any interesting variations out there?
win van Mourik
Hello all,
I am looking for some new ways to play Backgammon. I have checked the
FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
that haven’t been posted.
Any new ideas?
thanks
Fredrik Dahl
There are a couple of Norwegian variations:
"Sudden Death"
This is played as normal backgammon, except that the first
player to hit a shot wins the game.
If contact is broken without any hitting, it's a draw.
This is a very good gambling game, but should be played for
low stakes, as the games are fast and the cube spins fast too.
Normally it's a double/take if one player leaves a direct shot.
"Woodpecker"
A two-stage doubling rule.
After taking a cube, the player puts the cube on his left side.
As long as it's on his left, his opponent can double again
(the woodpecker). If he takes this too, he puts the cube
on his right hand side, which means that he owns it.
So the cube has 5 states instead of just 3:
-center
-blacks left side
-blacks right side
-whites left side
-whites right side
A player can double unless the cube is on his opponent's right side.
This rule makes the game a lot harder, as well as jacking up the stakes.
In general I think you should give the non-woodpecker double with
as little as 0.25 equity (5-to-3-favourite).
"Gerhardsen"
After the game the winner must roll his dice, and if they show
21, the result is inverted.
"Gerhardsen revenge"
If a player loses to the Gerhardsen rule, the opponent is the new winner,
and must roll a Gerhardsen roll to avoid 21.
This goes on until one player rolls something different from 21.
Graham Trevor Price
In <32cafea...@news.shore.net> wva...@shore.net (win van Mourik)
writes:
to find that amazing and interesting. There is so much to learn about
normal bg that I'm sure I could not find time to become proficient in
any other variation, which of course would have less followers.
I've passed by Greek gaming houses in Toronto and see them playing
their variation of backgammon but I guess I just want to be reasonable
in the most popular variation. Easier to find opponents that way.
But good luck in your search I know there are lots of interesting
minor variations and rules, but don't play for money unless you know
what you're getting into.
Graham.
Walter G Trice
wva...@shore.net (win van Mourik) writes:
...
>I am looking for some new ways to play Backgammon. I have checked the
>FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
>there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
>that haven’t been poste...
(1) Low-number-first. E. g., if you roll a 6-1, you have to play the
1 before you play the 6, and if you can't play the 1 you forfeit
your turn. If you're on the roof and you roll 5-1 and your opponent
has made his ace point, you dance even if the 5 point is open.
Hal Heinrich taught me this game several years ago. He called it
"Poof". Strategically it is quite interesting.
(2) Fixed-dice-BG. Whatever the opening roll is is the only roll
played for the entire game. The main value of this variation
is that it is something to do at the beginning of a tournament
when the tournament director has interrupted your regular game
to make a long series of boring announcements. (You can play
silently.)
(3) There's a huge number of other possible variations... e.g., how
about "Deuces Wild?" I have played in "Dealer's Choice" chouettes,
where the captain gets to pick the game or make up a new one on
the spot. Great fun!
-- Walter Trice
James Eibisch
On Thu, 02 Jan 1997 00:18:35 GMT, wva...@shore.net (win van Mourik)
wrote:
>I am looking for some new ways to play Backgammon. I have checked the
>FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
>there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
>that haven’t been posted.
A fiendish variant is Trigammon, which I think Patti Beadles first
explained here a while ago.
As I remember it, you each roll one dice to decide who starts, as
normal. Thereafter each player rolls three dice. The opponent has to
take away any one of the three dice, leaving you with two dice to play
with, which you use as normal.
We played this a few times at the Reading, England club and very good
fun it is, too. We developed a further rule which is that when a player
is on the bar, the opponent does not have the power to take away a dice.
Otherwise, it's too easy for the opponent to keep you on the bar for a
long time. In this case, you can still play only two dice as normal, but
you choose which two to play. If you roll three of the same number (a
trible?) you play it as a normal double, e.g. 5 5 5 is played as 5 5.
One of the best known variants is called acey-deucey. I can't remember
the rules exactly, but the principle is that you both start the game
with all your pieces off the board. When you roll, you can bring pieces
onto the board (like coming off the bar) or move pieces already on the
board. I seem to remember that the name 'acey-deucey' comes from doing
something special if you roll 1 2, but I'm sorry that I don't know what
that special thing is!
Anyway, like Graham Trevor Price said in his followup, I find it
difficult enough to play normal backgammon never mind these variants!
--
_ N : E : T : A : D : E : L : I : C : A
James Eibisch ('v') -- http://www.revolver.demon.co.uk --
Reading, U.K. (,_,) -- Now showing: Invaders 1978: --
======= a faithful version of Taito's original
Dean Gay
>I am looking for some new ways to play Backgammon. I have checked the
>FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
>there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
>that haven’t been posted.
I've had an idea that I've wanted to try out and I don't know if it's
been done or not. I call it Duplicate Backgammon. It's the same
concept as Duplicate Bridge where multiple foursomes are "dealt"
identical hands and the object is to see who can get the most points
out of the same hand.
I could see this working in backgammon by having one person roll for
all players on all boards. Each individual game would be played as
usual, except that everyone would be using the same dice. Afterwards,
it would be interesting to see how similar or dissimilar the
games/matches evolved.
Anyone heard of or tried this?
Dean
**********************************************************************
* Dean Gay
* (aka Chase on FIBS)
* d...@pacificnet.net
*
* "The longer I live the more I see that I am never wrong about
* anything, and that all the pains that I have so humbly taken
* to verify my notions have only wasted my time."
* -- George Bernard Shaw
**********************************************************************
Greycat Sharpclaw
There is an allegation that d...@pacificnet.net (Dean Gay) wrote:
>I've had an idea that I've wanted to try out and I don't know if it's
>been done or not. I call it Duplicate Backgammon. It's the same
>concept as Duplicate Bridge where multiple foursomes are "dealt"
>identical hands and the object is to see who can get the most points
>out of the same hand.
>I could see this working in backgammon by having one person roll for
>all players on all boards. Each individual game would be played as
>usual, except that everyone would be using the same dice. Afterwards,
>it would be interesting to see how similar or dissimilar the
>games/matches evolved.
>Anyone heard of or tried this?
It's been done... I got a book somewhere (cannot lay my hands on it)
that documents a high-stakes professional challenge match in this
format.
Of course, as the two games diverge (as different plays are made),
what constitutes a lucky roll will differ between the games. Anyone
who has been saved by 6-6 on one occasion, destroyed by it on another
will understand.
But it at lease reduces luck somewhat, and *will* give the opposite
teams the chance to play true duplicate until the first significant
divergence... so that said divergence becomes a bigger choice for the
players.
BTW... in the case I know of, it was done blind. No player knew what
the other game was doing, or even what the total score was. Not
knowing how your partner was doing affected the cube play, as (as the
challenge drew to the close of the prefixed number of games), you
wouldn't know you were down enough to need to make desperation doubles
worthwhile.
>Dean
Greycat
Gre...@tribeca.ios.com
Does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Daniel Murphy
d...@pacificnet.net (Dean Gay) writes:
>I've had an idea that I've wanted to try out and I don't know if it's
>been done or not. I call it Duplicate Backgammon.
...
>I could see this working in backgammon by having one person roll for
>all players on all boards. Each individual game would be played as
>usual, except that everyone would be using the same dice. Afterwards,
>it would be interesting to see how similar or dissimilar the
>games/matches evolved.
>Anyone heard of or tried this?
Yes. Duplicate backgammon apparently enjoyed some popularity around 1970
or so -- the dustjacket to Barclay Cooke's "Backgammon: the cruelest game"
notes that "Cooke and his son Walter are the current holders of the World
Backgmamon Cup, which they won in London in the fall of 1973."
While it can be interesting -- briefly -- to see how different games
progress with the same rolls, duplicate backgammon is not the test of
skill that duplicate bridge is, because the backgammon games diverge
greatly beginning with the first different move, so much so as to lose
any basis for comparison.
/Raccoon
--
_______________________
Daniel Murphy
San Francisco
rac...@cityraccoon.com
Dan Scoones
On Sat, 04 Jan 1997 01:08:32 GMT, d...@pacificnet.net (Dean Gay) wrote:
>I've had an idea that I've wanted to try out and I don't know if it's
>been done or not. I call it Duplicate Backgammon. It's the same
>concept as Duplicate Bridge where multiple foursomes are "dealt"
>identical hands and the object is to see who can get the most points
>out of the same hand.
>
>I could see this working in backgammon by having one person roll for
>all players on all boards. Each individual game would be played as
>usual, except that everyone would be using the same dice. Afterwards,
>it would be interesting to see how similar or dissimilar the
>games/matches evolved.
>
>Anyone heard of or tried this?
>
>Dean
This was the format for the 1973 USA-UK Challenge match, which pitted
Barclay and Walter Cooke against Joe Dwek and Phillip Martyn. Barclay
Cooke later wrote a book about the match, entitled Championship
Backgammon.
In the introduction to Game 1, Table 1, he wrote:
"Playing without handling a cup or tossing dice seemed strange at
first, but all four players soon became accustomed to listening to the
referee call the roll for both tables."
In the summary of the first round, he wrote:
"[One] different move creates an entirely new game in which future
rolls, although identical, will have different values than in the
other [games]."
Cheers,
Dan
rook on FIBS, NetGammon
xfactor on GamesGrid
Stein Kulseth
In article <32cafea...@news.shore.net>, wva...@shore.net (win van Mourik) writes:
|> Hello all,
|>
|> I am looking for some new ways to play Backgammon. I have checked the
|> FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
|> there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
|> that haven’t been posted.
|>
Ideas come cheap, you could try :
Misere backgammon:
All normal rules apply, but the object of the game is to lose points.
(Though if you want to use the cube, you'd better modify the cube
rules so that you win points, that is lose, if you drop, otherwise
noone would ever want to cube).
Chase backgammon:
Both players set up and play clockwise. (Ie your 24 point is his 12 point
and your 13 point is his ace point). Otherwise normal rules apply.
Skewed dice backgammon:
One player uses normal dice, the other uses one 4-sided die and one
8-sided die (thereby losing the big doubles 55 and 66, but getting a
reasonable possibility to jump any prime, even a 7-prime). Swap
dice for the next game. You can enter from the bar with 7 or 8,
but you cannot bear off from your 7 or 8 point (all men must still
be in your home board).
--
stein....@fou.telenor.no
... signature funny quote (and more) at http://www.nta.no/brukere/stein
Daniel Murphy
d...@pacificnet.net (Dean Gay) writes:
>I've had an idea that I've wanted to try out and I don't know if it's
>been done or not. I call it Duplicate Backgammon.
...
>I could see this working in backgammon by having one person roll for
>all players on all boards. Each individual game would be played as
>usual, except that everyone would be using the same dice. Afterwards,
>it would be interesting to see how similar or dissimilar the
>games/matches evolved.
>Anyone heard of or tried this?
Yes. Duplicate backgammon apparently enjoyed some popularity around 1970
or so -- the dustjacket to Barclay Cooke's "Backgammon: the cruelest game"
notes that "Cooke and his son Walter are the current holders of the
World DUPLICATE Backgmamon Cup, which they won in London in the fall of
lee
Re: Acey-deucy.
I played this in Australia a few years ago, so here is my recollection
of the Aussie rules.
Each player begins with all 15 men on the bar.
Roll one die to see who goes first; the winner rolls again.
Players must roll a double (or 1-2) to begin entering their men from the
bar; thereafter they enter their men as normal, and the game is played
as normal except for the following differences:
When a player rolls 1-2 he plays 1-2, any double of his choice, and then
rolls again. If he cannot play the 1-2 in full, he plays what he can,
but loses out on the double, and the other player rolls.
When a player rolls a double, he plays it as normal (4x) and then rolls
again. If he cannot play the double in full, he loses the rest of his
play. (In one acey-deucy variation, the remainder of any 1-2 or double
that cannot be legally played reverts to the opponent).
Once a piece has entered its home board it is frozen and cannot be moved
again (unless hit and recirculated, or removed in the bear-off).
A man that has been hit (whether during the initial 15 man entry stage,
or after) can only re-enter with a legal double (or 1-2) from the bar.
This means that after rolling your initial double, which allows you to
begin entering the rest of your men from the bar as normal, you would
have to roll another valid double (or 1-2) to continue playing.
In the bear-off, as the pieces are frozen, they can only be taken off
with exact numbers; e.g. with one man remaining on each point, it would
require at least three perfect rolls combining 1-2-3-4-5-6 to clear them
all, unless you roll a 1-2, in which case you would remove the 1-2 and
any one other (by playing a double). If a point is vacant in the bear-
off, that number is wasted.
It is not unusual in this variation for the first player who rolls a
double to win a quadruple (4x the cube), with the other still on the bar
with all 15 men.
It is also not unusual for the same to occur, except that the blitzing
player is hit in the bear-off, and stays on the bar while the other
player enters all 15 men, sweeps around the board and bears-off.
Most games end up with both players struggling to roll a specific number
in the bear-off.
Lee
In article <32cd72b5...@news.demon.co.uk>, James Eibisch <jeibisch@
revolver.*demon.co.uk> writes
>One of the best known variants is called acey-deucey. I can't remember
>the rules exactly, but the principle is that you both start the game
>with all your pieces off the board. When you roll, you can bring pieces
>onto the board (like coming off the bar) or move pieces already on the
>board. I seem to remember that the name 'acey-deucey' comes from doing
>something special if you roll 1 2, but I'm sorry that I don't know what
>that special thing is!
>
>Anyway, like Graham Trevor Price said in his followup, I find it
>difficult enough to play normal backgammon never mind these variants!
>
--
----------------------------------------------
l...@infoplus.demon.co.uk
Web site: http://www.ibmpcug.co.uk/~oak/info/
Email for links to/from this site
----------------------------------------------
Scott Allen
>FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
>there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
>that haven't been posted.
to enter manual rolls to TD-Gammon. I didn't find any, so pondered what
could be used as a substitute.
The premise here is that doubles add an interesting aspect to the game, but
increase the "luck" factor of winning while reducing the skill factor.
Therefore, the game might be more "skill" intensive if the chances of
rolling a double were reduced, but not eliminated.
Anyway, in my search for a dice substitute I considered using playing cards
by using two suits, each with only numbers from ace to 6. I could shuffle
each suit individually and draw one card from each of the two decks. Then I
thought, what if these cards were combined into just one shuffled deck and
two cards were drawn from it? This would reduce the chances of getting
doubles to 1 in 11 instead of 1 in 6 (and the chances of non-doubles would
proportionately increase).
So far, I haven't actually tried this (shuffling and drawing takes alot more
effort than rolling dice ;-). Is this an original idea? Any thoughts on
whether it might improve or hinder the game?
** Scott Allen (warp on FIBS) Scarborough, Ontario, Canada [Team OS/2] **
*** Internet: sco...@idirect.com Fido: (1:250/636) RelayNet: ->1347 ***
fran...@aol.com
>Thema: Re: any interesting variations out there?
>Von: sco...@idirect.com (Scott Allen)
>Datum: 5 Jan 97 09:50:48 UTC
>
>
>This is something I thought about at work when looking for a pair of
dice,
>to enter manual rolls to TD-Gammon. I didn't find any, so pondered what
>could be used as a substitute.
>
>The premise here is that doubles add an interesting aspect to the game,
but
>increase the "luck" factor of winning while reducing the skill factor.
>Therefore, the game might be more "skill" intensive if the chances of
>rolling a double were reduced, but not eliminated.
>
>Anyway, in my search for a dice substitute I considered using playing
cards
>by using two suits, each with only numbers from ace to 6. I could shuffle
>each suit individually and draw one card from each of the two decks. Then
I
>thought, what if these cards were combined into just one shuffled deck
and
>two cards were drawn from it? This would reduce the chances of getting
>doubles to 1 in 11 instead of 1 in 6 (and the chances of non-doubles
would
>proportionately increase).
>
IMHO your opinion is right that doubles increase the skill-factor, but you
draw IMHO the wrong conclusion. What about moving doubles just twice and
not 4 times. (Throw all hard subjects and flames to /dev/null please).
I think this will decrease the luck-factor, but i think this will not get
nuch acceptance.
Frank Berger // frankb at fibs
Cologne/Koeln/Keulen, Germany
cig...@e-znet.com
> On Thu, 02 Jan 1997 00:18:35 GMT, wva...@shore.net (win van Mourik)
> wrote:
>
> >I am looking for some new ways to play Backgammon. I have checked the
> >FAQ and all (?) the backgammon sites on the web and was wondering if
> >there are any other interesting variations or interesting house rules
> >that haven’t been posted.
>
The most interesting variation I've played is this:
Dice are rolled to see who will move first.
The players then alternate turns with the following "roll" rules in effect.
One player is allowed to choose any roll he/she likes except doubles. They
merely announce their "roll" and play it.
The other player rolls normally -- but gets to roll and move twice. Then
the first player again can play any roll except doubles.
The strategies are quite interesting. The double rolling player has a big
race advantage. They have the advantage of two rolls, plus their doubles
count!
The "roll choosing" player invariably hits any blot they choose to. They
call also quickly build blocks and primes.
The game is best played with the two players alternating which rolling
rules they play under.
There are some fascinating strategies involved in playing each side.
I'm curious if anyone has any strong opinions about which side has the
advantage!
--Larry Deckel
Rtrout on FIBs
Kit Woolsey
cig...@e-znet.com wrote:
: The most interesting variation I've played is this:
: Dice are rolled to see who will move first.
: The players then alternate turns with the following "roll" rules in effect.
: One player is allowed to choose any roll he/she likes except doubles. They
: merely announce their "roll" and play it.
: The other player rolls normally -- but gets to roll and move twice. Then
: the first player again can play any roll except doubles.
: The strategies are quite interesting. The double rolling player has a big
: race advantage. They have the advantage of two rolls, plus their doubles
: count!
: The "roll choosing" player invariably hits any blot they choose to. They
: call also quickly build blocks and primes.
: The game is best played with the two players alternating which rolling
: rules they play under.
: There are some fascinating strategies involved in playing each side.
: I'm curious if anyone has any strong opinions about which side has the
: advantage!
I played this a lot several years ago. If I remember correctly, I had
concluded that the side rolling the dice and taking two moves has a small
advantage. However, at the time I was quite willing to play anybody this
variant and allow them to choose which side they wanted!
Kit
Qlando
All:
There is a Backgammon game called Doubles Backgammon. You can correspond
with the game's inventor by e-mail at the website
http://www.imall.com/stores/dcpltd
Orlando Hooks, Internet Marketing Consultant
qla...@aol.com
(510) 794-1175