Talk:Backgammon/Archive 1

Changes/Additions
A couple of things that should be added/changed in my opinion:

Note that for a long time it has been, and remains, very popular in the Mediteranian and Middle East, often played publicically in bars and cafes - but tin the traditiona form without doubling cube.

Doubling cube was an innovation in the 1920's by American clubs The Cube increases the potential for large profit in money games, and also gives more weight for skill (because it adds the skill of accuratly judging your current chance of winning)

- steve

Mid-East Popularity
Mentioned the Middle Eastern popularity of the game, also that it is played in three main variants. These are all referred to as 'Tawila' in Arabic, with their own names for each variant so on this basis describing them as variants of backgammon seems more appopriate. Unfortunately I don't know whether these correspond to the Greek variants mentioned in the paragraph beneath my one, and I haven't yet played or found the rules of maghribiyya.

I also added in the British English names for the checkers/men and outfield/outer table at the beginning of the article. --Palmiro 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion
This article could be expanded with
 * the history of the game
 * an expanded section on strategy
 * a section for on-line, club, and tournament play.

--Karl Juhnke

Most of the online histories of backgammon are unreliable, so I'm researching the history myself. I'll try and get it up in a few days.

--Imran Ghory

Old Article
Shifted the old article here: - The following was originnally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. As such, it may not yet be properly adapted to Wikipedia (obsolete, typos, no accidental links, etc.). It is included as a stub of sorts to inspire you to fix these problems and modify it:

BACKGAMMON, a game played with draughtsmen and a special board, depending on the throw of dice. It is said to have been invented about the 10th century (Strutt). A similar game &lsquo;(Ludus duodecim scriptorum, the &ldquo; twelve-line game &ldquo;) was known to the Romans, and Plato (Republic, bk. x.) alludes to a game in. which dice were thrown and men were placed after due consideration. The etymology of the word &ldquo;backgammon&rdquo; is disputed; it is probably Saxon&mdash;baec, back, gamen, game; i.e. a game in which the players are liable to be sent back. Other derivations are, Dan. bakke, tray, gainmen, game (Wedgwood); and Welsh bach, little, cammaun, battle, (Henry). Chaucer alludes to a game of

tables,&rdquo; played with three dice, in which &ldquo; men &ldquo; were moved from the opponent&rsquo;s &ldquo;tables,&rdquo;~ the game (ludus A nglicorum) being described in the Harleian MSS. (1527). &lsquo;The French name for backgammon is trictrac, imitative of the rattle of the dice.

Backgammon is played by two persons. The &ldquo;board&rdquo; (see diagram) is divided into four &ldquo; tables,&rdquo; each table being marked with six &ldquo;points&rdquo; coloured differently. The inner and outer tables are separated from each other by a projecting bar. The board (in the ordinary form of the game) is furnished with fifteen white and fifteenblack men,&rdquo; set &ldquo;or arranged as in the diagram.

four was called &ldquo;quatre &ldquo; (pronounced &ldquo;cater&rdquo;); the five, &ldquo;cinque&rdquo; (pronounced either &ldquo;sank&rdquo; or &ldquo;sink&rdquo;); and the six, &ldquo; six &ldquo; (size).

For the right to start each player throws one or two dice; the one who throws the higher number has the right of playing first; and he may either adopt the numbers thrown or he may throw again, using both dice.

The men are moved on from point to point, according to the throws of the dice made by &lsquo;the players alternately. White moves from black&rsquo;s inner table to black&rsquo;s outer, and from this to white&rsquo;s outer table, and so on to white&rsquo;s inner table; and all black&rsquo;s moves must be in the contrary direction. A player may move any of his men a number of points corresponding to the numbers thrown by him, provided the point to which the move

BLACK would bring him is

Black&rsquo;s Home or Inner Table. Bfack&rsquo;s Outer Table, not blocked by two

______________________________________ or more of his

~ ~ TI 1T adversary&rsquo;s men

I I I I I being on it. The

II I j whole throw may

II Il U be taken with one

~ II II man, or two men

______________ ____________ maybe moved,one

3 the exact number

of points on one

die, the other the

2 number on the

~ A A A other die. If doub

/ lets are thrown

(e.g. two sixes),

four moves of that

number (e.g. four

_________________ movesofsixpoints)

may be made,

White&rsquo;s Home or Inner Table. White&rsquo;s Outer Table, either all by one

WHITE man or separately

Backgammon Board. by more. Thus,

I. Black&rsquo;s ace-point. 3. Black&rsquo;s bar-point. suppose white 2. White&rsquo;s ace-point. 4. White&rsquo;s bar-point, throws five, six, he may move one of his men from the left-hand corner of the black&rsquo;s inner table to the left-hand corner of black&rsquo;s outer table for six; he may, again, move the same man five points farther on, when his move is completed; or he may move any other man five points. But white cannot move a man for five from the black&rsquo;s ace-point, because the six-point in that table is blocked. Any part of the throw which cannot be moved is of no effect, but it is compulsory for a player to move the whole throw unless blocked. Thus if the men were differently placed, and white could move a six, and having done so could not move a five, his move is completed. If, however, by moving the five first, he can afterwards move a six, he must make the move in that manner.

When a player so moves as to place two men on the same point, he is said to &ldquo;make a point.&rdquo;

When there is only a single man on a point, it is called a&rdquo; blot.&rdquo; When a blot is left, the man there may be taken up (technically the blot may be &ldquo;hit &ldquo;) by the adversary if he throws a number which will enable him to place a man on that point. The man hit is placed on the bar, and has to begin again by entering the adversary&rsquo;s home table again at the next throw should it result in a number that corresponds to an unblocked point. The points in the home tables count for this purpose as I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, beginning from the ace-point. A player is not allowed to move any other man while he has one to enter. It is, therefore, an advantage to have made all the points in your own board, so that your adversary, if you take a man up, cannot enter; and you can then continue throwing until a point is opened.

The game proceeds until one of the players gets all his men into his inner table or home. Then he begins to take his men off the board, or to bear them, i.e. to remove a man from any point that corresponds in number with his throw. If such ,a point is unoccupied, a move must be made, ii there is room for it, and a move may be taken, instead of bearing a man, at any time; but

when six is empty, if&rsquo;six is thrown a man maybe borne from five and so on. If, after a player has commenced throwing off his men, he should be hit on a blot, he must enter on his adversary&rsquo;s inner table and must bring the man taken up into his own inner table )efore he can bear further.

Whoever first takes off all his men wins the game:&mdash;a single ~ame (a &ldquo;hit&rdquo;) if his adversary has begun bearing; a double game (a&rdquo; gammon &ldquo;) if the adversary has not borne a man; and i triple game (a&rdquo; backgammon &ldquo;) if, at the time the winner bears us last man, his adversary, not having borne a man, has one in :he winner&rsquo;s inner table, or has a man up. When a series of ~ames is played, the winner of a hit has the first throw in the ;ucceeding game; but if a gammon is won, the players each ;hrow a single die to determine the first move of the next game.

In order to play backgammon well, it is necessary to know all ;he chances on two dice and to apply them in various ways. The uumber of different throws that can be made is thirty-six. By :aking all the combinations of these throws which include given uumbers, it is easily discovered where blots may be left with the east probability of being hit. For example, to find the chance of )eing hit where a blot can only be taken up by an ace, the adversary nay throw two aces, or ace in combination with any other number ip to six, and he may throw each of these in two different ways, so :hat there are in all eleven ways in which an ace may be thrown. This, deducted from thirty-six (the total number of throws), leaves Lwenty-five; so that it i5 25 to II against being hit on an ace. It s very important to bear in mind the chance of being hit on any sumber. The following table gives the odds against being hit on my number within the reach of one or two dice:-&mdash;

It is 25 to II, or about 9 to 4, against being hit on I

,, 24 ,, 12, or 2 ,, I, ,, 2

22 ,, 14, or about 3 ,, 2,, ,, 3

21 ,, 15, or 7 ,, 5, ,, 4

,, 21 ,, 15, ,, 7 ,, 5, ,, 5

,, 19 ,, 17, ,, 93/4 ,, 83/4, ,, 6

,, 30 ,, 6, ,, 5 ,, I, ,, 7

,, 30 ,, 6, ,, 5 ,, I, ,, 8

31 ,, 5, or about 6 ,, I, ,, 9

&lsquo; 33 ,, 3, or II ,, I, ,, 10

,, 34 ,, 2,,, 17 ,, I, ,, II

33 ,, 3, ,, II ,, I, ,, 12

The table shows that if a blot must be left within the reach of ~ne die, the nearer it is left to the adversary&rsquo;s man the less probeDility there is of its being hit. Also, &lsquo;that it is long odds against Jeing hit on a blot which is only to be reached with double dice, fnd that, in that case (on any number from 7 to II), the farther off :he blot is, the less chance there is of its being hit.

The table assumes that the board is open for every possible throw. If part of the throw is blocked by an intervening point being held by idverse men, the chance of being hit is less.

Two principles, then, have to be considered in moving the men :&mdash; (i) To make points where there is&rsquo; the best chance of obstructing the opponent. (2) When obliged to leave blots, to choose the position in which they are least likely to be hit.

The best points to secure.are the five-point in your own inner Lable and the five-point in your adversary&rsquo;s inner table. The next best is your own bar-point; and the next best the four in your own inner table.

The best move for some throws at the commencement of a game is as follows :&mdash;Aces (the best of all throws), move two on your barpoint and two on your five-point. This throw is often given to inferior players by way of odds.

Ace, trey: make the five-point in your inner table.

Ace, six: make your bar-point.

Deuces: move two on the four-point in your inner table, and two on the trey-point in your opponent&rsquo;s inner table.

Deuce, four: make the four-point in your own table.

Threes: play two on the five-point in your inner table, and two on the four-point of your adversary&rsquo;s inner table, or make your bar-

point. -

Trey, five: make the trey-point in your own table.

Trey, six: bring a man from your adversary&rsquo;s ace-point as far as he will go.

Fours: move on two on the five-point in your adversary&rsquo;s inner table, and two from the five in his outer table.

Four, five and four, six: carry a man from your adversary&rsquo;s acepoint as far as he will go.

Fives: move two men from the five in your adversary&rsquo;s outer table to the trey-point in your inner table. &lsquo; -

Five, six: move a man from your adversary&rsquo;s ace-point as far as he will go.

Sixes (the second-best throw): move two on your adversary&rsquo;s bar-point and two on your own bar-point.

In carrying the men home carry the most distant man to your adversary&rsquo;s bar-point, to the six-point in your outer table, and then to the six-point in your inner table. By following this rule as nearly

Max five on a prong
No mention of rule of only allowing five on a prong at the end of each turn. Could this be clarified please? 80.255.219.52 10:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * There is no mention of the rule, because there is no such rule. You can have all fifteen checkers on the same point if you want to and the rolls work out that way.  Most people play an opening 6-5 from the 24-point to the 13-point, making 6 checkers on a point right from the start.  It isn't all that uncommon to see ten checkers piled up on someone's 1-point when they have checkers stuck behind a prime and have to play little rolls that tear up their home board.  Anyway, maybe a rules clarification is necessary simply because some house rules differ from the standard of tournament and international play.  --Fritzlein 19:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The rule of having only 5 men on a point is a known variation, however, it is usually only observed by Egyptians. The International Rules for Backgammon have no such rule.


 * I have also used this rule having been taught it, but hae found that it is not normally played or specified in sets for the reasons above. However, I have found that once people adopt it, they agree that the resulting games are more interesting with such a restriction.  I have entered a non POV entry to the article. Dainamo 11:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Backgammon is the oldest known recorded game in history !
It is not correct to say that Backgammon is the oldest known recorded game in history. Backgammon is an old tables game as other ones are (Tabula for example).

You should say "tables games" (all games played in a same board than Backgammon) are very ancient. Senet and Game of Ur aren't played in the same board and cannot be compared to Backgammon.

It's like to say football is the oldest sport in the history. No of course it's just a ball game and ball games are very ancient.


 * Are you saying that there are other non-board games older than it (how do we know they existed?) or are you saying that we cannot know what game was played on the board, or are you simply claiming that it's not true? Gadykozma 19:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I only say that we cannot know what game was played on the board (except Tabula)and that Backgammon is just one of those games amid a long list of other ones. And Senet, game of Ur, Pachisi ... were not played on the same board than Tabula.

That's all what I want to say ! In the same way, Bridge is not the oldest game but card games are very old (not so old than tables games) !


 * Backgammon is at least 5,000 years old:

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=197701&query=dice&ct=%22ebi%22 I know no other game in existence older than backgammon. GiftliteGiftLite

The information from this link is wrong, this is not the game of backgammon, and not even an ancestor of Backgammon probably more something like the game of Ur.

Buzurgmihr
I was unable to verify the following sentence:


 * The present form of backgammon was invented by Buzurgmihr in Persia.

Does somebody have a reference for this fact? Gadykozma 15:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was no answer so I removed it. In the meantime I found out that Buzurgmihr is affiliated with the introduction of Chess into Persia, which made the above sentence suspect of a simple confusion. Gadykozma 13:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What was the first champion-level backgammon program?

 * Beginning in the late 1980s, creators of backgammon-playing software began to have success with a neural network approach. TD-Gammon, developed by Dr. Gerald Tesauro of IBM, was the first computer program to play at or near the expert level. This program's neural network was trained using Temporal Difference learning applied to data generated from self-play.

I thought the first champion-level backgammon program was BKG 9.8 by Hans Berliner, which used some principles of fuzzy logic. It was finished in 1979, long before the "late 1980s", but it defeated then current champion Luigi Villa, 7-1. It was comparable to Deep Blue against Kasparov. Granted, according to Berliner, Villa made better moves more often, so BKG's victory is owed at least partly to luck, but BKG didn't make any gross errors, certainly no more and no worse than many highly skilled players. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changes made by 24.112.130.106
I removed these edits. I consider the added paragraph in the Introduction/History section to be unclear and confusing. If someone wants to incorporate parts of it and can integrate it in a seamless manner, feel free to do so. Hylas 20:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Applause
I just wanted to comment on how much I liked this article. I'm a member at Pogo.com, and every week there are different challenges for badges. Usually the Wiki articles are a little hard to understand (such as when I had to play gin and euchre) but I want to applaud you for making an article that made sense! I had NO idea how to play backgammon, and now I kind of understand it, and I've won a game. Keep up the good work, and give yourselves a pat on the back. --chicken_queen

Images
The images in the sample game section appear to be screen shots from Jellyfish. Since the interface for that program is copyrighted, it might be a good idea to put the fairusein template on those image pages.--malber 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * heh, just noticed that this was mentioned on the FAC nomination page back in August and was never corrected.--malber 15:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Frozen after capturing?
When I was taught the game originally as a child, the piece that captured another playerrs blot was prevented from moving again (frozen) on the same go. For example if a 3 and 4 were thrown and the piece captured on 4 it could not use the other 3. I have not seen any refernece to this rule (which made some interesting game play such a sometimes forcing a capturing piece to be left vunerable unless another could cover it) but I doubt it came from nowhere. Has anyone el;se hear of this? Dainamo 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * In the Iranian version of the game this rule exists, but it only applies to hitting a piece within your own home board. One variation on this rule allows this hitting piece to move again, but only if it ends its turn exposed. Hitting pieces in other parts of the board is done as in the "standard" version of the game. Now that I mention this, I should put it in the article at some point. MisterBigH 6:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, yes, it's the way my grandma plays it... You are basically not allowed to hit and run to safety in your home. I thought it was invented on the spot to prevent me from winning, I still think it was, but not by my grandma, other Iranians, they are such bad losers! Anyway, I liked this article, it's a little messy, but the content is really goog! Well done! 82.131.13.36 08:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gul Bara
I've done some edits on this article's page. I found this "variant" and added it to that section. I don't see the difference between it and regular backgammon. I figured that someone more familiar with the game can evaluate and see if it should be merged in to this article. Val42 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Starting Positions
The article states, "Each player begins with two checkers on his 24-point, three checkers on his 8-point, and five checkers each on his 13-point and his 6-point." Is this correct? I thought it was five checkers on the 24-point, two checkers on the 13-point, five on the 7-point and three on the 5-point. (Basically like the picture at the top of the page, except that the three brown checkers at the upper left should be moved one position to the right.) Can someone confirm?


 * I (Bdevel) was the user who uploaded the picture of the board with the pieces in the wrong spot. I have uploaded a new picture with them in the write spot.

In fact, to remove any ambiguity, ideally the article should show a graphical representation of the starting positions, as well as the direction in which each player's checkers move. Thoughts? -- Hux 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The article is correct, although I can see how confusion about which side of the board the tracks connect on could spawn local variants.


 * Incidentally, that reminds me to ask about the starting position of Nackgammon. As the article reads now, Nackgammon adds two checkers for a total of 17 for each player.  It seems like that would be a radical change resulting in every game being primed due to the large number of checkers; not very fun.  Yet when I was introduced to Nackgammon, it merely moved back two checkers on each side, so that each side still had only 15 checkers total.  I believe the checkers were moved back from the two heavy points.  Can anyone confirm this?  Thanks.  --Fritzlein 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * In the absence of contradictory information, I'll make the change to Nackgammon. --Fritzlein 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I figured out my mistake: I was assuming, looking at the first picture in the article, that white's home board was at the bottom left, so the white checkers move clockwise and thus the point at the top left is the 24-point, when in fact white's checkers move anticlockwise, with the 24-point at the top right, correct? I think the article could definitely use some improvement on this though. As it stands, the initial setup and direction of play isn't very clear. -- Hux 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I really like this picture from the Czech wikipedia, it would be extremely helpful to have something like that early in the rules section. --82.131.13.36 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertising links
Someone is always adding links to external pages that don't give any added value besides advertising a certain backgammons server. One should either add all common backgammon servers or none!

--ace 10:32

CE/BCE vs AD/BC
Would anyone object to altering the era-naming convention in this article to use CE and BCE as opposed to AD and BC? (the recent fly-by by a MoS sockpuppet appears to have ended). I think that for a topic that is of a decidedly secular nature, and for a game which has crossed the boundaries of many nations, the more secular naming would be more appropriate. Thoughts? --Ptkfgs 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In general, the problem with calling "CE" more secular is that it still starts at the same year as AD so the year system is the same, and "AD" as an abbreviated notation that is effectively secular. —Centrx→talk &bull; 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict
This page claims that backgammon is the oldest recorded game but the igo page claims that it is older than backgammon. --A Sunshade Lust 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am also skeptical of a claim that backgammon is the "oldest recorded game" (and skeptical of the same for Go, for that matter, but I'm not going to worry about that article). What do you think would be a more accurate way of putting it? I tend to think that we can safely say that backgammon 1) is among the oldest board games played today and 2) is "descended from racing games such as Foo and Bar" (for example), citing the earliest examples. --Ptkfgs 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Unless we have a good source showing that backgammon, or igo, are older than an other or the oldest I would keep is among the oldest board games played today, as you put it. It may be impossible to know which is the oldest game played today. I have done a slight modification of the conflicting sentence, it is now "Backgammon is one of the oldest board games played today." instead of "Backgammon is one of the oldest known recorded game." The old sentence sounded a bit awkward anyhow. --A Sunshade Lust 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

New images for sample game
I have uploaded new images for the sample game (Image:Bg sg w1.png, Image:Bg sg b1.png, Image:Bg sg w2.png), and an image depicting the path of movement (Image:Bg movement.png). They are screenshots of GNU Backgammon, which means their licensing is preferable to that of the previous images. I have retained the same colors and positions, since otherwise the sample game would make no sense. I welcome any comments on the board design and lighting; many of the parameters for the 3D board engine in GNU Backgammon are configurable, so I can change them if they're ugly. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dashes and hypens
I've tried to bring the article in line with Manual of style (dashes) by using &amp;ndash; and &amp;mdash; where appropriate, and using the hyphen for separating dice rolls (as they are not ranges or durations). If there's anything I missed please feel free to change it or point it out here. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 17:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an en dash: –
 * This is an em dash: —
 * They look the same in a fixed-width font (i.e., when editing a page), but we want to use en dashes for the ranges in the infobox. I don't care if they're entities or unicode characters. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 15:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: go
I still don't see why we need an explanation of the specific rating of go players here in the software section. We don't have any discussion of backgammon ratings in the article and it just reads as confusing to me. I think the point of the comparison to computer chess is that chess and bg software have some really notable similarities (strength of play) and really notable differences (algorithmic approaches). Since go software is so easily destroyed by less-than-average players I really don't think we need a huge blurb about it other than to compare it to something that's solved. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization
I think adding this article to Category:Board games is redundant, as Category:Backgammon is already listed there. A user visiting Category:Board games will see Category:Backgammon easily, and Backgammon is space-sortkeyed to the top of that category. Is there another reason that Backgammon should be listed in Category:Board games? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * No, aside from one editor thinking it should and reverting at least three editors who want to properly categorize it. It is appropriate for the article for Backgammon to be listed in the same category as the category for Backgammon because of the "topic article rule" Categorization/Categories and subcategories, however, that category should be Category:Tables games which is described as "Tables is a generic name given to a class of board games similar to Backgammon".  Listing it in board games is inappropriate given the direct subcategorization of Tables games AND the categorization of Category:Backgammon -- which it should be obvious to everyone else is the category that people will look for this article.  Much of the Board games categorization is problematic and will only get worse if taken to the (il)logical conclusion of listing this article in Category:Tabletop_games and Category:Games.  If the editor wants to eliminate the Tables games category then there is a process for that, but listing this article in any category it can fit in is absurd and counter to the categorization guidelines.  Again, the proper categorization is for the backgammon category and article to both be listed in Tables games. 2005 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Read this. It may help: Categorization discussions. It discusses about its philosophy and the sets of rules. --Wai Wai (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the concerns about excessive duplication of categories, and I think they're valid. I'm not sure what to do in this case, because Category:Tables games almost certainly doesn't help anyone using categories to navigate when they're looking in Category:Board games for articles on Backgammon. Since the overwhelmingly predominant discussion of tables games today is as ancestors, relatives, or variants, but with the primary focus on backgammon, perhaps the best categorization would be to make Category:Tables a subcategory of Category:Backgammon, and put Category:Backgammon in Category:Board games. This solves the navigation problem and avoids duplication. Anyone? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This certainly would solve everything, but I'm totally unfamiliar with what "tables games" are or meant to be. If Category:Tables games can at all plausibly be made a subcategory of Category:Backgammon that would solve everything... as would simply renaming Category:Tables games to Category:Backgammon, but again I don't know how related or unrelated those other articles are to "backgammon" as opposed to tables games.  2005 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Tables games are, in short, games played on a backgammon board. A few centures ago the term referred to pretty much any board game (including, e.g., chess and draughts), but today I would say that "tables game" and "backgammon variant" are essentially interchangeable. I'm not sure if there is a sufficient distinction between a backgammon category and a tables category to have both. But I don't think this should be decided on my assessment alone. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A comment left today at the talk page of the Backgammon variant article has changed my mind. I think it would be a misnomer to use backgammon as the supercategory for a lot of games that can't legitimately be described as backgammon variants. I merged the variants article into Tables (board game), and I think the proper categorization is Board games->Tables (board game)->Backgammon (cat)->Backgammon (article). &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The criteria for external links isn't clear, for example - the added value link of www.play65.us, Live web-based backgammon game, rules and tournaments, was deleted 5 minutes upon writing while affiliate sites of the game remain in the main page for months... where is the logic?
 * The logic starts with deleting links crudely dropped like you did with "Online Internet Backgammon" anchor text. 2005 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The external links section is meant to include sites which offer a significant amount of information about the game over what the article offers. The affiliate status of sites listed here is not a significant consideration. The links at this article should point to resources with information about backgammon. It's not a web directory of places to play online. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sample game" section
Can we lose this? It's well-written, but I think it borders on being an instruction manual. Since we link to Backgammon, and it could be freely expanded there, I'm not sure we need it. I think it would be better if we just focused on getting the "Rules" section as clear as possible. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It's fine. The chess article has even a separate page (sub-page) for the sample game. Several pages do similarly (eg keys to become a good player, strategies and tactics etc.). As long as the main article is not largely created for instructions or the like, it is fine. I think what is important is the main purpose of the article or section. The sample game is here to help readers to understand more about backgammon (eg gameplay, the flow of the game) by illustrations. It is fine and great. However if someone makes up a whole page focussing on teaching readers like how to play the game, how to win the game etc., it is not fine.--Wai Wai (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, Sample chess game has a at the top right now, and I'd have to say I agree with the tag. It's difficult to write subjective commentary on a game while still remaining neutral, and the value of a sample backgammon game depends almost entirely on subjective commentary &mdash; otherwise it's just going to be a list of forced moves and rollout results, which would be pretty boring and not very useful. I'm also concerned that a sample game could never avoid being original research. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay. Well, I've moved the sample game to Wikibooks. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not going to say we should make a whole page just for that. I would like to point out is the main purpose of that secton. If it is to enrich people's understanding about the topic, it is fine. Normally information in an article may have overlapping uses or purposes, but it should be the main purposess is important. Take the case of day trading into account, there is a section which states about keys of being a good daytrader. If you take this out of the context, it is like an instruction or a guide and is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you look further, its main purpose is to explain the characterisitics of a successful day trader (so readers will know more what a successful day trader is about). There is no really step-by-step guide on how to daytrade. Anyway, it is up to you t decide if this secton will benefit the readers (but I think you have made up your mind)--Wai Wai (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Backgammon GA
I have listed Backgammon as a GA due to the fact that it is well written, contains pictures, and is referenced. However, before nominating it for FA, I would reccomend expanding and citing the Gambling section, and adding some more images. Some P. Erson 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I was thinking, actually, that this section ought to be expanded in scope (and renamed) to cover the variety of contexts in which backgammon is played today: competitive tournaments, club and social play, as well as gambling. The main reason I've held off is that it's hard to find sources that aren't like "casinonewshotline123.com". Thanks for your input! &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

World Backgammon championship
added some information about this special event that happens every year in Monte Carlo hope you like it :) Davidoff 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I only scanned it; is there actually any information that is not cited to RedTopBG.com? We are so far beyond overloaded with references to this site that it's becoming an embarrassment to the article. Additionally, the writing there is of very poor quality, and the articles do not credit an author. More extensive exploration into the site has only led me to doubt it more and more. I hope this weekend to be able to replace every reference to RedTop with sources that meet WP:RS. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

redtopbg.com source credibility
I have significant concerns about the credibility of redtopbg.com, currently cited for eight separate references in the article.


 * The style of writing and these comments have led me to conclude that it is a self-published site, and that the links are being added to the article by the site's webmaster.
 * The site does not credit an author, so there is little possibility for independent verification of the claims attributed to redtopbg.com. A google search for "red top" backgammon has not yielded any commentary from secondary sources regarding the articles at the site.
 * We currently cite redtopbg.com for a claim that a backgammon tournament in Oregon was raided by law enforcement agents. Despite an exhaustive search at my university library, I can find no independent corroboration of this event.
 * We currently cite redtopbg.com for a claim that Paul Magriel served as an expert witness at a trial resulting from the Oregon raid. I can find no independent corroboration of this event.

Once we can establish the credibility of redtopbg.com under the guidelines at WP:RS, or once the references (and, where necessary, the attributed claims) have been removed, I think we can remove the verifiability warning template at the top of the article. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to work on finding more references for the new information on the article, regardless if you feel that the information about the backgammon championship or oregon raid are not valid here then we can remove them and the cite to redtopbg.com I only want to contribute quality information for the article and I do not want to impare the article in any way Davidoff 11:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

in Hebrew

 * In Hebrew, it is called shesh besh, meaning "six and five".

In Hebrew it is called shesh besh, and shesh does mean "six", but besh does not mean "five" or anything else. I had thought that the name in Hebrew was borrowed from another language, but it's obviously not from any of the other languages on the list. Rusco 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I found a source that says the phrase is probably from Persian, and that "besh" means "five" in modern Persian as well as Turkish. I'll try to get to this today. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I've addressed this the best I can. I would appreciate any further suggestions on the revised sentence. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * in hebrew we do call it shesh besh but the word besh does come from Persian as Ptkfgs said Davidoff 16:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Backgammon Gambling
I am not sure what is the view on this with respect to adding such a section to the article but the fact is that lots of people are doing it. Have a look at this interesting article on the RedTopBG listed in the external links about blacklisted link removed backgammon compared to other gambling games. I think we should either use this material to form another section here or create our own part about these modern ways people play backgammon on the net (try to look beyond the banner :). any thoughts? Davidoff 14:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think this material would add a lot to the "Social and competitive play" section. Our section on gambling is pretty short, and that is both historically and currently an important facet of backgammon play. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The anectode about the raid in Oregon is particularly interesting &mdash; however, I can't seem to find a news report corroborating it. It would be nice if we had specific details. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to this post is antother article about the online dice used in such areas of backgammon and its realiability have a look blacklisted link removed Davidoff 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This might be worth mentioning in the computer BG section. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will start working on these sections then :) Although I would need your help in adding it to the references Davidoff 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this article is expanding it is great :) I added the sections we discussed Davidoff 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I still think we should expand and compare the backgammon game to the various skill and gambling games available on online sites, simply because people would be interested to know about these gaming areas played online, and as much as it is hard to say it backgammon is becoming a growing gambling game for people that want to increase their chances of winning by adding a fair bit of skill to the game. I think the comparison with other online gaming like casino games is important and intersting. we might want to restructure the sections that were taken off but i still think we should have them in the article. Davidoff 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that make more sense in Online gambling? We should try to focus on the core topic as much as possible. I think in the case of the article Backgammon we want to 1) be clear about how money play works (which I think needs little expansion as it is now) and 2) give a short description of how online play works (this could use a little expansion, but I think we have the core topics covered pretty well). a comparison between online backgammon gambling and other kinds of online gambling seems like we're straying way off topic. remember, this is an article about backgammon in general, spanning from the 13th century to the present, and I think it would be pretty unbalanced to go into a discussion about why and how playing backgammon online differs from blackjack/roulette/poker, etc. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It definitely should not go in the online gambling article, which serves mostly to point to other articles about specific games. To be consistent it should either be included here; or in a general gambling skill games online article, or most consistently, an online backgammon article.  I'd suggest that the content be written, and if a long paragraph or less it be putt here, and if two significant paragraphs or longer it be broken out into an online backgammon article -- which then would also include the free play online content. 2005 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Thinking about it some more, a general discussion comparing various gambling games probably belongs in Gambling, and, not surprisingly, it's already written there. General information about online gambling absolutely belongs in the online gambling article, but I'm not sure there's anything more that needs to be said than what's already there. It links to gambling, which has the comparison discussions, and describes (or links to other articles describing) how those games are implemented in software.
 * I don't quite see what's so significant about online backgammon that we need an article for it. It's exactly the same game, played exactly the same way, just using thoroughly unexciting software. The only differences I can think of that actually bear on the game itself are that pipcounts are displayed on-screen, and that viewing the board on-screen kind of hurts my eyes. The real notable story about backgammon software is in the AI programming: BKG vs Villa, through to the revolutionary TD-Gammon, culminating in the modern NN packages. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If there isn't anything particularly significant about online backgammon or gambling regarding backgammon, then this article should handle it. 2005 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Condensing rules
WikiProject Board and table games has developed some helpful style guidelines for articles about board games. I'd like to work on condensing our "Rules" section to be more in line with the WPBTG guidelines. Currently we have pretty much a complete description of the rules here, which is probably too much detail for a general encyclopedia. I've temporarily copied the section to my user page at User:Ptkfgs/Backgammon Rules. This diff is my first stab at condensing the rules section. I'd appreciate any comments here about what we can lose and what we need to keep. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Barr v Oregon"
There are a lot of sites on the internet stating that a backgammon tournament in 1981 was raided by police in Oregon, that the tournament was run by Ted Barr, that Stephen S. Walker eventually heard the case in the Oregon district court, and that Paul Magriel testified as a witness at the trial. I've searched and searched and searched, and no news publication seems to have ever documented this event. I'm no expert legal researcher, but I can't find anything, ever mentioning this in Oregon court cases or any federal case. If this happened at all, nobody ever wrote it down. None of the websites that describe this give a date for the trial besides "1982", and none of them ever cite a specific case number.

The only verifiable part of the story seems to be that Stephen S. Walker was an Oregon district court judge in 1982. This is well-documented, but not very useful.

Since this is such a commonly repeated story, and since the Safe Port Act seems to be veto-proof, it would be really nice if we had a real publication or legal citation for this case. We are going to need a sentence or two to update the "online play" section after the Safe Port Act takes effect. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

External links section
I suggest the external links section should be reduced to a single link to the Dmoz Backgammon category. As of this moment, all the other links listed are in that category. Some of the similar articles about strategy games with a large variety of good sites on the topic deal with the issue this way, which simplifies things and avoids edit wars or discussions of fine lines. I propose the following text as a note:  2005 10:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's reasonable and seems to be in line with how we handle external links in some other game related articles, like casino for example. Rray 12:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Works for me. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I've implemented this. Excellent suggestion, thanks. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey guys I have seen the recent changes implemented in the external links, although I think it does makes the article cleaner I disagree that we should send users to ODP in order to search through quality links on the specific article category (most wiki articles do not do this, and it has never been a policy by wikipedians or wikipedia). I think a good article should provide selected resources that fellow wikipedians had chosen instead of sending users to go fetch in ODP. Remember that some or even most users are not that handy with the internet or do not have the patience of looking through ODP listings that they do not know (mind you that some users do not know what is ODP at all). I respect the decision we will make, although I do think we should reconsider this in order to save users the hassle of searching through ODP by listing the best sites relating to this article on this article, that is the main reason for the external links in wikipedia. Davidoff 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The links on ODP are pretty good. We're linking directly to a well-organized collection of sites about backgammon. We can never hope to be as extensive or as selective as the linked directory listing. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no doubt that the links on ODP are good, although the argument i am making does not talk on the quality alone it also talks about the convinience for users who are not aware of ODP's quality and do not know what it is. I think we should keep to the wikipedia policy of listing quality links in the external links WP:EL as well as a link to ODP in order to serve both type of users. any thoughts guys? Davidoff 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thoughts? I think you are trying to increase the google rank of your site by posting it here. I think Redtopbg has credibility problems, because there's no author listed for most of the articles. I think the writing is, in general, of a lower quality than at Backgammon Galore. I think you've used an anon ip to assist in maintaining the link here. I think it's starting to get irritating, and I think the article is of higher quality without linking to Redtopbg. I think it's unfortunate that we can't link to Backgammon Galore without you insisting we link to Redtopbg as well, but I think linking only to the ODP category is an acceptable compromise. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. 2005 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok now listen I DONT care if you take RedTopBG off the backgammon article and I don't care if you take out all the references to RedTopBG from the article. The additions you are talking about were made by me and I stand by them (I said it was me have a look at the top of the page under "World Backgammon championship" so please don't accuse me before checking) and I think they were legitimate, all information on the site is verifiable on news sites and other backgammon sites. I have nothing to hide the fact that I am managing redtopbg is mentioned on my talk page and you missing it is not my problem. If you want to talk without personal attack than let's do it. If you haven't noticed I am not engaging in any attack towards you other then putting forward constructive suggestions. Regardless of what you think RedTopBG is listed in major sites like ODP, backgammon galore, backgammon pages and other major gaming sites so its credibility is well in place. If you don't want to list it because of your personal opinion or because you think I tried to trick you then that is crazy and is not how we work in wiki and you know that. I have been doing lots of good things here on wikipedia and I never used wiki for my personal gain and I am not doing so now. Lots of sites and people value the RedTopBG.com resource and you your self had said in the past that the site is very informative and has good articles. If I get new information about backgammon or online gambling on redtopbg then I might list it here or other locations. I think that it is fair and will benefit the article, and if wikipedians do not like the new information they will take it off or re-edit like you have been doing with some of the information and that is fine isn't that how we work always? Please let's solve this constructively with no attacks Davidoff 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't believe for a moment that you had any intention of deceiving me or anyone else. The reason I linked to the diff wherein you identified yourself as the webmaster was because I did not want to assert that without any supporting evidence. In that case, the site was being used as a reference on this article, and I wanted to establish that the webmaster and an editor here were the same person, to bear on the guidelines for self-published sources and original research. One of the risks of referencing one's own content on Wikipedia is that it may be criticized; I apologize if it sounded as though I was disparaging your contributions.
 * You are correct that my initial assessment of the site was that it contained a number of useful articles. I changed my mind after reading a number of articles on the site. As I noted in the earlier instance, and as I noted above, there is no author listed on the vast majority of content there. When I compare this to a site like Backgammon Galore, which features articles by authors that I can easily identify as authorities on the subject, I see a significant difference in credibility. I have no idea who the authors at RedTop are because they are not identified.
 * I'm still not sure what we lose by linking only to the ODP category. Is there a valuable backgammon resource on the web that is not listed there? If so, I'd be glad to suggest it be added to the category. 2005's solution for the external link section is brilliant, and we need a clear plan for this section, because the volume of referrer links and drive-by spam is likely to increase, not decrease.
 * Really, what it comes down to is that I don't think what this article needs are huge new sections of content. I think your contributions have played a significant role in bringing the article to where it is today, even as I believe it was an improvement to shorten them significantly. I think that for the most part, the current revision covers all of the major issues associated with the game that it needs to be a featured article. What it needs to get there is to raise the quality of references and writing. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Dice software
Is there a reliable source attesting significant doubt of the randomness of dice on backgammon servers? In my experience, this has strictly been the domain of paranoid usenet posts. The redtop site refers to a controversy, but its credibility is still hampered by its lack of any authorship attribution and a writing style which suggests it is a self-published source.

The question here is this: are some fringe theories about internet backgammon dice, which remain unsupported by any serious analysis, a significant enough issue in the game that we need an entire section devoted to it? No, I don't think we do. I added a sentence describing how dice rolls are supplied (using random or pseudorandom number generators). I'd really like to know why we need this section. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the point is not necessarily to say there is doubt in the online dice and trying to prove that gaming site manipulate it, but more to make people aware that this doubt, if exists, can be easily refuted. I guess it is more of an assurance from an authority site such as wiki to say that such manipulation of the dice is not possible without players picking it up and raising the issue. Davidoff 13:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I have serious objections to this article being the first "authority site" to raise the issue. If there's no reliable source that raises the issue, then it's original research for us to speculate on it here. We have a sentence describing how dice rolls are generated in backgammon software. The rest is paranoid junk. I will remove it now. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 04:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All this paragraph is trying to say is that it isn't an issue and that players should not be worried. This is not to raise any new issues with the dice and has nothing to do with being paranoid it is to assure players that such manipulation is not possible due to the reasons you just stated that there is no reliable source online doubting the cube as well as the reasons the paragraph lists as well, I am adding it again. Hope you agree :) Davidoff 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * All this paragraph is trying to say is that it isn't an issue and that players should not be worried.
 * Why do we need to do this? It's an encyclopedia article, not a soapbox. If backgammon server operators want to convince people their dice are random, that's their job, not ours. Maybe it's part of your job? If so, please take it elsewhere.
 * it is to assure players that such manipulation is not possible due to the reasons you just stated 
 * Of course it's possible. It would be a fairly trivial python script to get jokers and roots for a given position from gnubg. It's just not an issue. We don't talk about magnetic boards here, or loaded dice, or people playing online with Snowie. The purpose of the article is not to promote backgammon servers. It's to provide a balanced and informative article about important aspects of the game, and having a whole section about the fairness of dice on backgammon servers adds a particularly irrelevant dollop of fancruft to the article.
 * Without a reliable source to back up the claim that a substantial number of players have doubts about the fairness of the dice, this is just a distraction. Please, if you are going to add this to the article again, provide a reliable source that raises the issue. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok fair enough, if i find a reliable source i will add it otherwise we will leave it out. Davidoff 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[12][13][14]
Is it really helpful to have the three footnotes referenced in virtually every paragraph of the Rules section? It strikes me as a bit of an eyesore. I'm not familiar with all the style standard for this sort of thing, but maybe these could be combined in one place? --Nephtes 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it probably isn't. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games suggests that this section ought to be shorter and less detailed, anyway. I'm not sure if there is a style guideline for a large section that is supported by multiple references; I went with that style figuring that it wasn't too annoying as long as they weren't in the middle of paragraphs. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)


 * ITs not uncommon in scientific articles to use commas in more than one reference, like for example [12,13,14]. But i guess that wikipedia doesn't support this style. SNx 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous?
I am trying to learn the rules of backgammon. I found this sentence ambiguous: "Checkers placed on the bar re-enter the game through the opponent's home field." Who is the opponent in this context?

Jameshfisher 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi. This article is not meant to contain comprehensive rules for backgammon. You will find this page more helpful. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The sentence is so nicely phrased it puts a lot of information across in few words. It may seem strange, but concise language can often lead to significant details being missed by readers. Here the significant detail is that the implied subject is the owner of the checkers which are placed on the bar. This player's checkers re-enter play through her opponent's home field. The implication follows from the fact that checkers in backgammon always belong to one player, throughout each game -- white to one player, black to the other, for example. Alastair Haines 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Variants
Hypergammon gets its own page, but Nackgammon doesn't? We need some consistency...
 * True. Hypergammon should be merged. nadav 07:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * What we need is sources more than anything. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't realize you're up for FA here. Wouldn't have done the merge that way if I noticed. BTW, why in the world did you decide bkgm was not reliable?  nadav 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, a lot of its articles rely on usenet posts as their only sources. There's a great variability in source reliability at bkgm, and the things for which it was the sole source were pointing to articles that referenced usenet sources. After removing those, the only citations left to bkgm were in the basic rules, which are also supported by two other sources so we didn't need it there. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture
I just added back the pop culture section that was removed (chess has a large section on culture). Any comments on why it was removed.169.139.225.2 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * We really don't need it. Pop culture sections tend to attract the worst kind of unencyclopedic trivia and add little to the article. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think a “popular culture” section could be useful and informative, like the one at Go (game) 169.139.225.2 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, the only example anyone has proposed is Locke's discussion of the game, which is only one of many board games he's depicted playing. The Lost themes article already has a complete discussion of the topic. Do we really need to mention Lost in every single article on a topic the show has briefly touched? Most everything backgammon discusses is a crucial and substantial topic in the game. While I was of course pleased to see that the castaways were equipped with a backgammon set -- I always fly with one, of course -- I just don't see why that's important to mention in this article.
 * The situation with go is different, in that it is far and away the most played and studied board game in the East. The same is true of chess in the West. These games have a substantial presence in popular culture. Backgammon has not left that sort of enduring mark in 20th century media... at least not yet. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That makes sense, thanks for your thoughtful response and explanation.169.139.225.2 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As usual, all the focus is on the extrema of the planet: West and Far East. What about the the Near East, where it (and close variants) are by far the most popular board games? Backgammon is an essential part of the culture there. nadav 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

They/their as a singular
This article is not a situation where we would want to use "they" and "their" as singular nouns. There are always at least two players in backgammon, and using these pronouns to refer to a single player here would introduce unnecessary ambiguity, since they are most often used as plurals in formal writing. I don't think gender-inclusiveness is a problem at all in this article, as it uses male and female pronouns in roughly equal numbers to refer to players generically. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into a revert war with User:ICarriere, but my opinion is that "The winner is the first to remove all of his/her" should be "The winner is the first to remove all of her". mpetch 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think "his/her" is clumsy, and it seems like there's someone blasting through here every other week to change "his" or "her" to "their" or "his/her" (today was the first "there" I've seen, to be sure)... or something else ugly. I've changed it to "his or her". I seriously just. do. not. get. why this sentence attracts so much grammatical damage. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Might want to catch the commentary/discussion over at Featured article candidates/Backgammon. I've tried to direct it back here. mpetch 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I'd just make them all "she".
 * I agree that the plural option is not well suited to the context (imo it's non-ideal anywhere). I also agree that her/his is just awful, same with "her or his", "she (he)", or other variations. This is an article about backgammon, not about gender equality. Given, the political nature of the issue, I simply always use "she", and when refering to women and men, always put women first. In other words, I use the traditional English conventions, only in reverse. That never gets reverted.

I find the constant change between "she" and "he" makes me dizzy. I had to correct one sentence that read something like, "he rolls the dice and then she moves the pieces", but only one player was intended! May I suggest, if the pronouns do have to alternate, that this is done on a section by section basis, not paragraph by paragraph (or within sentences!). But why not keep it simple? Use "she" everywhere. Alastair Haines 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Works for me. I think at some point it was originally on a section-by-section basis, but a lot of crap got merged around and rewritten. Certainly, the within-sentence example was not intentional. Just as long as it isn't "they", for reasons I noted above. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

that she shit is hella annoying, i make this comment as a reader not editor, i expect it to be correctly, surely there is rules to this encyclopedia business 86.13.202.173 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The constant use of the female pronoun and possessive in this article is offensive, and consitues a sexist use of language. If the default had been the male pronoun, *nobody* would dare suggest that it was acceptable to use this exclusive language. The fact is that neither case should be seen as acceptable, lingusitically or morally - unless the actual intention of the writer is to explicitly refer to the sex of a backgammon player, which surely is not the case here. My point is that to use gender specific pronouns and possessives when not intended is at the least poor use of English, and is technically misleading in semantic intent, just as it would be to use a neuter pronoun such as 'It". I agree that "His/Her" is clumsy annd awkward, and unnecesarily verbose. The actual key is skill in language use itself - to construct sentences which avoid this problem in the first place, by manipulating voice, tense, referent or quantifiers. I have done this in a couple of paragraphs myself. It should not be an issue of arguing over how to patch up sentences that are neccesarily inevitably going to manifest this problem, but rather of rewriting them wholesale, and avoiding writing similarly bad sentences like this in the future. Many of us have spent years studying and working in universities, or writing professionally, and have never had to submit work that suffers from any of these problems.

Get it right - or stop editing entirely and let somebody who can use the language properly do so please. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.36.40 (talk • contribs).


 * The use of "they" and "their" would be vague and grammatically broken in this context. We need to refer to singular generic individuals, and the use of "they" and "their" here would introduce unnecessary confusion, often making it impossible to determine whether we are referring to one player or to both. "She" and "her" were selected arbitrarily to replace an inconsistent mixture of masculine and feminine pronouns sprinkled throughout the article. Please do not attempt to use Wikipedia as a personal soapbox for promoting your own views on sexist and nonsexist language.
 * We could probably come up with sentences in every case here that would avoid the use of personal pronouns, but the resulting prose would be so verbose and unwieldy that it would probably be unreadable. Our concern here should be to communicate information about backgammon in a clear and neutral manner. To contort sentences into longer and more confusing forms for the sole purpose of avoiding the use of personal pronouns is not the skillful use of language and will not help us here. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally find, as a reader, that using 'she' and 'her' makes it sound like the game is exclusive to women, and for the sake of political correctness you have all slapped some feminine pronouns in where the usual masculine ones would do. This is political correctness gone mad.82.15.9.10 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * First off, the use of "her" and "his" was/are both used throughout the article before your revision, thus making your comment "Exclusive to women" false. Then you make a circular argument that you want to use the masculine form and make it "Exclusive to Men". Clearly exclusivity to you is fine as long as the masculine form is exclusive. The use or "his"/"her" has nothing to do with political correctness - it comes down to readability (Using they and their is more difficult to read and more ambiguous). Replacement of the gender based pronouns with neutral ones makes it harder to follow the article without significantly increasing the level of unnecessary verbiage (But if you wish to discuss a neutral form be my guest). At no point did you argue the article was unreadable - just that you take issue to use of feminine pronouns mpetch 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that I want it changed and if you could find the line in my comment where I say that I would be very grateful. I'm just saying that mostly in situations where "their" won't fit, using "his" is generally understood to apply to anyone, or at least I thought it was, if you say it isn't then that's fine.82.15.9.10 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry someone on the same day (not you - my apologies) went and modified the article and used all masculine. I hadn't noticed your IP was not the one that actually posted. My comment should actually be directed at 82.3.76.207. mpetch 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for not using "his or her" and the choice to use her. But lets face it, using "her" sounds out of place and seems too feminist. There is no need to make a political statement in an article about backgammon. When addressing a group of people (informally) one would say "Hey you guys" not "Hey you girls". Every her should be changed to his and every she should be changed to he.

All of you. Read the singular they article before continuing. Serioulsy. &#8212;M (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

One, one's as alternative to gender-specific pronouns
"One" is the formal alternative to the informal "you." It's not meant to replace pronouns referring to nouns that have already been introduced. nadav (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Isn't this getting old? Someone flip a coin, already, and get this overwith. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * It's quite easy to use gender neutral language for only a slight sacrifice in readability. Personally, I always use "he" and "his" but I guess some people care about this. nadav (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'd call it a slight sacrifice -- let's just use some little pronouns, shall we? Good ol' pronouns! &mdash;ptk✰fgs 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I prefer using the standard english pronouns for when the gender isn't known: he, him and his. But another editor (who will probably show up soon) changed them all to the female-specific pronouns.  When I changed them back because of standard english usage, she reverted them because of "blatent sexism", not understanding the extreme irony of doing so with that comment.
 * With the changes, I tried to get the usage correct, but I made some problms. Thanks for correcting them. Val42 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I merely replaced some instances of masculine pronouns with feminine pronouns so that there was an equitable balance of feminine and masculine pronouns throughout the article. Also, it would be "he reverted them", so it seems that you are not without biases of your own.
 * At any rate, I'd favor any solution where the usage of pronouns of a specific gender is not favored at the expense of the other gender. However, the article still seems to have some problems in this respect, so I will fix those momentarily. Ofhcal 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but be careful with "the 15-point" vs "his 15-point" -- my 15-point is across the board from my opponent's. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this strategy paragraph?
Why do you people insist on deleting this paragraph from the strategy section. The concepts in this paragraph are fundamental to any understanding of the game. The article on Backgammon as it is is crap because it is so conceptually superficial. This paragraph gives the article a firm conceptual elucidation of the game:

The basis of strategy in backgammon is to try to slow down the opponent through skillful and timely placement of blocking points (two or more checkers stacked on one position), and via hitting loose checkers that the opponent may leave on the board. For a particular player, the most valuable blocking points tend to be those that are located within that player's goal quadrant, and the most valuable such points are the ones towards the periphery of that goal quadrant. In the initial game setup, each opponent already has five backgammon checkers stacked on their six-point (the sixth position in each player's respective goal quadrant). Each player also has three checkers stacked on their respective eight-point. These three checkers, along with the five on the six-point, can be used as "builders" to help build up more points within that goal quadrant. These goal-quadrant blocking points are extremely valuable because each on reduces by one dice number the number of dice numbers available to the opponent, if the opponent's loose checker is hit and the opponent must try to return to his beginning quadrant (which is the other player's goal quadrant). In Backgammon, a central tactic is to try to "make the five-point," or place a block on the fifth point in the goal quadrant. It has been demonstrated conclusively that a player who makes this five-point block early on in the game has a clear strategic advantage against his opponent. Every computer neural net program has taught itself to follow this key tactic. This will give the player a 3-prime, or three points in a row at the goal quadrant area, making it difficult for the opponent to escape from this area. These points are also a safety zone where the player can place more extra builder checkers for building even more points on the inner board. If the opponent makes the 4-5-6 prime early on in the game and places spare builder checkers on it, on each turn the player will have a chance of making a roll that will enable the player to make another point in the goal quadrant. Accordingly, the opening roll of 3-1 is the most valuable opening roll in the game, because it allows a player to instantly make the five-point block, by moving a checker from the six to the five, and another checker from the eight to the five. In addition, 4-2 is the second most valuable opening roll because it allows a player to instantly put a block on the four point, which is almost as valuable as the five point block because it is almost as near to the periphery of the goal quadrant as the five point. 6-1 is another very valuable opening roll, because it allows a player to put a block on the seven-point, which prevents the opponent from using a six dice number to escape checkers in that opponent's beginning quadrant. If all six points within the inner quadrant are blocked and the opponent checker is hit, the opponent will not be able to move until the first player is forced to break up a point on that board. By that time, the player could advance all of his pieces to the goal quadrant and begin the process of moving them off the board and winning the game. As a defensive strategy, a player could try to place a block of his own on the five point of his opponent's goal quadrant; this is possible if the player rolls a 4-4 opening roll, since the player can move the two checkers on the 24-point to the 20-point and form a block on the 20 point (the 20-point for a player corresponds to the five-point for the opponent). As long as this defensive point remains in place, the opponent cannot place a block on the five point, reducing the probability of preventing the player from being blocked if the player's loose checker is hit during the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.115.232.209 (talk • contribs).


 * It's unsourced, it rambles without any break, unnecessarily advocates a position, and reads like original research. Additionally, it repeats information found elsewhere in the article in a confusing context. Lastly, it provides an inappropriate level of instruction and advice for an encyclopedia. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I made the second deletion, but I forgot to  log in when I did so. Ptkfgs pretty much said it. A summary of what Wikipedia "isn't" can also be found here. Your comment " is is crap because it is so conceptually superficial" actually is what wikipedia is about. Your perspective didn't say its crap because its wrong - its because it is superficial - which is what is intended per wikipedia NOT being a textbook/manual. All is not lost - if you wish to create a primer on backgammon strategy you may consider adding your knowledge to the wikibooks project and in particular the backgammon wikibook. You will find your style will need to be cleaned up.  Mpetch 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Names of the pieces
An IP went through this article and changed every instance of the words "pieces" and "checkers" to "stones." Those things can be called pieces, stones, checkers, men, pawns, counters or chips. The article was fine the way it was. This has all the makings of one of the most idiotic edit wars Wikipedia has ever seen. (Remember he/him/his v. she/her/hers?) I reverted to checkers, since that was most often used before the most recent edits, and put a parenthetical list of names in the intro. Let's just leave it alone, please. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd assume good faith for both edits.. Keeping it consistent through the main text is good, and I think that 'checkers' or 'pieces' seem to be the most common terms for this, with the rest also in use (and noteworthy). I would associate 'stones' more with similar (mostly African) games or historical/Fictional contexts. EasyTarget (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, that lead sentence was a disaster. I've moved the long litany of names for the pieces to a footnote. Let's keep in mind that the overwhelming preference of contemporary backgammon literature in English is to call the pieces "checkers" and follow that convention here, shall we? Certainly we should mention that there are other names still in use, but to fight that war in the first sentence of the article is an abrasive and embarrassing way to introduce the reader to the game. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Board Game Geek
I disagree with linking to the Board Game Geek website in this article. In the first place, the site is very spammy - lots of advertising. Second, this template is most often used with proprietary games like Monopoly (game), Trivial Pursuit, and The Game of Life. A certain amount of commercialism is inevitable when mentioning these games because they're copyrighted and owned. Note that other classic strategy games in the public domain such as Chess, Go (board game), English draughts (checkers) and Draughts do not use this template or link to Board Game Geek. Also, there's no real value added in the link. I'm deleting the template to encourage discussion. Please comment here before re-adding. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's reasonable. First, I think for public domain games, that you are correct that it's less relevant. Second, because the site is in fact extremely spammy. I Hadn't realized this because I'm a member there and have all ads turned off, but for non-member visitors it's a mess (and thus inappropriate encyclopedic content.) &mdash; Aldaron &bull; T/C 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Backgammon is really a sport ! Yes
Backgammon is a sport ! Really ! Why ?! Because it needs training ! Practising ! Progressing ! Backgammon players work ! They can have levels ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastasija Marachkovskaja (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

International Variations
Having two boards, one with a hard wooden playing surface and one with a felted I also noticed there is no doubling cube in the wooden game. This has been suggested to be because the wooden edition is of an Eastern Origin where the game is noisier and does not have the doubling option and the felt is of the Western trdition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.171 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this comment belongs here. Do you have in mind some kind of improvement to the article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Nard (game)?
There's a description of a number of variants of nard at Tables (board game), so I'm not sure it would be accurate to call nard and backgammon the same game. On the contrary, I think the descriptions of the long narde and short narde at tables warrant an expansion of nard.

Mani1, what's your reasoning? &mdash;ptk✰fgs 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Checking to H.J.R. Murray 6.1.2 has no mention that Nard or Persian forms of backgammon use a different starting position or have different objectives. gameboardgeek has no mention of Nard.  Other web sources per Google have no special mention of nard. Nard means 'wooden block or cylinder'; The game is also called Nardshir and 'shir' means lion and applies to the pieces used in more elaborate versions of the game. Murray identifies a first date of between 300 and 500AD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisbury-99 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Moved "History" section
I moved the History section to the end for two reasons: Lessthanideal (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it wrong for this long section to start the article talking about stuff that isn't backgammon; I think the casual reader will first want to get an idea about the existing game, and now it goes straight into that information.
 * I thought it odd that the introduction mentioned pieces & checkers in the first two sentences, and the "notes & references" section started with one note about piece names, and everything else was references. I can see why this was done from the earlier discussion, and agree it shouldn't be in the introduction. I think the various names of pieces deserves to be in the main article, after the introduction, but it needs to come before anything that mentions checkers, which couldn't be done with the first (historical) section talking about "checkers". Now the introduction mentions pieces without saying what they are, and the following rules section starts by defining the names and settling on checkers for the article.  This should help anyone who comes in and thinks "oh, they should be called stones/men/women/whatever but this article doesn't mention that, I'll randomly change it".

Doubling dice Rule
I appreciate that this is only anecdotal, but those I have played socially have always acknowledged a rule whereby the doubling dice is frozen (i.e. cannot be raised further) once both players have passed each other. In other words, once your last piece has gone past your opponent's last piece and there are no further opportunies to take each other, the stakes are frozen. Raising the odds has to be done before this stage of the game, you can't double on your last roll when you know you've already won. I couldn't find mention of this in the article. Is anyone else familiar with this rule? Traveller palm (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Setting the board up correctly
OK, this might be considered really pedantic, but I was always taught that you must exit the board on your own colour. Just like when you set up a chess board, the queen sits on her own colour. So if you are black, the last (number 1) position should be a black peg/spike/whatever. It makes no difference to game play obviously, it's just a standard convention. This might be too trivial to mention, but I couldn't help notice that the diagram in the rules section has the board set up the wrong way round. Traveller palm (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Five checker rule
I added a paragraph to the varients section, I've always played with this rule (in UK) and encountered it in other places (US and Holland). I think it is widespread enough to merit a mention, especially since many seem to think it is part of the official rules (as I did initially). However, I'm not sure if the note about why it is called the 'Egyptian rule' in GNUBG is appropriate here, although it is interesting. EasyTarget 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's definitely a common variant, but I think we need better sources than the IRC log and probably than the GNUbg documentation. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This setting is no longer in GNUBG (as it was never properly implemented). I've removed that sentence.--Superfly Jon (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I find it astonishing to read in this article that outside the civilised confines of Great Britain, there are primative 'cultures' out there where people even now still believe that it's ok to put more than 5 men on one peg. We have a name for that 'rule' here.  We call it cheating. :)  Traveller palm (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Accuracy in "History" Section
Note on History section for later editing:

1. The first section on "Persia" should probably be re-named "Egypt and Mesopotamia" seeing as the Persian Empire was not established until the sixth century BC (see Article on Persia) and everything mentioned there is rather older.

2. The section on "India" should probably be titled "India and Persia", since it deals with both of these countries and not just India. --Wolfhawke (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Tim Holland
What does this mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfly Jon (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Backgammon is a sport, or can be considered as a sport !
I would like to say that backgammon is a sport, or can be considered as one ! Backgammon necessite training, concentration , activity , like sports in general ! This is a MENTAL sports, or psychical ! You can write a message on my Eremia (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)discussion page ! Eremia (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Eremia


 * I understand you underlying point. However, it appears English isn't your first language, so you may not be aware how odd it sounds in English to call Backgammon, Chess, Card Games, etc. a "sport".  Even highly competitive, televised events like Poker games are never really called "sports".  Even if these things have a lot in common with physical-oriented sports, it just doesn't sound right to say it.  Because of that, you'll have a hard time finding a reliable source that calls it a sport, and that would really be needed in order to use that word. --barneca (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I know it's a couple years later, but the International Olympic Committee recognizes chess as a sport... and there is talk of it being included in the 2012 Olympics or some other future event. I see this as valid criteria for calling something a sport, but certainly not the only valid criteria.  Backgammon is a game similar to Chess in many, many ways.  It seems like there would need to be a very solid argument for it not to be a sport before you could claim so.  I think almost anything that has international competitions and judging panels, etc, can be considered a sport at least to some degree.  See the commonly used term of e-sport to see other "non-physical" sports.  I understand that the word "sport" has a physical element to its definition, but I believe that definition may be loosening or changing in the current atmosphere.  JudgeX (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Can you point to somewhere that has the Olympic committee specifically calling chess a "sport"? Possibly including it in the Olympics can just as easily be them expanding what is allowed in the Olympics and does not automatically confer the name "sport".  And given how the word "sport" is used everywhere else I look, I do really think the burden is on you to come up with some really good reliable sources that support the "backgammon is a sport" theory. SQGibbon (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've heard that checkers was an event at the 1900 Paris games; backgammon might also have been. 24.217.232.200 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

WSOB
I have added relevant history for World Series of Backgammon including the emergence of PlayWSOB.com the new online bg site from WSOB that provides tourneys and qualiifiers for World Championships. I see there has been a needless deletion of new content. Please explain why as what was added was relevant and truthful and indeed important for players looking to play online on a secure site not dominated by pros and bots or cheats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.226.106 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia where people come to gain a general knowledge about various subjects. It is not intended to be a resource for people looking for good sites to play backgammon on.  Further, your edit (based on your comment here) looked like Original research meaning it was based on specific knowledge that you have, which if you follow the link is something that's not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Finally since it has very little directly to do with backgammon as an encyclopedic subject it came across as an advertisement for that company which is definitely not allowed on Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Strategy vs. Luck
Let me clarify that I absolutely agree that in backgammon, when played in a tournament or other multi-game format, particularly with the doubling cube, skill dominates over luck. I also know that such is not the experience of the average player. As such, that is an easily challenged statement. Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, we must provide reliable sources for any statement that is easily challenged. The simpler statement of "luck and skill play an important role" is not easily challenged, thus doesn't need a reference. If someone could just pull up a copy of Backgammon for Blood or something similar (I don't have any or access to any where I live), and find a relevant page number that asserted the dominance of skill, then the statement can go back into the article. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I decided to self-revert--since I think any skilled bg player would agree with this statement, I think it can stand, but we do need a source, so I added a tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I absolutely agree that we should find a citation, but bear in mind that the statement was equally POV and equally uncited before I modified it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and, by the way, the original Backgammon for Blood, written back in the '70s was a terrible book full of bad advice. There's a new book by the same title that's actually an American reprint of a book originally published under another title in the UK that's just fine. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, BfB was just the first that came to mind; I'd expect any intermediate to advanced bg book to assert the same thing.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Movement section
The Movement section does a good job of describing how the checkers can be moved. However, it seems to reference images that do not exist in the article - in fact, I suspect the whole section may be a copyvio. I'm hoping a regular editor will fix this, rather than letting a newcomer (to the game and the article) botch it up. Metao (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Where in that section does it refer to images? NotFromUtrecht (talk) 18:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Good catch, Metao; I'd never noticed that before. The indication is subtle, but we can see it here: "For example, in the case of a 6-3 roll, no moves of 3 are possible by any checker. However there are 2 moves of a 6, with checker A or checker B. If checker A is moved 6, the 3 still cannot be played. If checker B is moved 6, a 3 now may be played. The rules state that the player is forced into moving checker B 6 points, and then 3. In short, the rules compel a player to exhaust every option available to complete both die moves where possible."  The reference to "Checker A" and "Checker B" clearly imply a diagram, with two checkers labeled A and B.  I don't have either of the books referenced in this section, and there's no previews in Google Books, but my guess is that it comes from one of those.  I'm going to remove that paragraph, since it doesn't even make sense without the implied picture, and it's just an example. However, if anyone has those books, could you check the rest of the section to see if this is copied?   Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Excellent, for some reason I had thought the example/s were more pervasive than that. Thanks for the second opinion and fix! Metao (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

TricTrac?
This below doesn't sound like the same thing as Tric Trac:
 * Tric-trac is a French variant of Backgammon. There are two main forms of the game, le Grand Tric-trac and le Petit Tric-trac. In Tric-trac, the starting point is called a talon, the points, or flèches, are numbered to 12 on both sides of the board, with the 12th point on either side called the coin de repos, or, simply, coin. The 11th point (on either side) is often called la case d'écolier, or "schoolboy's point" (case literally meaning "box") after the tendency of inexperienced players to rush to this point too soon in the game. Statistically, the most difficult points in the game to reach aside from the coins are the 8th points, and they are named les flèches du diable ("the Devil's points") for this reason. The home boards are referred to as the jan de retour by either player. Doubles are treated as two identical numbers, unlike backgammon proper.

Snori (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not. Just two different games with similar names. &mdash;BurnDownBabylon 03:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Random chance removal
How can all traces of "random chance" be fairly removed from Infobox when there are dice-rolls? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I removed it because I thought that putting "Random Chance - Moderate" is a subjective and questionable assessment. We could put "Random Chance - dice rolls" but the info box already says that the game involves dice rolling. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I'd be in favour of having a simple "yes/no" response to the "Random chance" parameter - either it's a perfect abstract strategy game or it isn't - but I do think it belongs in the infobox; Backgammon does have an element of chance, albeit a lesser one than, say, Snakes and ladders. (I'm also not sure that "probability" counts as a "skill", as the infobox claims). Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 09:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, something along the lines of "Yes/Some/Variable" would be good. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

beaver missing
the beaver disambig page refers to this page but there is no mention of beaver at all. someone must have removed it at some point.

Wikikob 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I have just corrected this.

Beaver and raccoon are there but aardvark is still missing. It's a legal cube action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.131.7.216 (talk) 15:07, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Added cheating section; also, bots are over-rated in article
Cheating is a long-known risk in this game of chance which often involves money.

Also, many human players can rack up big points against even the best bots, due to bot incompetence in back games and other situations. You will often find 'high-rated' players using these bots to jack up the players' ratings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarksmom (talk • contribs) 12:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You'll need to provide reliable sources for the info you added. Simply asserting that something is a "long-known risk" is not enough. In any event, is Backgammon any different this way from any other game involving money? Qwyrxian (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

nothing 'point of view' about those cheating methods in backgammon. period. please stay in fields where you belong. also my statement you quoted is in the talk section, not the article. thank you. Clarksmom (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Qwyrxian didn't claim your edits violated WP:NPOV, he claimed they violated WP:V - which they do. Whilst your addition to the article is almost certainly correct, Wikipedia relies on sources for information, not personal knowledge. Cite a reliable source for the claim and it stays, simple as that. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

you want me to prove roses are red? please, no proof for the self-obvious. thank you. Clarksmom (talk) 15:17, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I thought they were blue? In any case, the fact that two people are reverting your edits suggests that the material is being challenged, hence, per WP:V, sources are required, not optional. Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 15:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Yunshui, why write so coyly? "The fact that two people are reverting your edits suggests that the material is being challenged." (Are you, or aren't you, challenging the material? If you are, why the word "suggests"? Please speak clearly.)
 * (Qwyrxian reverted, with edit summary "unsourced". But only material "likely to be challenged" needs to be sourced. And so far, NO ONE has stood up and stated they are challenging.) p.s. If you thought roses were blue, and red roses comes as news to you, that is such an extremely uncommon knowledge base you're accessing, I don't think WP has obligation to fix that problem. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * p.p.s. What you wrote above, "your addition to the article is almost certainly correct", does not sound to me at all like you are challenging the material. (So why try and put in Clarksmom's head, that you might be, or might have? Clarksmom's explanations and comments have been very straight forward. He deserves the same back.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hard to challenge when it uses weasel words like "may", isn't it? A game may be influenced by death beams from the mother ship, after all. If this material is so far beyond challenge, it can't be that hard to find a source for it, can it? I hereby challenge the assertions! Sheesh. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ian, you can take your sarcasm and stick it. Irresponsible chimers-in like you have turned me off to WP. For e.g., who said the material was "far beyond challenge"? Not me. And I didn't write the text, so I don't defend it. The arguments thrown Clarksmom were simply inadequate. Please deal with that and kindly get off my back with your "coy-schmoy-sheesh-weasel-beams-from-outer-space" crap. Nice to meet you by the way. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone can "chime in" - that's how WP works. You said the material had not been challenged. It has now. It needs a source. Responsible or otherwise. -- Ian Dalziel (talk) 22:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks tons for explaining "how WP works". I guess it means I have no right to be fed up with irresponsible chimers. Sure. Offering no basis whatever for your "challenge" (your simple "okay, here I am, I challenge") seriously docks any meaninfulness it might have. Saying something needs a source because it needs a source, makes no sense. (Qwyrxian got the idea, why couldn't you?) Please no more inane retorts. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarksmom, I'm "challenging" the material. I've played backgammon, for money, many times, and never been cheated. I've also played poker, bridge, and a number of other games, and never cheated or been cheated. At the same time, I know of all sorts of professional sports games in which players have cheated, and yet you won't any mention of cheating in, for example, baseball. You need a source, period, and it needs to be a good quality, and the sentence in the article needs to say no more or less than what the source says.
 * Second, your statement about backgammon fading in the 1980s is highly dubious. First of all, I'm guessing you mean in either the US or the UK. But why the 1980s? I'd guess it started earlier; furthermore, I'd bet that it's decline was not unique to backgammon, but related to the general decline in board gaming tied with the rise in other easily accessible home entertainment like television and later video games, videos, dvds, etc. And if we consider a worldwide perspective, is there any evidence that backgammon has declined in countries like Turkey, where I've heard it's still quite popular?  Now, I could be entirely wrong, and you could be right, but the way we settle such disputes on Wikipedia is with reliable sources. Feel free to find some and re-add the material. Until then, the info must stay out, and you have to stop edit warring to try to get it in. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Found some sources, put the section back in (reworded to reflect source content). Yunshui 雲&zwj;水 08:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

interesting section on cheating. however, dice cups and boxes do not prevent "loaded" dice, which are weighted or shaped to fall more often on certain numbers. obviously they would not affect magnetic dice either.
 * the cheating section isn't accurate about the use of precision dice. The ambition is for fairer dice so in a way an anti cheating. But a prcision dice is one where all of the sides are smooth so that there are no indentations. This has two effects: 1) the dice roll more consistantly, 2) that it becomes more difficult to feel the spots of the dice. The latter is a method by cupping a finger around a die so that only one of the dice is being shaken and then rolling the dice.
 * so no precision die by definition can be loaded, which would still be needed for a magnetic dice. But it could be a loaded dice. But loaded dice are of limited value and easily detected.Tetron76 (talk) 00:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

midpoint spelling
According to Backgammon for winners Bill Robertie, Gambling Research Institute, page 29 "Play from your 24-point to your midpoint...your midpoint(the 13-point)." If for some reason that midpoint is not considered the appropriate spelling for backgammon then mark the text as mid point or else the spelling will be detected by AutoWikiBrowser as a typo. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

deleted cheating section due to grossly mistaken
precision dice can be loaded. loaded dice are not the most common form of cheating. dice cups and boxes do not affect loaded dice which will still fall more on their designed numbers due to false shaping and weighting. today's bots are not capable of good enough play such that their use by others will be detected. dice can be thrown to produce some numbers more often, even when the dice are not loaded.

whoever wrote the section had some authority, but obviously zero knowledge of dice control. i suspect backgammon players here are trying to make the public think that cheating is not a real factor, when it absolutely is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.122.94 (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The section, however, was sourced, and WP always goes with what sources say, not just editor's opinions. If you have alternative sources that refute those claims, we can consider rephrasing or adding 2 different perspectives, but we can't just remove it based on your say-so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (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)

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 Wikipedia, 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. — Llywelyn II   07:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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)

Archives
/Archive 1

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

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

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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 WP: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)

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)

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)

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)

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


 * Checkers is purely an American term. It should certainly be changed to a non-regional term; I've seen men, pieces, stones or counters used. Bermicourt (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

First two images contradict...
I feel it's worth pointing out that the first two images in the body of the article (not the title picture) contradict each other, as both claim to show the board in the starting position, but they have the black and white/red inverted. Someone looking up this article to learn the starting position would find this highly frustrating and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.85.200 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not a backgammon expert, but I don't think the colours of the points matter. Even if you turn the boards around, you end up with the same colour sequence, so it's the boards that are different not the layout. Bermicourt (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I was confused because the pieces are white/black and black/red (not red/black!). Why do the red pieces replace the black instead of white? Then the locations of the black pieces would be consistent between images. LegendofPedro (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree it would be helpful if the same colours and orientation were used, not just in this article, but throughout all the tables games on Wikipedia. I will look at how feasible that is in the New Year. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2021 (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?


 * No, "tables" is a generic term like "cards". So Backgammon is a tables game and a relatively recent one at that. But there are numerous others. Bermicourt (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2022 (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)


 * The term is usually "tables game" since the board has four tables. However, some authors confusingly call them "table games" which, however, seems to refer to a class of casino game. Best to stick to "tables game" to lessen the confusion. Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Rise of Backgammon section
This section incorrectly conflates the rise of the name backgammon with the rise of the modern 2-5-3-5 setup gameplay. These are two very different topics; the latter is the relevant one.

Fiske (p.173) writes "The change of name was not unlikely owing to the predominating popularity of a single variety of the game styled backgammon (or, on the continent, trictrac) aided by the fact that "tables" began to be regarded as a generic term for all diversions whose movements were carried on upon a flat surface, or table, and was no longer suitable for a special "table-game."

Trictrac of course is a very different setup. And nowhere does Fiske state here that the "single variety of the game styled backgammon" he is referring to means 2-5-3-5; with his comparison to all "flat surface" games, he seems to be only making the point about the 24-long-triangle board.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:44, 1 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I recently recast this section in order to make it as clear as possible when and how Backgammon arose. Having researched this, I don't think the two topics are as far apart as you suggest, provided we note that some historians have tried to 'jam' the backgammon label or rules of play onto older games with disregard to the evidence. In theological circles this is known as eisegesis i.e. reading what we want to see into the text from our context, instead of doing what we're supposed to, exegesis, i.e. reading from the text what it is telling us in its context. In simple terms, tables games probably started with all pieces off the board or piled up on the start line. Then as players realised that their deployment was time consuming and the fun was to be had in the later stages of the game, they designed starting layouts to simulate a position later in the game.
 * Around the time of the game of Irish, players started to refer to different tactics in the game as the "fore game" and "latter game", "after game" or "back game". Because Backgammon introduced a starting position that was effectively later on in the game than earlier tables games (as well as other changes to speed up the game - a typical gambling approach), the emphasis on the "back game" was greater which is thought by some to be the origin of the name Backgammon.
 * Either way, the evidence of a backgammon layout much earlier than backgammon's appearance as a souped-up variant of Irish, played faster and for higher stakes, is scanty.
 * Fiske, of course, writing in 1906, did not have access to some of the sources we now have and his book is really a collection of notes written at different times and not in a logical order; he thus repeats and occasionally contradicts himself. He did recognise the confusion around naming but does cite Wright (1862) who says, from the observation of pictures of mediaeval tables boards "it is hardly necessary to point out to our readers that these two pictures of the boards show us clearly that the mediaeval game of tables was identical with our modern backgammon, or rather we should perhaps say, that the game of backgammon, as now played, is one of the games played on tables.” Wright highlights both the myth and the truth: the myth that there was a specific game called "tables" which was identical with modern backgammon, and the truth that backgammon is just one, albeit a highly notable one, of a large group of games played on a tables board.
 * The history of backgammon is quite well documented and I have included all the earliest sources as well as the key changes along the way since. However, I am not precious about this; if we can find RS that chart the appearance and progress of games with backgammon rules earlier than the appearance of the name, then that would a useful addition. But I suggest we discuss that here first. Bermicourt (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Bermicourt, thanks for another thoughtful post. I think we will bottom this out soon.
 * The "back game" / "front game" distinction is powerful and we should explain it in the lede. Do we really have the evidence of when such a distinction was first used in the game (rather than first recorded)? One of the challenges here is that the printing press came to the Middle East about 400 years after Western Europe, giving European recorded history a significant advantage.
 * Murray (who I have sourced, linked and quoted in the lede) describes Irish in 6.2.11; there he very clearly explains the layout as being the 2-5-3-5 setup - it is very much a "back game" to use your earlier parlance. He wrote in 6.2.12 that the only differences between Irish and modern backgammon were that throwing a double gives 4x and the scoring of wins is different. Again, nothing about back game / front game.
 * He also says that the 2-5-3-5 set up is the same arrangement "in most of the Asiatic games", which means the Middle Eastern games were a form of the "back game" too.
 * Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Murray does not give the full picture. For a start, scholars have failed to agree on the layout in Todas Tablas. Alfonso's diagram shows a player's pieces starting on the far side of the board - it's a 2-5-3-5 layout but not the modern backgammon (MB) one; meanwhile the text seems to describe a different layout onto which some scholars have claimed is MB, others that it's the same as the diagram and still others have suggested a different scheme. Murray also fails to acknowledge that Cotton describes 2 layouts for Irish: one is the TT diagram; the other is MB. He then goes on to say that the layout for Backgammon is the same as that for Irish, but whether he means Backgammon also has 2 variant layouts or just one is unclear. So equating TT and MB with one another and a host of unspecified "Asiatic games" is problematic, especially as Murray doesn't give us a great deal of information on Asian games. What we need to do is track down these games and check the rules. Bermicourt (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2022 (UTC)


 * To my mind, probability would suggest that 2-5-3-5 in exactly those positions and with opposite symmetry is too much of a coincidence, and that the Alfonso diagram was simply colored incorrectly. The work was primarily a translation of a prior Arabic manuscript, and mistakes may be more common in translations given that the translator is less of an expert than the original authors.
 * Do you have the original Latin transcription of the text? I struggle to read the calligraphy.
 * I agree that for a game to be “backgammon” it must have the 2-5-3-5 arrangement with the familiar color arrangement. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the conclusion several scholars jump to: it must be backgammon, so therefore the diagram is wrong. However, that is simply eisegesis. The text is less than clear, but it doesn't support a MB layout without doing hermeneutical handsprings. And surely in an expensive work commissioned for the king, either he or his gamesmaster would have spotted an obviously incorrect painting especially if the game was as popular and widespread as alleged? Anyway, the truth is that there is no consensus among scholars, the latest research by Spanish historians (Macho et al.) concluding that the text cannot support a MB layout, but doesn't tally with the image either and they come up with another thesis. So there are 3 positions.
 * It is interesting that the layout of the painting is exactly the same as that of the Italian game of Totis Tabulis (=Todas Tablas) as described by Cardano and appears to match one of the Irish layouts mentioned by Cotton. So there is a double coincidence pointing in another direction.
 * Alfonso's text can be found online together with various English translations e.g. by Sonja Musser or Jeffrey Singman. Bermicourt (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Needs some further thought... In the meantime I have put the translation here on the right. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2022 (UTC)