Origin of BEAVERS
Art Grater
The hunt continues, but in the meantime perhaps we can pursue the origin of
beavers/raccoons/etc.... After all, finding the source of beavers should be
easier than finding it for doubles, considering the latter preceded the
former by up to half a century. Perhaps some of the current old-timers might
have some thoughts on the matter.
For starters, here are my preliminary findings based on the bibliography at
http://www.back-gammon.com/biblio.html. "The Backgammon Book"
(Jacoby/Crawford) was published in 1970 and had no reference to beavers.
Bruce Becker's "Backgammon for Blood" in 1974 mentions beavers but no other
critters. Phillip Martyn's "Martyn on Backgammon" (1976) discusses the 'new'
practice of beavers, raccoons and skunks. The March 1973 issue of Playboy,
with major pieces on the game, has no mention, based on a quick reread.
Art Grater
http://www.back-gammon.com
Ian Shaw
Art Grater wrote in message <7ias4u$r...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>...
>Recently, Chris Bray raised the question about the origin of doubling.
>
>The hunt continues, but in the meantime perhaps we can pursue the origin of
>beavers/raccoons/etc.... After all, finding the source of beavers should be
>easier than finding it for doubles, considering the latter preceded the
>former by up to half a century. Perhaps some of the current old-timers
might
>have some thoughts on the matter.
>
>For starters, here are my preliminary findings based on the bibliography at
>http://www.back-gammon.com/biblio.html. "The Backgammon Book"
>(Jacoby/Crawford) was published in 1970 and had no reference to beavers.
Not quite correct. By coincidence I found my copy of Jacoby/Crawford in the
attic last night, and flicking through it came across the subject of
beavers. They spare it about three lines, saying (paraphrased), "Beavers
have no part in real backgammon. They do, however, provide a means for the
desparate gambler to raise the stakes."
I guess they do us the honour of assuming that we'll never play so badly as
to double when we're not at least the favourite! And that the Kauder paradox
had not been discovered.
--
Regards
Ian Shaw (ian on FIBS)
Art Grater
Can you provide a page number, just to be sure this wasn't version or
printing related? Then we can move the search back.
Art Grater
http://www.back-gammon.com
Ian Shaw <ian....@riverauto.co.uk> wrote in message
news:jK823.9153$97.6150@stones...
Chris Bray
the pictures) have the relevant paragraph at the end of Chapter 13 -
Settlements.
Before I read Ian's contribution I was going suggest looking at back issues
of the Las Vegas BG magazine but obviously that looks not to be relevant as
I don't think it started until circa 1974. (I have some copies from the
early 1980's but haven't had time to go through them yet.)
Let's hope we can crack this one!! (I might try and get hold of Lewis Deyong
through The Times in London - he makes no mention of beavers in his book)
regards
Chris
Art Grater <in...@back-gammon.com> wrote in message
news:7ibtn1$o...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com...
Paul Tanenbaum
"Art Grater" <in...@back-gammon.com> wrote:
> Recently, Chris Bray raised the question about the origin of doubling.
>
> The hunt continues, but in the meantime perhaps we can pursue the
The Garden of Eden, perhaps? Old Adam was awful lonely there for
a while... and I hope "hunt" wasn't a typo.
> The March 1973 issue of Playboy, with major pieces [of what,
> exactly?] ..., has no mention, based on a quick reread.
> Art Grater
Hi, Art!
Ummm, you buy Playboy for the reading, or looking for beavers?
Sorry, sometimes my inner adolescent bursts through.
---
Paul T.
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
Art Grater
it's under Settlements rather than "Doubles and Redoubles". I guess that's
because "beavers have no real part in backgammon"!
Moving the bar back, I found nothing in 1969's Obolensky/James ("Backgammon:
The Action Game") under either doubling (3 pages total) or the Glossary.
Art Grater
http://www.back-gammon.com
Chris Bray <br...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote in message
news:7ietim$am8$1...@gxsn.com...
> > > >Recently, Chris Bray raised the question about the origin of
doubling.
> > > >
> > > >The hunt continues, but in the meantime perhaps we can pursue the
> origin
> > of
Joseph S. Watson
Joseph
Georgia Tech
Art Grater wrote:
> Recently, Chris Bray raised the question about the origin of doubling.
>
> The hunt continues, but in the meantime perhaps we can pursue the origin of
> beavers/raccoons/etc.... After all, finding the source of beavers should be
> easier than finding it for doubles, considering the latter preceded the
> former by up to half a century. Perhaps some of the current old-timers might
> have some thoughts on the matter.
>
> For starters, here are my preliminary findings based on the bibliography at
> http://www.back-gammon.com/biblio.html. "The Backgammon Book"
> (Jacoby/Crawford) was published in 1970 and had no reference to beavers.
> Bruce Becker's "Backgammon for Blood" in 1974 mentions beavers but no other
> critters. Phillip Martyn's "Martyn on Backgammon" (1976) discusses the 'new'
> practice of beavers, raccoons and skunks. The March 1973 issue of Playboy,
> with major pieces on the game, has no mention, based on a quick reread.
>
> Art Grater
> http://www.back-gammon.com
chery...@my-deja.com
Paul Tanenbaum <ptane...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
> In article <7ias4u$r...@dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com>,
> > Recently, Chris Bray raised the question about the origin of
doubling.
> >
> > The hunt continues, but in the meantime perhaps we can pursue the
>
> The Garden of Eden, perhaps? Old Adam was awful lonely there for
> a while... and I hope "hunt" wasn't a typo.
>
> > exactly?] ..., has no mention, based on a quick reread.
> > Art Grater
>
> Hi, Art!
> Ummm, you buy Playboy for the reading, or looking for beavers?
> Sorry, sometimes my inner adolescent bursts through.
>
> ---
> Paul T.
you sound like you are a lot of fun. Answer. Cheryl17276
Greycat Sharpclaw
<gte...@prism.gatech.edu> wrote:
>Just what are beavers?
Large rodents usually living in wet woodlands, noted for instinctive
construction habits.
Greycat Sharpclaw
- does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
Sander van Rijnswou
>
> Just what are beavers?
>
It is a rule occasionally used in money play (never in tournements);
When you're doubled you can turn the cube an
extra level while still retaining hold of the cube. You
would principly use this when you think your opponent
made a very bad doubling error.
On the other hand if you opponent beavers you but you think
THAT is an error you can raccoon him. Turning the cube yet
an extra level. After that there are otters and that is it I think.
In experienced (money) play beavers almost never happen. Since
nobody would make doubling errors that bad. I suppose
it is principly used by die-hard gamblers to jack up the stakes.
btw1: When you use the Jacoby rule there are positions
where it is both correct to double AND correct to beaver.
but these are very artificial of course.
btw2: Sometimes you see the term beaver come up in analysis
of positions. The answer to "Cube Actions?" is sometimes
"no double/beaver" or "no double/take but not a beaver".
> Joseph
> Georgia Tech
Sander
david
<san...@win.tue.nl> writes
>"Joseph S. Watson" wrote:
>>
>> Just what are beavers?
Might sound frivolous, but I've always been intrigued...
Why is it called a beaver (racoon, skunk, albatross, aardvark...)? Why
not a giraffe, tea cup or scorpion?
And why sling a bird (albatross) into the equation if we start off with
small furry creatures?
Does anyone happen to know if there is a significance in the choice of
animals or the order in which they appear?
David
--------------------------
da...@infoplus.demon.co.uk
leemo on GamesGrid
--------------------------
Jim Cochrane
wrote:
>In article <374E5E84...@win.tue.nl>, Sander van Rijnswou
><san...@win.tue.nl> writes
>>"Joseph S. Watson" wrote:
>>>
>>> Just what are beavers?
>
>Might sound frivolous, but I've always been intrigued...
>
>Why is it called a beaver (racoon, skunk, albatross, aardvark...)? Why
>not a giraffe, tea cup or scorpion?
>
>And why sling a bird (albatross) into the equation if we start off with
>small furry creatures?
>
>Does anyone happen to know if there is a significance in the choice of
>animals or the order in which they appear?
>
>David
I don't think that these emerged from a plan. Although beaver and
raccoon seem to be a universal de facto standard, the next level has
been called skunk, otter, elephant (and who can add others?). I don't
even know which is in the lead.