A new backgammon rule - your opinions please...
Edward D. Collins
Over the past month and a half I have played A LOT of backgammon. I've
played with friends, relatives, and of course with many people on FIBS. In
fact, it was only a month and a half ago that I first started playing on
FIBS and I've already accumulated over 700 match points which kind of shows
you how active I've been. I've also been re-reading all of my dozen or so
backgammon books as well as others that I've checked out from the library.
I guess you could say I'm addicted.
Anyway, a friend of mine and I have come up with a new little twist that we
think would not only be interesting, but it would also bring even more
skill into the game.
Doesn't just about everyone hate losing a game/match because your opponent
rolled a "miracle" roll at some point in the game? Don't you feel that you
were "cheated" out of victory?
Proposed rule addition:
Why not give each player the option, just ONCE PER GAME, of forcing your
opponent to take back his last roll and re-roll the dice if you were not
happy with his/her roll?
In fact, let's expand this just a bit. Also, just once per game, if you
were not happy with YOUR roll, you could elect to re-roll the dice, hoping
for something better.
With each and every roll of the dice, it brings yet another decision into
play. (To re-roll or not to re-roll, that is the question...) Obviously,
the more decisions in any game the more skill that is required.
It would be up to each player to save these options and use them when
he/she felt that they were most beneficial. Should I save them for the
bear-off? Should I use them now, hoping that I won't need them for the
bear-off? The possibilities are staggering... and interesting... and fun.
My friend and I experimented with this for an entire day this past weekend
and we had A LOT of fun with it! So much so in fact, that we may have a
hard time playing each other anymore without this added feature!
In some games we each used our options early, in others late, and in others
not at all! When we DID use them early we often wished later that we
HADN'T. And vice-versa!!
Obviously, something as drastic as this will never catch on but it is
interesting to think about. Try it yourself and tell me it doesn't add a
whole new dimension to the game!
Any opinions are welcome!
Ed Collins
bj...@lehigh.edu
In article <01bccf42$d1749180$7365c6d0@ed-s-pc>, "Edward D. Collins" <ecollins@i
Ed, in case you're new to the newsgroup, someone tries to tack on an
unorthodox addendum to the rules of backgammon every now and then. Most end up
awash in a sea of flames.
So, before all the purists lash out, let me kick in my fiftieth of a dollar.
One of the beautiful things about backgammon is that despite the limited size
of the playing field, no game will ever be played twice. There are an infinite
number of different permutations and combinations the pieces can be played
around the board during the course of a game.
I'm not sure how many average moves there are in a match (let's say 30 per
side, as a conservative estimate). Even if you decided to use your new rule
around, say, roll #5, you would radically change the rest of the match,
perhaps altering the outcome for the worse (except for that 1/18 or 1/36 time
when the roll is the same).
Part of the reason someone is "cheated" out of winning a game is because they
failed to complete a play superior to their own earlier in the match. This
resulted in an inferior position later on in the game, and, a heartbreaking
loss as a pair of high doubles is thrown by the opponent later (using the
example you presented).
I say the following without offense: Most new rules that are accepted by the
backgammon community are brought about by masters of the game; players that
have spent their lives analyzing the intricacies of backgammon. Granted, while
700 games is quite a bit to play in one month, you are no Kit Woolsey or
Oswald Jacoby.
The suggestion is appreciated, but I doubt it will be accepted.
Brad Mampe
bj...@lehigh.edu
R Loggins
I think the rule is a GREAT addition to the game and should be tried by
everyone to see what they think...don't be so resistent to a new idea.
Ernie
The "Roll-Over" idea is not new. It is discussed in Goren's book
'Goren's Modern Backgammon", copyright 1974, where credit for it is
given to Richard Frey. Given that it has been in the literature for so
long, and that it is generally not used by the backgammon community,
there is probably little hope that it will soon be universally adopted.
Ernie
Michael J Zehr
>In article <01bccf42$d1749180$7365c6d0@ed-s-pc>, "Edward D. Collins" <ecol...@inficad.com> writes:
>>Doesn't just about everyone hate losing a game/match because your opponent
>>rolled a "miracle" roll at some point in the game? Don't you feel that you
>>were "cheated" out of victory?
>>
>>
>>cancel your opponent's]
rec.games.backgammon, August 14, 2018:
Geez, there I was in the finals of a big tournament, my opponent had
checkers on his 2 and 3, and I had three on my 4 point, and I rolled a
55, and should have won, but was cheated out of my victory because my
opponent had saved his one "do over" til the very end.
:-)
Seriously though, it is fun to play around with backgammon variations.
Of course what everyone is hoping is that they'll invent the next hyper
gammon, analyze it to death, and then as it's gaining popularity win
lots of money. So... what racing lead do you need to double or take if
both you and your opponent have a "do over" left? What if you do and
she doesn't? She does and you don't?
Yup... my Pappy used to tell me, "If ever a man comes up to you on the
street and says he has a new backgammon variation never before tried,
and offers to play you at it for money just to see what it's like, then
sure as the sun rises every day, if you sit down with him and play, that
man will go home with all your money." :)
Do these rules increase or decrease variance? At first glance the
rules sound like they decrease it, but do you blitz more often knowing
you can make your opponent reroll the double that enters three times and
hits? Does your willingness to blitz more often more than make up for
the reduced variance of being able to cancel jokers and root numbers?
If you've saved your "do over" then bearing off safely takes less skill,
even though you have an extra decision to make.
-michael j zehr
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
On 02-oct-97 17:35:30, bjm6 wrote:
> I say the following without offense: Most new rules that are accepted by the
> backgammon community are brought about by masters of the game; players that
> have spent their lives analyzing the intricacies of backgammon. Granted,
> while
> 700 games is quite a bit to play in one month, you are no Kit Woolsey or
> Oswald Jacoby.
I've heard about the Jacoby Rule, but can someone explain the "Woolsey
Rule" to me? ;-)
Is it: "Double, take; what else is new?"
--
Zorba/Robert-Jan
Donald Kahn
"Edward D. Collins" <ecol...@inficad.com> wrote:
>Over the past month and a half I have played A LOT of backgammon. I've
>played with friends, relatives, and of course with many people on FIBS. In
>fact, it was only a month and a half ago that I first started playing on
>FIBS and I've already accumulated over 700 match points which kind of shows
>you how active I've been. I've also been re-reading all of my dozen or so
>backgammon books as well as others that I've checked out from the library.
>I guess you could say I'm addicted.
>
>Anyway, a friend of mine and I have come up with a new little twist that we
>think would not only be interesting, but it would also bring even more
>skill into the game.
>
>Doesn't just about everyone hate losing a game/match because your opponent
>rolled a "miracle" roll at some point in the game? Don't you feel that you
>were "cheated" out of victory?
>
>
>Proposed rule addition:
>
>Why not give each player the option, just ONCE PER GAME, of forcing your
>opponent to take back his last roll and re-roll the dice if you were not
>happy with his/her roll?
>
>In fact, let's expand this just a bit. Also, just once per game, if you
>were not happy with YOUR roll, you could elect to re-roll the dice, hoping
>for something better.
>
>With each and every roll of the dice, it brings yet another decision into
>play. (To re-roll or not to re-roll, that is the question...) Obviously,
>the more decisions in any game the more skill that is required.
>
>It would be up to each player to save these options and use them when
>he/she felt that they were most beneficial. Should I save them for the
>bear-off? Should I use them now, hoping that I won't need them for the
>bear-off? The possibilities are staggering... and interesting... and fun.
>
>My friend and I experimented with this for an entire day this past weekend
>and we had A LOT of fun with it! So much so in fact, that we may have a
>hard time playing each other anymore without this added feature!
>
>In some games we each used our options early, in others late, and in others
>not at all! When we DID use them early we often wished later that we
>HADN'T. And vice-versa!!
>
>Obviously, something as drastic as this will never catch on but it is
>interesting to think about. Try it yourself and tell me it doesn't add a
>whole new dimension to the game!
>
>Any opinions are welcome!
>
>
>Ed Collins
Interesting idea. Like any added complication (like wild cards in
poker) it puts an additional premium on skill.
But - is there anyone out there who thinks that the game isn't tough
enough already?!!
deekay
Chuck Bower
In article <610igi$11...@ns4-1.CC.Lehigh.EDU>, <bj...@Lehigh.EDU> wrote:
>In article <01bccf42$d1749180$7365c6d0@ed-s-pc>, "Edward D. Collins"
><ecol...@inficad.com> writes:
>unorthodox addendum to the rules of backgammon every now and then. Most end up
>awash in a sea of flames.
>
>So, before all the purists lash out, let me kick in my fiftieth of a dollar.
>
>One of the beautiful things about backgammon is that despite the limited size
>of the playing field, no game will ever be played twice. There are an infinite
>number of different permutations and combinations the pieces can be played
>around the board during the course of a game.
>
>I'm not sure how many average moves there are in a match (let's say 30 per
>side, as a conservative estimate). Even if you decided to use your new rule
>around, say, roll #5, you would radically change the rest of the match,
>perhaps altering the outcome for the worse (except for that 1/18 or 1/36 time
>when the roll is the same).
>
>Part of the reason someone is "cheated" out of winning a game is because they
>failed to complete a play superior to their own earlier in the match. This
>resulted in an inferior position later on in the game, and, a heartbreaking
>loss as a pair of high doubles is thrown by the opponent later (using the
>example you presented).
Sounds reasonable so far...
>I say the following without offense: Most new rules that are accepted by the
>backgammon community are brought about by masters of the game; players that
>have spent their lives analyzing the intricacies of backgammon. Granted, while
>700 games is quite a bit to play in one month, you are no Kit Woolsey or
>Oswald Jacoby.
Ouch! What was that, a Lloyd Benson response?? I don't like this
argument one bit. Although Brad "...say(s)... without (intent of) offense"
I'm DEfensive. A good idea should stand on its own (as should a bad one)
regardless of who the author is. IMHO, there is no room for AUTHORITARIANISM
in backgammon. Maybe in child rearing, the military, team sports,... but not
our beloved BG! Logic and common sense should be the only swords in
determining whether an idea is good or not.
Having cleared my chest on that subject, I will comment on Ed's
suggestion. (And what he actually said was "try it".) Why stop at one
"mulligan" (term borrowed from the game of golf)? Why not two, three,...?
Part of what makes the game fun (for me, anyway) is having to live with the
luck element. Why water it down? It allows for all types of players to
taste victory, regardless of skill. And the uncertainty of never really
knowing for sure who the better player is (or what the best play is, for
that matter) keeps many of us coming back for more punishment!
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Hank Youngerman
The possibilities are endless......
In baseball, anytime a pitcher hangs a curve ball and it's hit out for
a 3-run homer, he can ask to pitch again.
In poker, when you call and your opponent really DID have the filler
for his inside straight in the hole, you can go back 3 cards and fold.
I guess I actually have to agree that it would increase the skill
component, rather than decrease it, because players would have to
assess the value of the rollover in a given position as long as it was
available, and could possibly take more risks if there were a modest
number of disaster rolls. But I also think that most players accept
that the luck element is part of the game, and that it evens out. Who
hasn't doubled in a position where they're up a lot in the race, their
opponent takes on the hope of hitting a shot, you clear and have
something like a 110 to 70 lead in the race.... you can't cash
because you don't own the cube, and you lose.
And who hasn't won a game like that also?
IMHO - when we've exhausted the scope of what we can learn about
strategy, when everyone's checker play is close to perfect, then we
can look for new areas to conquer.