not sure what you mean by the pieces moving in a "different" direction. It is not as simple as saying "white moves clockwise instead of counter-clockwise" The difference (besides ACDC's special 1-2 roll) is that in ACDC white and black face up to each other like west and eastbound trains, pass over each other, and then bear off. It, just like regular backgammon could just as easily be played on a one sided board 24 spaces long, with white moving left and black moving right.

BDB has twice the amount of conflict built into it. As I said earlier, if the quadrants are set up
AB
CD
White moves CDBA looking like the curvy part of the letter "D"
Black moves DCAB which looks like the letter C
So, both sides have to hop over each other twice. Gaining the right territory on the far side of the board is crucial, and you have to think much more long term, which is probably closer to ACDC than regular backgammon in strategy terms.
ACDC also has that strange 1-2 roll, where you move, then move any double you like, then roll again. I am now interested enough to try it!

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

frankinla — 2008-06-29T18:23:10+00:00

freechinanow wrote:
I have never played with the doubling cube,

You have a lot of fun in store for you. It's all about throwing the cube! Not just to end a runaway game, but to put the pressure on. Not so far into the game, perhaps, BAM! You throw the cube at me! "Why did he do that? How can he possibly think he has the advantage already? Do I really want to continue for double stakes? Shall I concede? Hell, no. Nonsense!" BAM! I "beaver" the cube back at you, Mr. Smartypants. It costs quadruple to continue now. You begin to doubt yourself. Starting to sweat yet?

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

freechinanow — 2008-06-29T17:56:03+00:00

swaits wrote:

On repeated plays, for me, the best thing is playing with the cube, and for money. Without the cube, the game could be less interesting over time. And, adding money into the mix makes the cube a bigger part of the game.

I have never played with the doubling cube, but I agree it would probably make the games more exciting, and terminate them if they reach a point where a winner is clearly in view before the end of the game. I often found that the bearing off endgame was somewhat redundant if one player was quite a bit behind the other player. Betting in the game forces the apparent "loser" to stop the game before having to play out the inevitable. However, it can get quite tense even without the doubling cube if both players are neck and neck right to the very end.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

frankinla — 2008-06-29T17:49:36+00:00

swaits wrote:
I don't think that backgammon is difficult to understand. It's certainly no more difficult to learn than chess.

On repeated plays, for me, the best thing is playing with the cube, and for money. Without the cube, the game could be less interesting over time. And, adding money into the mix makes the cube a bigger part of the game.

My wife and I play each other for $0.25 per point. We each just keep a cup of quarters.

I find it fun and will never turn a game down.

Eurogamers should love backgammon! It's got the perfect balance of luck and strategy. The luck keeps the games interesting; however, a more skilled player will always win over time. Yes, the dice can burn you in one game, but play 3 or 4 more and you'll find out who the better player is.

Definitely agree backgammon is great, and best when betting! Disagree that eurogamers would be predisposed to like it, though. Waaaaay too much emphasis on the dice to sit well with the hardcore euro guys I know.

I remember reading Bruce Becker's book Backgammon for Blood when I was a teenager back in the late 70s. I had the softcover version with a dramatically lit cover photo of some menacing yet debonair-looking guy staring me down over the doubling cube, smoke wafting toward chiseled features and feathered hair from his carefully palmed cigarette. I so wanted to be that guy (probably some random model working for scale, but I assumed it was Bruce). I pored over Becker's authoritative, cocksure strategies. The aggressive playstyle I picked up held me in good stead for summertime cutthroat games against sister and nephew in the park, and later against co-workers for happy hour drinks. Back in the 80s, backgammon was so much the rage in L.A., there were several bars and restaurants around where you could leave your I.D. with the bartender and "check out" a nice backgammon board to use in the lounge. Those days have long since gone. Pleasant gaming memories.

Nowadays, Becker is regarded as a clown by serious players, many of his strategies statistically unsound. Someday, I'll pick the game up again and read some of the "correct" books. For a seemingly simple game, it has loads of depth. I guess that's why it's a classic.

Thread: Re: ProCon Review

swaits — 2008-06-29T15:02:03+00:00

I don't think that backgammon is difficult to understand. It's certainly no more difficult to learn than chess.

On repeated plays, for me, the best thing is playing with the cube, and for money. Without the cube, the game could be less interesting over time. And, adding money into the mix makes the cube a bigger part of the game.

My wife and I play each other for $0.25 per point. We each just keep a cup of quarters.

I find it fun and will never turn a game down.

Eurogamers should love backgammon! It's got the perfect balance of luck and strategy. The luck keeps the games interesting; however, a more skilled player will always win over time. Yes, the dice can burn you in one game, but play 3 or 4 more and you'll find out who the better player is.

Thread: ProCon Review

freechinanow — 2008-06-29T04:54:38+00:00

Hopefully these reviews will offer very short, though helpful pro/con reviews for those trying to make their mind up about this game.

GAME: BACKGAMMON
PUBLISHER: COPP CLARK (196?)

PROS

- Timeless. Backgammon has been around for centuries, and there is always an urge to play a game that has been around for generations. There's something about the sheer age of backgammon that makes you want to learn it and develop your game. It is a connection to a great history of gaming.
- Visually appealing. The board itself is as artistic as anything to come out of the last two centuries. Unlike chess, where a number of games can be played on its checkered board, the board for backgammon is immediately recognizable, symmetrical and simplistic. Playing the game makes you feel like your part of something beautiful.
- Wonderful tactics. I have always been a fan of the probability management that takes place during backgammon. While there are enough people who say that the game is based largely on the luck of the dice, this notion hardly serves the real method of play. I think of the dice in terms of there being an equal chance of either player getting an easy or hard roll to deal with. Where the skill of each player really takes place is how well one can manage the lot they have been dealt. Backgammon is also a game that should be placed in several rounds to even out any cases of luck that have been too fortunate or disastrous for either player.
- Pervasive and universal. I have always been amazed that the four games you find at any dollar store are snakes & ladders, checkers, chess, and backgammon. Although I have never found a child playing backgammon (but I have seen them playing the other three), backgammon is still nevertheless a staple in any toy shop you go into. Plus, wherever you are in the world, you can always find somebody who can play. Backgammon, like many abstract games, reaches beyond cultural and language lines.

CONS

- Difficult to understand. Even as an avid gamer, I was always pensive about learning backgammon. I remember the years during my youth where I could only get through a quarter of the instructions of backgammon before I would throw them down in frustration. The language and the method of play just seemed so foreign. I list this as a con because a child who is trying to learn this game themselves might have difficulty unless there is a gamer who is experienced with the rules is showing them step by step.

- Routine play. As much as I appreciate backgammon and like to play it, it is just not a game that holds up for me after repeated plays. This is unfortunate, because it is a game that often requires several rounds, and I rarely have the will to play more than one or two. There are a number of moments in backgammon where the best move is clearly in view. Of course, there are moments where one must choose between several moves that might all pay off. But with the moves that are spelled out, backgammon can begin to feel like a game where the decision making is not as critical as in other ancient abstracts.

Final comment:

While not one of my favourite abstracts, backgammon certainly deserves a place on anybody's shelf who enjoys classic games. In my gaming circles, there is only one other person who knows how to play backgammon. Compared to the people who know chess and certainly checkers, backgammon is one of those games that everybody knows about but few have taken the time to learn how to play. Once again, this just might be where I live, but I would assume this trend might exist in other places as well. If you haven't learned backgammon yet though, I think it is something that one should make the time to learn. Backgammon can provide a real neat game, and is great for parks, coffee shops, and rainy days. I suggest going to the below website for an excellent, interactive tutorial:

http://backgammon.ladbrokes.com/en/backgammon-tutorial

Thread: Re: Buff de Baldriac- the only variation you will ever want to play!

marlinus64 — 2008-06-25T14:59:15+00:00

So, is the only difference between Buff de Baldriac and Acey Deucey the direction each player travels on the board?

Thread: Re: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

beckerdo — 2008-06-18T13:20:45+00:00

Back in high school a girlfriend and I played backgammon and used the doubling cube for kisses. It's not really gambling when you both enjoy the outcome.

Thread: Re: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

russ — 2008-06-18T12:42:19+00:00

You answered your own question in your second paragraph (the doubling cube has uses other than gambling for money)... besides playing a match of backgammon to a set number of games (e.g. 5), there are other possible uses.

E.g. my SO and I play a monthly personal game tournament, one game per day, the winner gets a tournament point, and most points at the end of the month wins the tournament. With backgammon in the mix of games played, it's possible to win more than one tournament point in one day.

Thread: Re: Buff de Baldriac- the only variation you will ever want to play!

omarthetentmaker — 2008-06-17T22:56:44+00:00

I admit to not having played plain backgammon to any advanced level. I started reading a strategy article once that began with memorizing optimal opening moves for every possible dice roll. Since I prefer to play games intuitively, I wasn't about to memorize anything, and that was the extent of my research!

Buff de Baldriac seemed to demand more strategy, because poor playing would get you brutalized! You wouldn't even begin to blame it on dice rolling. It forced me to think long term, which was not something I had associated with the game before. I am sure the strategy need in the regular game could be as strong, but it's never appeared as obviously.

Have fun giving it a go, and get used to the idea of sitting on the bar! It's ok, you won't be there long. Because of the layout, it isn't practical to fill up your opponents starting field to delay his guys off the bar. So far I have found only one major flaw in the game, and that is one position that is so dominating, it is practically checkmate, but I won't spoil it for you if you haven't already figured it out!

Thread: Re: Buff de Baldriac- the only variation you will ever want to play!

AndyP123 — 2008-06-17T21:32:08+00:00

No idea what it's called, but this sounds very similar to how I was first taught to play backgammon. We do the same as you suggest with both players having to come-in in, however in the version I played both players come in on the same quadrant and both move round the board in the same direction (say ABDC in your example). Makes for quite a tense game as even if one player is well ahead, as they take pieces out they invariably leave one on its own that can be knocked off and of course it will come in behind the opponent and he/she will try to keep it there as long as possible.

I like the sound of your alternate directions though, must give that a go!

Thread: Chance Cubes of Love

peapicker — 2008-06-17T18:30:53+00:00

My wife and I began a round of Backgammon and luck was going my way... I had won the first two games, and in the third game, I proceeded to do well enough that about two-thirds of the way into the game, my wife coined a phrase about all the 'needlessly superfluous doubles' again.

I proceeded to to win with a gammon.

So, this is beginning to become serious for her going into the fourth game with no wins. After a few fairly standard rolls, she proceeds to start really rolling some impressive sets of doubles and needed points. In fact, things are looking really really grim from my side of the board. The tension is nearly palpable! Nearly in a gammon, I shake the dice in the cup. And shake. and then I lean into the cup and intone "Do not give me crap!" in basso profundo, bringing a small smile from my wife.

I roll.

Double sixes.

We laughed and laughed until our sides hurt! The rest of the game had no more tension, and smirks and grins all around. She won that game, but I was saved from the gammon by another double... although this one wasn't really superfluous.

Who knew Backgammon could rouse such hilarity? I think we'll be playing again soon....

Thread: Re: Buff de Baldriac- the only variation you will ever want to play!

Moves — 2008-06-17T15:25:15+00:00

Hi Andy,

Thanks for making this post. At first I was criticizing you in my head for not developing a "back game". This is actually my favorite part of backgammon in that you can overcome bad dice rolls or their great dice rolls if you evaluate your position early enough. And nothing tortures a novice player worse than a successfully pulled off back game.

But, having the checkers coming on and mostly the different direction of play, sounds fantastic to play. Talk about hitsville!

- Moves

Thread: Buff de Baldriac- the only variation you will ever want to play!

omarthetentmaker — 2008-06-17T03:07:16+00:00

Before I discovered BGG, I was a historical board game geek and became a big fan of http://www.historicgames.com/ Among other gaming supplies, they sell rule and variant booklets on various early games including Backgammon, or "the game of tables" My girlfriend and I tried out Buff De Baldriac, and althouigh we like the "standard" game, we will probably never play it again!

One complaint I always had about standard backgammon was that it always seemed that halfway through the game, somebody always had a major lead, and there was no come from behind possibility. This would seem to be the best reason for the doubling cube, is that it mostly tends to end these drawn out wins early. Buff de Baldriac makes two significant changes and produces a game of completely different character.

Assume the four quadrants of the board are laid out like:
AB
CD

(Sorry I am new to things and haven't figured out the pic loading process!)
Standard backgammon:
1)Has a well defined layout of starting pieces
2)White travels ABDC and Black travels CDBA
Buff De Baldriac
1)Players roll the pieces ONTO the board, much like bearing them off
2)White travels ABDC and black travels BACD!

What?(insert sound of record scratching as the soundtrack stops!)

This means that all fifteen pieces of each side are aiming for each other, jammed up, trying to bust through, only to repeat the process on the other side of the board. What this produces, is a game that feels more like a war game of risk, covering territory, and yet a spectacular opportunity for a last minute, come from behind win!

What you end up with, is tension that lasts througout the entire game! Add to this that games generally take 45 minutes to resolve! I also believe that strategy becomes even more important, as there is a balance between using your pieces as a wall to block your opponent, versus claiming territory on the far side of the board. Leaving many pieces vulnerable, to improve the odds of good dice rols make the repeated captures worth the price. And then to top it off, even when you start bearing off your men, you are right in the middle of your opponents path, and the game suddenly has total reversal.

Now I imagine to die-hard backgammon players, things may sound too chaotic. After all, what is the point of sound strategy if it can be ruined at the last minute by an unlucky roll? To this all I can retort is, Try the Game! In fact, things are not chaotic as they seem and sound strategy generally wins out. A advantage is that even the losing player is going to be entertained until the game is over, beyond hoping for lots of doubles at the end of the game! For almost three years now, my girlfriend and I have played almost every weekend, and as our strategic sense has improved, our enthusiasm has only grown! We may have to try things the standard way, but I feel it would only reinforce the game we already love!

Thread: Re: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

kevster — 2008-06-15T05:31:15+00:00

thanks everyone for the comments

Thread: Re: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

Morganza — 2008-06-15T03:59:19+00:00

To summarize what other people have said, even if you're not playing for money, the doubling cube doubles whatever you are playing for; if you're playing more than one game, then the doubled game counts twice as much towards your final score, if doubled again 4x, etc.

If you're only playing one game, and not for any stakes, then the doubling cube is pretty irrelevant.

Thread: Re: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

jpact — 2008-06-15T03:43:53+00:00

I've never heard of any use other than gambling, although the variant you describe certainly has merit for a casual game. I don't think you'd phrase it as "best of 5", but rather as "first to 5" or "first to 3". The only addition to what you've described is that in the case of continued play, only the player who accepted the doubling can at a later point increase the wager to x4. No player can use the doubling cube twice in a row.

Thread: Re: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

thnikkaman — 2008-06-15T03:35:39+00:00

Yup, and it works quite well. Combined with the crawford rule(no doubling cube if the leading player is within 1 point from winning the match) and I think backgammon shines quite well without gambling.

Thread: Doubling Cube worthless if not gambling?

kevster — 2008-06-15T03:23:17+00:00

I just recently purchase a backgammon set from a thrift store. I'm really beginning to enjoy this game. As far as I can see though the doubling cube really plays no part if you're not playing for money. Is this correct?

Also, I've seen something about a variant of types. If you agree to play, say, best of 5, one player can offer to double the stakes. If accepted then the winner is awarded 2 points toward the total instead of one. If rejected then that game simply ends and he who offered the double gets 1 point. Anyone ever heard of this?

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

jphien — 2008-06-02T13:37:39+00:00

MENAREUS2000 wrote:
Backgammon, just as in poker and some other games, over the long haul, the better player will win. PERIOD.

I'll give you that and probably most professional backgammon players are pretty evenly matched. There really are only so many moves you can do with a dice roll, you pick the optimum. So I gotta figure that most professional backgammon games are even more luck based than the average Joe Shmoe who doesn't know what he's doing.

As a guy who plays both backgammon and chess there is no comparison between the two and backgammon takes no where near the skill of chess.
I'm not saying that there is no strategy in backgammon but you are so much at the mercy of the dice and many times you are forced to do what you don't want to do. Many games you are forced to open and the strategy comes down to "well, do I hope he doesn't roll a two or do I hope he doesn't roll a one, which one to open". "I'll try the two and hope I get lucky". "OH! Crap he got double ones".

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

MENAREUS2000 — 2008-06-02T00:25:17+00:00

Backgammon, just as in poker and some other games, over the long haul, the better player will win. PERIOD.

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

jphien — 2008-06-01T22:22:48+00:00

No! I don't play for money and the cube doesn't change the luck of the game I just have to decide if I feel lucky enough to continue and risk my money, which I'll never do. So if I decline to continue, sure you win but that again isn't by skill it's by my cowardice.

Come on, are you actually trying to tell me that the game is all about skill and you have never seen wild swings in the game and you have NEVER had the dice abandon you?

It's more akin to poker with the doubling cube. Do I think I'll get better rolls than my opponent, {Do I think I'll get a better hand than my opponent}. Of course poker is more about bluffing but backgammon has it's share.

I won't play for money simply because there is too much luck involved and I like my money, which is also why I don't play the lottery.

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

MENAREUS2000 — 2008-06-01T19:39:04+00:00

Tall_Walt wrote:
I agree entirely. Since you're both in NY, if Arthur doesn't object to playing for money, I would suggest you two get together. See how lucky your wallet feels after you've played a few hours against a good player. Modern backgammon is about risk management: reducing your long term risk and increasing your opponent's risk. While an actual backgammon is a matter of luck, you can play to increase the chance that it'll happen--though with the modern openings that split instead of slot, it's less likely than with the style of play of a couple decades ago. (It's also questionable whether the risk of playing for a backgammon is worth the increased risk of a late-game reveral.)

There's only one answer to, "Backgammon is a game of luck":
"Bets?"

You actually sound like a backgammon player.

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

Tall_Walt — 2008-06-01T16:02:01+00:00

I agree entirely. Since you're both in NY, if Arthur doesn't object to playing for money, I would suggest you two get together. See how lucky your wallet feels after you've played a few hours against a good player. Modern backgammon is about risk management: reducing your long term risk and increasing your opponent's risk. While an actual backgammon is a matter of luck, you can play to increase the chance that it'll happen--though with the modern openings that split instead of slot, it's less likely than with the style of play of a couple decades ago. (It's also questionable whether the risk of playing for a backgammon is worth the increased risk of a late-game reveral.)

There's only one answer to, "Backgammon is a game of luck":
"Bets?"

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

MENAREUS2000 — 2008-06-01T12:00:00+00:00

I consistently play in the top 10 on the backgamon site I play on. So without giving lessons for months or even years, it's close to impossible for a non professional player to see the game in the same way.

I'm also assuming you play with the doubling cube (that square thing with the nunbers 2,4,8,16,32, and 64) on, which is where lots of the skill comes into it. Of course proper checker play helps as well.

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

jphien — 2008-06-01T02:26:26+00:00

Somewhere this thread turned into a computer programing thread, maybe it's more difficult to program a backgammon program than a chess program and maybe it isn't but let's admit it, there is a lot more chance in backgammon than there is in chess, that's because there is no luck whatsoever involved in chess. You lose based on your skill and your skill alone.

Sure there is some skill in backgammon but as a person who has played it a lot in 20 years the more I play the more I'm convinced it is more about luck than actual skill. I don't care who you are, if you have played the game enough you have experienced it all. Backgammon's are only possible if the other player has a really bad lot of dice rolls {he just can't get off the bar} and that aint skill people.

How many times have you played a risky move and the other guy just gets the lucky roll and hits you. THAT'S LUCK not skill. Sometimes the risky game works and sometimes it doesn't.

How many times have you been forced to open and then been hit {LUCK- bad for me, good for him}. How many times have you been on the bar with 4 spots opened but it takes you 3 turns to get off. {That's luck}
How many times have you had every spot closed but one, hit your opponent and he comes back in on the first roll. {That's luck}.

I have had games where my opponent can't roll anything but doubles and vice versa. Very hard to come back from this unless he is forced to open and I can hit him and it happens but it's just luck.

I have seen the game go from a sure fire win for the other guy swing to a win for me just because he was forced to open and my dice rolls were LUCKY enough to hit him and keep him off till I can catch up and actually pull off a win. Because of my skill? Hardly! It was because of my lucky die rolls.

OH! I'm not saying there is no skill involved but if you are having a bad run of dice you are not going to win I don't care how skilled you are, it just isn't going to happen.

Thread: Re: BACKGAMMON - A Thinking Man's Game

MENAREUS2000 — 2008-05-29T01:34:17+00:00

Tall_Walt wrote:
peapicker wrote:
You said it was debatable (meaning it is debatable that good backgammon programs are harder to create than good chess programs). The article we have cited proves that point -- they are harder / more compute intensive.
As I mentioned concerning that very apposite article to which you linked. the TD-Gammon computer was a single RS/6000 workstation (expensive PC not running Windows or Mac OS, essentially). By contrast, here's a summary of Deep Blue versions from IBM:
[c]
System Name First played Processors Nodes/second Feature groups
ChipTest 1986 1 50K 1
ChipTest-m 1987 1 400K 1
Deep Thought 1988 2-6 700K-2M 4
Deep Thought 2 1991 14-24 4M-7M 4
Deep Blue I 1996 216 50M-100M 32
Deep Blue II 1997 480 100M-200M 38
Deep Blue Jr. 1997 24 20M-30M 38
Deep Blue Jr. demo 1997 1 2M 38[/c]

The most readily available documentation exists for DB2, which was comprised of 30 RS/6000 class processors, most running at about triple the speed of TD-Gammon 2.1 and two at about quadruple the speed. In addition, it had 480 custom chess processors. I have not found how many subprocessors each chess processor had: I suspect 8-64. In any case, it is far, far more processing power than TD-Gammon had. It might be argued that DB1 was more comparable to TD-G 2.1, but even it had far more than the PC-level processing of TD-G. I trust that deals with the computer power issue.

As far as ease of programming, just getting 510 processors to work together without spending all their time coordinating is non-trivial, to say the least (though dividing the processing space into tree-search and heuristics helps). Another indication is that TD-G's development was 1990-1995, at longest (at least from the references); while DB was over a decade, not counting preceding significant programs which used similar methodology. Last, Artificial Neural Nets (ANN) are a type of cellular automata, which require programming of a individual cell; and a rather trivial framework to connect the cells; thus, the programming of an individual "neuron" is not complex--and I believe is given in the paper you reference.

Even if we assume that backgammon and chess programming started equally with the start of electronic computing. grandmaster-level backgammon was in 1992 where chess was in 1996 with far more processors and effort devoted to chess.

My mother told me never to argue with a brick wall. So you're absolutely right. Feel better now?