TOURNAMENT-SIZE BG SET
Rodrigo Andrade
so I'm assuming I can walk in with any board.
I'm asking that because the other day I saw a set of "tournament size"
Bakelite pieces whose diameter was "1.25" inch (don't you want to vomit when
somebody mixes the metric and the English systems of measurements? The
proper measure is 1 1/4 inch). Hoewever, I've seen many different sets whose
seller/creator claims to be tournament size.
Is there a rule for that, like in chess, or what?
BTW - I know that precision dice are not mandatory unless one of the players
request it.
--
RODRIGO
===========================================================
"All religions of a spiritual nature are inventions of man. He has
created an entire system of gods with nothing more than his carnal brain.
Just because he has an ego and cannot accept it, he has had to externalize
it into some great spiritual device he calls 'God.'"
- The Satanic Bible
Anton Szandor LaVey
Scott Johnston
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bakelite pieces whose diameter was "1.25" inch (don't you want to vomit when
> somebody mixes the metric and the English systems of measurements? The
> proper measure is 1 1/4 inch). Hoewever, I've seen many different sets whose
So you're asserting that using decimal points is "metric" and using
fractions is "English?" Since when? Last time I checked 0.25 = 1/4.
-Scott
Chuck Bower
Rodrigo Andrade <gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Is there such a thing? Most clubs I know of are BYOB (bring your own board),
>so I'm assuming I can walk in with any board.
>
>I'm asking that because the other day I saw a set of "tournament size"
>Bakelite pieces whose diameter was "1.25" inch (don't you want to vomit when
>somebody mixes the metric and the English systems of measurements?
>The proper measure is 1 1/4 inch).
No, they weren't mixing metric and American units. "Decimal" and "metric"
are not synonyms. Engineers, designers, and draftpersons often use (and,
in fact, PREFER) "1.25" inch instead of "1 1/4" inch. Yes, they are
identical in meaning. BTW, this dimension is equivalent to 31.75 mm
(now THAT's metric) which most of the world prefers.
>Hoewever, I've seen many different sets
>whose seller/creator claims to be tournament size.
>
>Is there a rule for that, like in chess, or what?
>
>BTW - I know that precision dice are not mandatory unless one of the players
>request it.
The Chicago Point Web page has the US Rules at:
http://www.chicagopoint.com/usrules.html
You will NOT find a definition of tournament size set. The size of
checkers is generally not legislated. 1.75 inch (= 1 3/4 inch = 44.45 mm)
is the commonly accepted "tournament" size checker in the US, but there
is no requirement that they be used. 1.5 inch (38 mm) and 2 inch (51 mm)
are sometimes seen at tournaments. Smaller than this is unusual but legal.
The problems with small boards (IMO) is that
1) They often don't have enough surface for the dice to "roll freely" and
2) on a typical table they sometimes limit vision.
The important thing is that the ad you refer to actually gave you
the dimensions. If they had said "tournament size" and then NOT listed
dimensions, the ensuing confusion could be blamed on them.
Chuck
bo...@bigbang.astro.indiana.edu
c_ray on FIBS
Rodrigo Andrade
to have a math Ph.D to know that.
Mark
Rodrigo Andrade <gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:7ltfoa$fqd$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net...
thehub
Rodrigo Andrade wrote in message <7ltfoa$fqd$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>There's no such a thing as 0.25 inch. It is 1/4 of an inch. You don't have
>to have a math Ph.D to know that.
>
>--
>RODRIGO
>
Rodrigo, I congratulate you for never being afraid to make a fool of
yourself.
It is an admirable and endearing quality you have.
thehub
Patti Beadles
not really a fixed size so much as larger than the typical cheezy
backgammon boards.
-Patti
--
Patti Beadles |
pat...@netcom.com/pat...@gammon.com |
http://www.gammon.com/ |
or just yell, "Hey, Patti!" | Quisque comoedus est.
Jim Cochrane
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There's no such a thing as 0.25 inch. It is 1/4 of an inch. You don't have
>to have a math Ph.D to know that.
>
>--
>RODRIGO
Never thought I would say thank you for one of the unending vapid
posts, but this one provided the only throwing-my-head-back laugh I
have had in awhile. More please!
Greycat Sharpclaw
<gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>There's no such a thing as 0.25 inch. It is 1/4 of an inch. You don't have
>to have a math Ph.D to know that.
Well, I don't have a Ph.D, but I do have 3 Master degrees in technical
subjects (Physics, Electrical Engineering, Computer Science).
May I ask if you have ever heard of one object having 2 names?
Greycat Sharpclaw
- does anyone have any spare tunafish??
Remove "nospam" in address to reply
Daniel Murphy
Bower) wrote:
>In article <7lqhep$snr$1...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>,
>Rodrigo Andrade <gammonut@_R_E_M_O_V_E_worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
[Is there such a thing as an "official" tournament-sized board?]
>You will NOT find a definition of tournament size set.
Not in the U.S. rules. Danish Backgammon Federation rules define
tournament size as
minimum 44 cm x 55 cm
maximum 66 cm x 88 cm
For the metrically impaired, that is
minimum 17.32 inches x 21.65 inches
maximum 25.98 inches x 34.64 inches.
********
For the fractionally impaired, that is
minimum 17 and 8/25 inches x 21 and 13/20 inches
maximum 25 and 49/50 inches x 34 and 16/25 inches.)
________________________________________________
Daniel Murphy www.cityraccoon.com/
Humlebæk Backgammon Klub www.hbgk.dk/
Raccoon on FIBS www.fibs.com/
Raccoon on GamesGrid too
Chuck Bower
Daniel Murphy <rac...@cityraccoon.com> wrote:
(snip)
>Danish Backgammon Federation rules define tournament size as
> minimum 44 cm x 55 cm
> maximum 66 cm x 88 cm
>
>For the metrically impaired, that is
> minimum 17.32 inches x 21.65 inches
> maximum 25.98 inches x 34.64 inches.
>
>For the fractionally impaired, that is
> minimum 17 and 8/25 inches x 21 and 13/20 inches
> maximum 25 and 49/50 inches x 34 and 16/25 inches.)
Daniel, would you please give more details as to what exactly
you are measuring. I always thought that the ratio of the height
to the width of a playing surface should be in the ratio 2::1.
Let me try and draw a board with ASCII characters to show what I
mean:
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
[] ^ [] []
[] ^ [] []
[] ^ [] []
[] ^ [] []
[] 2 []<<<<< 1 >>>>>[] (not to scale :)
[] [] []
[] ^ [] []
[] ^ [] []
[] ^ [] []
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Clearly the width ("1") needs to be slightly more than six checkers.
In order for each player to be able to place six checkers on his/her
respective 6-point (or 13-point or whatever) then the height "2" should
be a little more than 12 checkers. That is where I get 2::1. As
far as height goes, the absolute minimum should be 10 checkers so that at
the start of the game you don't need to stack checkers. I always
try to go for one more. Of course a Kent Goulding board could be
made even shorter since he hates to put any more than four checkers
on a point. :)
I don't think your dimensions correspond to my "1" and "2" above
so I would like clarification.
Michael
Rodrigo Andrade wrote:
>
> Bakelite pieces whose diameter was "1.25" inch (don't you want to vomit when
> somebody mixes the metric and the English systems of measurements? .
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Actually, here in Canada, we changed to the metric system some 15 or 20 years
> ago. Seems like we're still going through the transformation. Ask someone his
> height and weight and don't be surprise to hear " 2 metres, 200 pounds". I
> also notice that here most packages or boxes that contain merchandise have the
> weight or dimensions of its contents in both. So to answer your question, no,
> I really don't feel any nausea.
Michael
^____^
Rodrigo Andrade
_24_23_22_21_20_19____18_17_16_15_14_13_
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| V V V V V V | | V V V V V V |
| | | |
| | | |
narrow side
| | | |
| A A A A A A | | A A A A A A |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
----1---2---3---4---5---6--------7---8---9--10--11--12-
wider side
JP White
<snip>
> Not in the U.S. rules. Danish Backgammon Federation rules define
> tournament size as
> minimum 44 cm x 55 cm
> maximum 66 cm x 88 cm
>
> For the metrically impaired, that is
> minimum 17.32 inches x 21.65 inches
> maximum 25.98 inches x 34.64 inches.
>
> ********
> For the fractionally impaired, that is
> minimum 17 and 8/25 inches x 21 and 13/20 inches
> maximum 25 and 49/50 inches x 34 and 16/25 inches.)
<snip>
Shouldn't that last item have read, 'For the decimally impaired...'
At first reading, I read that as 'Functionally impaired'
Same thing! lol!
BTW, in the states they don't like the use of the word 'impaired', the
word has negative implications. They prefer the word 'challenged', as in
'decimally challenged'. Don't ask me why.
I do know that I am challenged by Backgammon!
--
JP White
Mailto:jp.w...@nashville.com
Daniel Murphy
Bower) wrote:
>In article <3783049a...@news.inet.tele.dk>,
>Daniel Murphy <rac...@cityraccoon.com> wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>>Danish Backgammon Federation rules define tournament size as
>> minimum 44 cm x 55 cm
>> maximum 66 cm x 88 cm
>>
>>For the metrically impaired, that is
>> minimum 17.32 inches x 21.65 inches
>> maximum 25.98 inches x 34.64 inches.
>>
>>For the fractionally impaired, that is
>> minimum 17 and 8/25 inches x 21 and 13/20 inches
>> maximum 25 and 49/50 inches x 34 and 16/25 inches.)
>
> Daniel, would you please give more details as to what exactly
>you are measuring. I always thought that the ratio of the height
>to the width of a playing surface should be in the ratio 2::1.
I see all kinds of boards with all kinds of height to width ratios.
The rule doesn't specify whether the measurements apply to the whole
board or only the playing surface. I would apply it to the outer
dimensions. In any case, the rule hardly ever needs enforcement and I
think is intended to prohibit Lillipution travel sets and backgammon
beach towels by giving a tournament director the right to approve or
disapprove any particular board, if one of the players objects.
I've got a few sets here at home. My $5 set (but with Bakelite
checkers!) is, I think, barely large enough for tournament play ...
Pocket Board Bar Board Pocket
5.5 22 3.5 22 5.5
_____________________________________________
|__|__________________| |_________________|__| Border 1
| | O X X X X X | | X . . . . .| |
| | O X X X X X | | X | |
| | X X | | X | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Board 44
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |__________________|__|_________________|__|
|__|__________________|__|_________________|__| Border 1
Left or right board: 22 cm wide x 44 cm high
8.66 inches x 17.32 inches
Playing surface w/bar: 47.5 cm wide x 44cm high
18.7 inches x 17.32 inches
Whole set (outer dimensions): 58.5 cm wide x 46 cm high
23 inches x 18.11 inches
... so the dimensions on either left or right board have a 2:1 ratio,
and measured by the outer dimensions the board just barely qualifies
under the rule.
The other set is a nicely proportioned, popular and definitely
"tournament sized" folding leather set by Dal Negro...
Pocket Board Bar Board Pocket
7 27.5 4 27.5 7
_____________________________________________
|__|__________________| |_________________|__| Border 2
| | O X X X X X | | X . . . . .| |
| | O X X X X X | | X | |
| | X X | | X | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | Board 47
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| |__________________|__|_________________|__|
|__|__________________|__|_________________|__| Border 2
Left or right board: 27.5 cm wide x 47 cm high
10.82 inches x 18.50 inches
Playing surface w/bar: 59 cm wide x 47 cm high
23.22 inches x 18.50 inches
Whole set (outer dimensions): 73 cm wide x 51 cm high
28.74 inches x 20.07 inches
I suspect that the largest travel sets made these days are probably
"too big" according to the Danish rule -- but who would object to
playing on one of those $1500 beauties?
I wish I had an Aries set ("queen" or "king" size) handy to measure
but alas, Santa didn't bring me anything good last Christmas.
JP White
> JP White <jp.w...@nashville.com> of Posted via RemarQ,
> http://www.remarQ.com - The Internet's Discussion Network wrote:
>
> >BTW, in the states they don't like the use of the word 'impaired', the
> >word has negative implications. They prefer the word 'challenged', as in
> >'decimally challenged'. Don't ask me why.
>
> Isn't "challenged" a 'comedy' word? (bald = "follically
> challenged" etc.)
>
It is. But people seem to like that now. Like the latest craze of 'idiot
guides'. E.g. The 'idiots guide to HTML' etc. etc. People seem to be proud of
the fact that they are an 'idiot' at something. Maybe I could make a load of
money by selling the 'Idiots Guide to Backgammon'. Any takers? Or how about
the 'idiots guide to being an idiot'. lol.