Talk:Daldøs

Request for related articles
Having written this article, I think we need articles on tâb and sáhkku. I may write them myself, based on the material in the two articles by Peter Michaelsen cited in Daldøs. But if you can write something on these games, please go ahead!

The Daldøs article lacks some illustrations; I am working on that - perhaps obtaining permission to use some photographs from Peter's articles.--Niels Ø 22:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Update: I wrote the tâb and sáhkku pages a while ago; esp. the sáhkku one is still in need of serious attention.--Noe (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The sáhkku article now has serious attention. An article for Ad elta stelpur still does not exist, though. Misha bb (talk) 12:10, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Relatives
Is Tâb related to the tables family of board games? Percy Snoodle 08:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly, I don't know, but I am going to find out (I need to consult a certain book). If it's the same, I'll of course change tâb into tables; otherwise I'll write a stub about Tâb.--Niels Ø 18:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Tâb and related games (e.g. Tablan, Deleb, and many with "Sig" in the name) are members of a group often called "running-fight games" in English (a term coined, I believe, by R. C. Bell). These and Tables (e.g. Backgammon) are distinct families. The salient difference is that in the Tables family the object is to get your pieces to the finish line first (race), whereas in running-fight games the object is to capture your opponent's pieces (war). Thus running-fight games are war games that for the most part play like race games. So Daldøs and Tâb are not part of the Tables family.--Phil wink 22:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
Can someone help me fix the notation for the pronunciation of "daldøs"? The letters have their usual Danish values, including the "ø". The second syllable is stressed, and probably with stød. I've tried linking the "ø" to Ø, but Wikipedia underlines the following "s" too, believing it to be a plural "s" or something.


 * It's probably best to use IPA and give the International Phonetic Alphabet pronunciation instead. Percy Snoodle 15:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sure you are right, but I'm not competent to do that myself. Any Dane who knows IPA out there?--Niels Ø 16:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Category?
Does this belong to category:Abstract strategy games? If so, so should backgammon (more complicated) and ludo (perhaps slightly less complicated, at least with only two players). Any opinions?--Niels Ø 06:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)


 * After a very brief look, it seems to me that Wikipedia is not currently structured to categorize traditional board games well, for which I believe there is a general concensus in the scholarly community. category:Abstract strategy games states that games with chance elements are excluded; this eliminates Backgammon, Daldøs, etc. But race games (no relation to racing game -- the sugggestion at the beginning of that article is entirely gratuitous), war games (no relation to wargaming), and a few other types, are often thought of as forming a broad category that nevertheless does not include Pictionary, Dungeons & Dragons, etc. A generally accepted taxonomy of Daldøs would be (abstract?) board games > war games > running-fight games. But obviously this is premature... witness my Running-fight entry, which references race games and war games, which, embarrassingly, have no wiki entries corresponding to my use of the terms. Hopefully some better taxonomy can be implemented. I'll try to poke around to see how deep this rabbit-hole goes.--Phil wink 23:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Probabilities
For the record, here's a more complete table of the percentage probabilities in the article:

Dist		Add		Split		Extra		Prob		Two 1		0		43.75%		0		43.75%		75% 2		6.25%		43.75%		0		50%		68.75% 3		12.5%		43.75%		3.75%		60%		67.1875% 4		18.75%		43.75%		4.1666667%	66.6666667%	66.6666667% 5		25%		0		4.1666667%	29.1666667%	29.1666667% 6		18.75%		0		4.1666667%	22.9166667%	22.9166667% 7		12.5%		0		1.8229167%	14.3229167%	14.3229167% 8		06.25%		0		1.4322917%	7.6822917%	7.6822917% 9		0		0		0.8951823%	0.8951823%	0.8951823% 10		0		0		0.0559489%	0.0559489%	0.0559489%

Same, as fractions:

Dist		Add		Split		Extra		Prob		Two 1       	0        	   7/16 	0        	   7/16 	   3/4   2        	   1/16 	   7/16 	0        	   1/2  	  11/16  3        	   1/8  	   7/16 	   3/80 	   3/5  	  43/64  4        	   3/16 	   7/16 	   1/24 	   2/3  	   2/3   5        	   1/4  	0        	   1/24 	   7/24 	   7/24  6        	   3/16 	0        	   1/24 	  11/48 	  11/48  7        	   1/8  	0        	   7/384	  55/384	  55/384 8        	   1/16 	0        	  11/768	  59/768	  59/768 9        	0        	0        	   7/782	   7/782	   7/782 10        	0        	0        	  55/98304	  55/98304	  55/98304

"Dist" is the distance, "add" is the probability of knocking a1 off the board by adding the two dice, "split" by using only one of the dice on b1, "extra" by throwing dal-dal and using the extra throw to knock a1 off the board (including the possibility of throwing more dal-dals), "prob" is the sum of "add", "split" and "extra", and "two" is the larger probability if there is another piece b2 involved. One of several possibilities not included in the table is that b2 is e.g. 5 positions behind a1, while b1 is 3 positions behind. A throw of dal-dal should then be used to move each piece one position, leading to a situation with a 68.75% chance.--Niels Ø 10:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Dado?
As indicated by Dado, Dado and Dado, "dice" are called "dados" in Roman languages. Could this somehow have influenced the name of this game, I wonder? I guess it's related to medieval English "daly" ("die"), mentioned in the article.--Niels Ø (noe) 20:47, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding dice values
The article states that when 2 dice are added together to move one man "only an enemy piece at the final position can be removed." I read only English, so my source is Board Games Studies vol. 4 (2001), where Østergaard & Gaston say "When only one man is moved, the results on the dice must be used separately (as in backgammon)." Any idea whether these are variants, or if there is a misunderstanding somewhere?--Phil wink 23:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Interpretation of rules

 * 1) I wrote in the article that if one cannot use both dice in a turn, one must use one (if that's possible). I think this is really my own interpretaton; my source just said you had to use your dice throw if you could.
 * 2) Also, I wrote that a dal-dal gives the right to an extra throw - but is it also an obligation to do so? particularly in the end game, you may in some cases want your pieces to move as little as possible!

What do other sources say on these two issues? If they are silent, should the article refrain from precision here for lack of sources (as I did in case 2), should we make a plausible choice (as I did in case 1), or should we state clearly that the primary sources are slightly unclear about these rules?--Niels Ø (noe) 09:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Re #1 The only clue I see in my sources is the sentence I quoted above in "Adding dice values". It is unclear how much to read into "(as in backgammon)". A strong reading would demand using 1 die if both were not possible. A weak reading wouldn't tell you anything, since in context it's really talking about 1 piece making 2 independently valid moves, rather than 1 summed move.


 * RE #2 The best I see is: "If the result is two ' dal's ', called ' dal dal ', the player has an extra throw." This implies to me (thought it is not overly explicit) that the extra throw is automatic rather than optional. The source for both quotes is:


 * Østergaard, Eric, and Anne Gaston. "Daldøs -- the rules" in Board Games Studies no. 4. Leiden: CNWS Publications, 2001.
 * These are the clearest indications I'm seeing right now.--Phil wink 22:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From my primary source (in Danish, with my translations:)
 * Slås to daller samtidig, har man ret til et ekstrakast.
 * If two dals are thrown simultaneously, one has the right to an extra throw.
 * Falder et kast på II og III, kan man efter behag vælge at flytte én pind 5 pladser frem eller to pinde henholdsvis 2 og 3 pladser. I sidste tilfælde har man mulighed for at slå to fjendtlige pinde, i første kun én.
 * If II and III are thrown, one can choose either to move one pin 5 places forward or two pieces 2 and 3 places respectively. In the latter case, one can possibly beat two enemy pins, in the first case only one.
 * The source is Peter Michaelsen: Daldøs og Sakku – to gamle nordiske spil med fjerne slægtninge, Ord & Sag 19, 1999, pp. 15-28 http://www.hum.au.dk/jysk/publikationer/ordsag19.pdf. However, my quotes appear as quotes in Michaelsen's article too, from game rules constructed by Svend Sørensen, Thisted Museum, in 1973, enclosed with a game reconstruction sold by Danish popular arcaeological journal Skalk. These rules were based on a much older article: H. Billeskov Jansen: Daldøs, Danske Studier, Copenhagen 1927, pp. 96-100.
 * Another source is Erik Østergaard & Anne Gaston: Spillereglerne for Daldøs, http://arkiv.thisted-bibliotek.dk/Historisk Årbog/Årgang 2001/Michaelsen, Peter  Daldøs - et gådefuldt gammelt brætspil.pdf, based on the same article by Billeskov Jansen. Quotes and translations:
 * Et kast kan bruges til at flytte enten en eller to brikker; men der skal rykkes efter terningernes resultater hver for sig lige som i Backgammon. Slår man f.eks. en 3’er og en 2’er, rykker man først efter 2’eren og så efter 3’eren eller omvendt.
 * A throw can be used to move either one or two pieces, but moves must be made according to the dice results separately as in Backgammon. If you e.g. throw a 3 and a 2, you move first according to the 2 and then according to the 3, or vice versa.
 * So here we quite clearly have the opposite rule - but again the primary source given is Billeskov Jansen. Hence, someone knowing Danish (like me) clearly should get hold of his 1927 article... I just don't have time for that these weeks, but may possibly get around to do it later.
 * - Apparently, Billeskov Jansen does not specify which way the traffic goes in row C (and consequently in the other rows too), so some sources based on Billeskov Jansen have guessed that it's opposite of what I state in our wikipedia article. Today, there seems to be concensus on the direction I state, which comes from the living Daldøsa tradition in Norway (Ola Barkved: Eit gammalt morospel, Frå by og bygd i Rogaland, Bryne 1968, pp. 108-110).
 * Of the various sources referenced above, I have only consulted Peter Michaelsen 1999 and Østergaard & Gaston 2001.--Niels Ø (noe) 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Dayakattai
Dayakattai is an Indian dice game similar to parcheesi or ludo. A pair of dice shaped like long cuboids with 1, 2, 3 and 0 pips are used. A thrrow of 0 on one die, 1 on the other, called Daayam, is required to release a piece from home and move it one space (and gives an extra roll). According to the wikipedia article, "In the famous Indian epic, the Mahābhārata, the Kauravas invited the Pandavas to gamble for their kingdom over this game". And more importantly: "This die also goes by other names such as Daayam and Daala". I'm just wondering - is there a connection to the word "Dal" here?--Nø (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * "Dado" means "die" in Italian, Portuguese, and Spanish. Presumably these languages do not produce a lot of Danish words, but "dado" derives from Arabic... and so, according to Thierry Depaulis, does the game Daldøs! Then why not the game's name? But this is definitely WP:OR and I'm not a linguist. Phil wink (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

boardgamestudies.info gone...
The links to boardgamestudies.info are dead, but the references are of course still valid if one can locate the paper journal. For one of the papers cited, I've found this scanned online version: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/view/18385619/dalds-an-almost-forgotten-dice-board-board-game-studies I'm not sure how best to update these references in the article - can anyone help here?--Nø (talk) 10:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * But... whereas the previous links were for the precise article, these are each for the (same) entire issue (to my knowledge there are no longer article-specific links for back-issues of BGS). Thus, ideally, the issue not the article would be the point where the link occurs in the citation... but I did not see how to do this in this template. Phil wink (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Phil; nice! Perhaps you can find a good solutiuon to the lack of references for four-sided dice in the article Dice, too? (I think referencing the Næsheim article right after the link to Daldøs, and moving the "citation needed" tag to right after the Daykattai link would do.)--Nø (talk) 18:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ Phil wink (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2015 (UTC)