Talk:Backgammon

Archives
/Archive 1

hi Sami1975 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

tanking Sami1975 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

legality of money play in USA
some states ban money play due to the use of dice, although there is no doubt that the game requires skill.

http://www.bkgm.com/articles/BackgammonTimes/LuckVsSkill-TrialOfTedBarr/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Backgammon and computers
Perhaps someone could create a computer backgammon page? Since there exist pages for individual backgammon-playing programs. I still don't understand how the programs work: when a computer makes a move, does it really simulate thousands of games to their completion and check what comes out best? And how does it do the rest of the simulation, bearing in mind that just dice rolls alone aren't enough, it has to work out the best move for every subsequent move by both players in each simulated game? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

there is no completely self-taught software available as of this date. and the bots that do exist show enormous errors at times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There is a section in this article for backgammon software; I don't know that a stand-alone article would be justified, but the current section could be expanded. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Auto-archive?
Some threads on this page are eight years old. Anyone have any objection to auto-archiving this discussion page? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Looking at the section headers, I don't see anything that is still an open issue. I agree with archiving. But if it's easy to leave the last section out of the archive (Backgammon and computers), you might consider it for two reasons which I haven't the time to go into right now. Willondon (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The auto archive bots accept settings to specify how to archive. For this talk page I'd suggest a 180 day retention period, i.e. any topic with no activity for 180 days goes to the archive.  Recent and active discussions remain until they age out. The process is ongoing and automatic once configured. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * That sounds good to me.Willondon (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Auto archive has been implemented; 180 day age-out with a minimum of four threads remaining each time it runs. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Luck vs. Strategy
I have changed the following statement from the introductory section:

Although luck is involved and factors into the outcome, strategy plays a more important role in the long run.

Besides the fact that I was personally certain this was not correct, I went to the actual source provided for this statement, an article from Backgammon.org entitled, "Backgammon Luck Vs. Backgammon Skill" In the first paragraph, it answers the question: 'The answer is simple: the closer the players are in ability, the more luck there is. In fact, if you take two players of identical skill level, it’s all luck!'

I've changed the wording to reflect this, taking into consideration that it takes only a very short time for a player to learn the moves. Un sch ool 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I let the edit stand, but I'm not convinced, especially after the quote "If you take two players of identical skill level, it’s all luck." That's a tautology isn't it? Saying that skill is an important factor means if skill levels are different, the outcome is likely to be affected. In any contest, if skill levels are identical, luck is going to be the remaining factor. Willondon (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, the image about probabilities of moves contains wrong data (and is somehow difficult to read...). The probabilities for combined dice are not correct. More specifically, the probability of move 6 is 47,2 % (and not 44,4 as indicated). The curve for combined dice is not a straight line. You can check here: https://www.paulspages.co.uk/bgvaults/tips/dicerolls.php. 89.80.104.103 (talk) 04:57, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This page needs to be merged with Tables (board game)
This is the same game as Tables (board game). The two pages need to be merged and one of them turned into a redirect. Jobava - ro (talk page) 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I disagree - they are similar, but not identical and in my opinion both are notable enough to warrant their own article. Please see the policy on merging articles.  If you still think this is a candidate for a merge, you can follow the procedure outlined in the link above.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:52, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree, isn't tables an ancestor of backgammon?

Sources for future article expansion
Seems like a well-done and well-sourced page, so will put these here until they're being used to verify content in the article



but, given that this is Ingenpedia, it seems unlikely this article doesn't have any passages lifted wholesale from the EB11. If there are, we should go ahead and source it appropriately. — LlywelynII  07:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Backgammon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081009231826/http://home.flash.net:80/~markthom/html/nackgammon.html to http://home.flash.net/~markthom/html/nackgammon.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't all the "table game" cases be changed to "tables game"?
I'm confused. Isn't "tables game" the only term that should be used in the article? I've even encountered a case where both terms were used in the same paragraph (I've changed one of the pair to "table game", and I'm probably wrong).--Adûnâi (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but in the "See also" section there is a link to "Table games" (piped to Tabletop games, defined in that article to include board games, card games, dice games, miniatures wargames and tile-based games. It's not clear to me if one or more instances reference this concept, rather than the tables family of board games. If this is the case, perhaps they could safely be replaced by "board game" (or "tabletop game") to avoid confusion.--Nø (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Ingenpedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Backgammon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314131358/http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammonluckskill to http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammonluckskill
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.flash.net/~markthom/html/nackgammon.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907014829/http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/classic/bg/tournaments/world00report.html to http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/classic/bg/tournaments/world00report.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010184227/http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammon-proposition-week/ to http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammon-proposition-week/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114231823/http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/history03.htm to http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/history03.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

History -- Iraq (Mesopotamia)
A sentence in this section claims that in the modern Levant, backgammon is known as tawle and/or as shesh besh. The cited reference, which is a children's book, mentions the first name, but does not mention the second. The Backgammon Galore website lists "shesh besh" as one of many variants of backgammon.

I doubt that a children's book is an appropriate IN:RS; we should either have a better reference, or we should not cite anything at all (is this a claim that would likely be challenged?). If a citation is considered necessary, the bizarre style of citation, which is just a link to the results of a Google Books search, should not be used; a more conventional citation, giving name, title, author, page number, etc., would be better. I am not going to try to fix this myself because I am not familiar enough with Backgammon culture to be confident about the right thing to do. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Iraq vs. Iran
An editor using IP addresses has been modifying the opening paragraphs to state that backgammon originated in Iran, and/or to avoid any reference to Iraq, and/or modifying the History section to avoid any reference to Iraq, etc. Another editor, User:LebaneseBebe, for a while was trying to reduce references to Iran and replace them with references to Iraq.

Clearly the History section should not omit notable archeological discoveries of games related to backgammon. Also, it is evident that the exact origin of backgammon, and the exact origin of games related to backgammon, have not been identified; and that there have been notable archeological discoveries at various locations in the Middle East, including some that are within the modern-day borders of Iran, some in Iraq, and some in Egypt.

It appears to me that the activities of the editor using IP addresses are not constructive, and border on vandalism. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)


 * you deleted entire sourced paragraphs from the article. There is no excuse for that, and that is the very definition of vandalism. No references to Iran we’re deleted in my part, I added a section for Iraq. LebaneseBebe (talk) 17:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)


 * I removed some material about the ancestors of backgammon from the lead paragraph, because I thought it duplicated, rather than just summarizing, material in the History section. But if you disagree, put it back, and I will defer to the judgement of other editors as to whether it is helpful in the lead paragraph.


 * I also removed some stuff about backgammon being popular to this day in coffeehouses, etc., because I thought it was out of place in the History section. But it was not bad stuff; if you wish to put it back, I would ask that you find a more suitable place for it.


 * It is good to see that you are still interested in editing. May I make a couple of further suggestions?  First, you should try to use conventional citations, where you give the author's name, title, publisher, year of publication, perhaps page number, rather than just giving the URL that come up when the search through Google Books has done its job.  The conventional citation is more useful for the reader who wants to follow up on the subject.  Second, it appeared to me that some of the books you were citing were children's books or children's textbooks.  It is doubtful to use such a book as a reference, because it was not written to be used as a reference.  Best of luck.  Bruce leverett (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

The edits of 27 July 2018 by user Sharaqw1 are identical to some of the earlier destructive edits by IP's that I called attention to in April. It is reasonable to suspect that that user also made the edits by IP's. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Reliable evidence suggests Shar-e-Sukht in Iran is the geographical origin of ancient Backgammon. Still no valid reference to backgammon in Iraq at 5000BC. Please remove that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.188.185.139 (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Rule on Moves -- is the article correct?
I'm no expert, but I started playing backgammon 40 years ago. I have never encountered this rule, here quoting from the article:


 *  If moves can be made according to either one die or the other, but not both, the higher number must be used.

Could someone point me to the specific authority on this rule? Because it's unsourced, which makes me wonder if the article may not possibly be in error. Unschool 02:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not authoritative, but here are a few results from googling "backgammon rules":
 * http://www.bkgm.com/rules.html
 * http://www.gammonlife.com/rules/backgammon-rules.htm
 * http://www.gammoned.com/rules.html
 * http://usbgf.org/learn-backgammon/backgammon-rules-and-terms/rules-of-backgammon/
 * https://www.wikihow.com/Play-Backgammon
 * The above all include the rule in question. Only one of the google results I've looked at did not state this rule:
 * https://www.mastersofgames.com/rules/backgammon-rules.htm
 * --Nø (talk) 15:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Checkers?
No. In backgammon the pieces are called "men." Wastrel Way (talk) Eric —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)