Talk:Snakes and ladders/Archive 1

Unclassified
The article explains the rules using a 10x10 grid, but the example image has a 8x8 board. This is confusing and should be edited, probably with a note that there is also no standard arrangement for the game board size. Rob 
 * Done as requested. Mandel 11:04, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Is it ever advantageous not to climb a ladder when you have the opportunity to do so? If so, there is a small skill component. --Jesse Ruderman
 * In principle it certainly could be, depending on the board layout. However, I always assumed that use of the ladders was obligatory.  —Blotwell 06:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Rule clarification, what happens when one player land upon the square of another player? - Tim

Arthurvasey (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people just knock that player off the board and they have to start again - a bit cruel if they are on square 99 out of 100 - normally, I just allow as many players to occupy that square as you want - can get a bit crowded if there are about 20 players!

Normally, a snakes and ladders set comes with four pieces - usually coloured red, yellow, green and blue - but, if you want to play with loads of players, you can get hold of things like coins (small enough to fit on the board - preferably different denominations) or pieces from a chess set or something.

The Original game, by the name of Snakes and Ladders, was deemed immoral and satanic by puritanical Americans. Therefore, the name was changed to Chutes and Ladders for release in the United States by Milton Bradley.

In answer to Tim's question, I think nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.232.128 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

For the love of goodness; thusly isn't a word! 169.237.39.10 (talk) 04:38, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Interesting! (And agreed, an awful word. "Thus" ain't so bad, though.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

What historians?

 * The Western form of this game was invented in Chrisilorian England, possibly by John Jaques of Jaques of London [1], and apparently adapted from the ancient Indian game "dasapada", dating back to the 2nd century B.C. It should be noted that some game historians dispute this claim.

What is the claim in dispute? Because I think all historians agree snakes and ladders is an adaptation of dasapada.

--83.34.178.181 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oca game
It seems to be a variant of the oca game

Original name
The original name (setting the Indian origins aside) is Snakes and Ladders, and not Chutes and Ladders.

Early 1800's John Jaques II invented [...] Snakes and Ladders

MILTON BRADLEY produces, sells and markets [...] CHUTES AND LADDERS (1943)

89.1.194.32 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gyan Chaupar / Jnana Bagi
Image L0035004 at http://images.wellcome.ac.uk/ of an old Indian snakes and ladders board carries this caption:

Game of Heaven and Hell (Jnana Bagi). This old Indian game, known to us as 'Snakes and Ladders', was originally a vehicle for teaching ethics. Each square has not only a number but a legend which comprises the names of various virtues and vices. The longest ladder reaches from square 17 'Compassionate Love' to 69 'The World of the Absolute'

I haven't edited the page as I don't have time right now to check this out properly, but this is information that looks like it should be included. I don't know how jnana bagi is connected to dasapada - is jnana bagi derived from dasapada or is the info currently on the page about dasapada in error? Slightly more searching suggests that a more common name than Jnana Bagi is Gyan Chaupar.

129.94.6.28 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture reference?
Should we mention that the villain in "Lair of the White Worm" (1988), Sylvia Marsh, played Snakes and Ladders? --98.198.12.5 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. That's beyond trivial. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific Editions
The Stokes "Shot Glass" edition seems perfectly valid to me. It's more unique (notable) than most of the other versions listed. Either the whole section should be deleted, or new additions should be left alone as long as they don't violate Wiki content policies. smnc (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's not notable, it's just bizarre trivia and does violate policies by giving it encyclopedic attention it doesn't deserve, probably as outright spam. The idea the whole section should be deleted because you don't get your way is especially bizarre. It's like throwing a tantrum and demanding that something tht's not equal be treated as equal. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * With respect I disagree. I'm not "throwing a tantrum" and I find your insult inappropriate and inflammatory. I'm making a perfectly valid point, and if you want to refute it, please use facts, not insults.
 * There are many different editions of the game mentioned section in question, made by several different companies, and the differences of the various editions are discussed, allowing the reader to learn about the wide variety of different editions that are, or have been, available.
 * I would submit that most of the editions mentioned are fairly similar, other that having different graphics and manufacturers and that the "Shot Glass" edition is unique among the other editions, which I believe makes it notable. Please explain what makes it "bizarre trivia" and "spam", but makes the South African or U.K. editions "encyclopedic". I for one, cannot discern a significant difference between one and the other. By extension, I can't help but come to the conclusion that if the "Shot Glass" edition should be removed, than the rest of the section (except possibly the Milton Bradly section) should be removed as well. I'm not trying to have the other contributions removed. I'm just suggesting that the other contributions are not more significant than the "Shot Glass" edition.
 * I realize that I am fairly inexperienced by Wikipedia standards, so if I am in error, please discuss it in a factual manner so that I may learn. smnc (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying the whole section needs to be deleted if one thing doesn't get to be in it is tantrum-like behavior, and the "left alone" comment seems to suggest peevishness at the concept that other people would be allowed to edit your work as well. If you can't see the difference between a minor marketing strategy by some unknown company and all other versions of the game, then you really just aren't going to get it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You're suggesting that a game released by a major Canadian retailer is a minor marketing strategy unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but that "During the early 1990s in South Africa, Chutes and Ladders games made from cardboard were distributed on the back of egg boxes as part of a promotion" is of significant importance? That particular part of the article SPECIFICALLY mentions that it's part of a marketing strategy. And there's NO WAY you can tell me that the Dora and Spongebob versions mentioned are anything but a "marketing strategy" by Hasbro.
 * I've personally never heard of "Spear's Games". Does that make the British manufacturer an "unknown company"?
 * You've stilled failed to tell me what makes the Stokes edition "advertising" and the other companies mentioned worthy of inclusion.
 * Perhaps my language in my original post wasn't phrased in the best way, but I would suggest that you did nothing to help the situation, and only attempted to antagonize me further. And yes, I was peeved that my contribution was deleted with almost no explanation, and almost no thought. I don't believe that you are viewing this section objectively and evaluating all entries with the same critical eye. If you can't provide me with a better explanation than "you really just aren't going to get it", then I think maybe we need to involve someone else who CAN explain it to me. smnc (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics
I found this in the Mathematics section. It appeared to be intended for the talk page. "It only takes five rolls. Below is incorrect. Kendra and Tim" I thought I'd move it over here to be sorted out. Ingridjames (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The "below" item was probably the line "The game can be won in as few as 6 rolls", which was tagged for citation. But in fact the minimum (for the Milton Bradley edition) is seven rolls. I removed the line instead of fixing it, since my calculation is original research. Joule36e5 (talk) 09:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

History of the Rules
Apart from board configurations (which would also be interesting to see a history of), has there been any change of the rules since the original Indian versions of the game? 63.87.189.17 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I've played "up the snakes and down the ladders" - one board I have played on had a ladder between 80 and 100 - just ignored that one, otherwise the game would never end!

I once played a version using a giant-sized board (somebody actually drew it) - using people as "counters" - between us, myself and some others devised an interesting variant, bringing a quiz element to the game.

You play the game in the normal way - except that you really need teams - one to be the "counter", one to roll the die and the others to ... details to follow.

When the counter lands at the bottom of the ladder, that team has to answer a question. Anybody on that team can answer. If they get it right, the counter ascends the ladder - get it wrong, and s/he stays put and it continues as if the ladder is not there.

As for the snake, to determine whether or not they descend the snake, again, a question is asked - get it right, they are immune from descending that snake - get it wrong, down that snake you go. Otherwise, the game is played in the regular way.

Arthurvasey (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Snakes and Ladders
Surely this article should reflect this capitalisation. Looking at other titles of games in this category that would seem to be the case. The article is not about a collection of snakes and some ladders. MrMarmite (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What "other titles of games" are you talking about? It seems to me most games with multi-word names are proprietary, and so have capitalised names.  This on the other hand is a traditional game, the standard English name of which is "snakes and ladders".  A quick OneLook search supports this view. — Smjg (talk) 15:13, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Rule question, mathematics section
The mathematics section claims that the odds of moving from one square to another is independent of the game history. Unfortunately, that is not true if three sixes in a row causes you to go back to square 1. I am raising the question here because I am certain what should be changed. Either we should note that the cited article analyses an unusual variant of the game, or we should change the description of the rules to clarify that it is not always played with the rule about sixes, or we should correct the description of why one can analyse the game as a Markov chain. It is obvious that one can model it as an absorbing Markov chain anyway, by including the number of sixes rolled previously in the definition of position. MathHisSci (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Seven years late, but here's another journal paper looking at the Markov chain aspect. JezGrove (talk) 23:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"Back to square one" and snakes and ladders
At present the page cites "the phrase finder" website as a source for the assertion that the phrase "back to square one" is thought to come from this game, and that the earliest recorded use of the phrase "back to square one" is 1952 (in an article in the Economics Journal directly referencing snakes and ladders). Looking on Google Books now, I find several earlier uses of the phrase, and uses that do not make any explicit mention of the game snakes and ladders. (Admittedly, some of Google Books's dating of sources is buggy --- so not all of the matches it turns up for pre-1952 uses of the phrase are actually from before 1952. But there seem to be at least a few sources that unquestionably do predate 1952 and contain the phrase with its current meaning.)

The author of the "phrase finder" webpage was presumably writing at a time when Google Books's scanned archive was less comprehensive (they even write: "1952 is surprisingly late as the earliest printing for a phrase that was certainly in the spoken language much earlier than that . . . perhaps a printed source from before 1952 will yield the truth?"). Perhaps the connection between "back to square one" and snakes and ladders should be more explicitly labeled as speculative, or as a form of folk etymology, and not historical fact. In any case, the webpage should probably not be cited any longer for the statement that the phrase began its life in print in 1952. 128.103.7.181 (talk) 00:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Snakes and Ladders. 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/20080220175521/http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/VirtualExhibits/Whitehill/snakes/index.html to http://www.gamesmuseum.uwaterloo.ca/VirtualExhibits/Whitehill/snakes/index.html

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) 04:03, 30 December 2017 (UTC)