Why can't there be more uniformity in how the game should be played? 1 pair of dice or 2 pair? Cups only or baffle box only or both in same match? Drop dice into box with cup or hand or both in same match? Clock or no clock? Do you really think that shuffling of checkers is good for the game?

I'm a very visual player and think that growing the game is so important. I think it doesn't look good when "we", the backgammon community, are "all over the place" on rules and what is allowed.

Personally, I think the future is clock play, 1 pair of dice with a box (no cups). And I think it looks sooo bad to see players shuffling checkers (even when done properly). But I think I'm alone on this.

It's just that so many variations of play are allowed and I think the game should be more uniform. I just think our super stars and leaders should be more vocal and push for uniformity. Your thoughts please.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I completely agree. Backgammon rules differed from club to club in the 1960s and 1970s, but by 1980 they had stabilized and remained stable until quite recently, with some minor exceptions for play with clocks (which were introduced in high-level events in the late 1980s.)

Recently, however, all sorts of rule variations have been introduced. In the last few months I've been to a couple of tournaments that began with the director announcing what rules were and were not in effect -- something I never thought I'd see again.

The motivation between these various rule changes seems to be twofold: to cut down on cheating (even though there hasn't been a verified cheating incident in years) and to bring more new players to the game (even though nothing turns off a new player faster than arriving at a tournament and discovering that the rules they learned to play by aren't in effect.)

I sincerely hope that the powers that be can realize that the advantage of having a set of rules that remains consistent from year to year far outweighs any advantages from these new 'improvements'.

Do you think shuffling of checkers is merited? I just don't think it looks good when players are indecisive about a play. Even if you aren't sure, don't allow opponent or anyone else to know this. Think about it for a minute or two if you must, but then move decisively. Visualize where the checkers would be. Especially when our best, our heroes, are shuffling checkers ... ugh! I got some direct feedback on this once from one of our top 20 players (defending shuffling) once and he said, "We'd rather get it right than look confident."

I just think when topics like this are considered and discussed that players are being selfish and only looking at the topic in the moment and how change would effect THEM. And not looking at it in the big picture and what is good for the game, the future, and just "growing the game".



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BG is a mental sport, and you shouldn't be allowed to move pieces to see how the position would look. You should do this in your head. This is what a mental sport is about. Can't imagine chess players shuffling pieces on the board.

I think players shuffle just because it's not forbidden. Because yes, it's a great help. Just like a sheet of paper and a pencil would be to make calculations of an important cube decision. Most players (and certainly the giants) could do without it just as well.

I sooo agree. Why don't more players think this is important? Not shuffling checkers would:
1. Make the game appear more professional (visually).
2. Speed up the game (most likely). It may, in the future, even impact how the clock is set. I'm thinking the bank time could/should come down; Or, maybe, the delay time could marginally increase (?).
3. Help to prevent errors in checker play (minimize illegal plays).
4. It would probably increase the error rate but for EVERYONE so our best would still be our best.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The argument for shuffling has already been discussed by Taper_Mike at point 1 of his post in the thread New Rule Suggestions by GrantHoffman.(why is link not working?):
Shuffling — I like the current rules. Unlike, say, chess, in backgammon you are always moving at least two pieces on each turn. Every sixth turn, on average, you must move four pieces. Sometimes, visualizing the result of a move is harder than it is in chess. Yogiman made this point in his post.

Another factor is the clock. When one is used, the delay time—at least in the USA—is typically only 12 seconds. That means you have to touch something pretty quickly. Being allowed to try out a move can actually speed play. Compare that to chess, where you might be given 90 minutes of clock time to play your first 40 moves in a game. In chess, you have more time to visualize a move.

Finally, there are times—especially when you roll doublets—when it will help you to make part of your play, and then take a look at the resulting position to decide on the other part.


My name was mentioned. Well, at the moment I am reading the wonderful chess books of Bill Robertie (happy birthday by the way), and am better equipped to say something sensible. In chess it is not feasible because, apart from the fact that there are many more non-trivial moves (deeper levels), you also have to shuffle the pieces of the opponent.

I think the backgammon community should still be open to evolution in the game rules, as the win ratios of good vs worse players is not satisfactory in my opinion. Uniformity at present would stifle any welcome renewal.

I think that win ratio is what keeps the dream alive for players like me Yogi. If it was more absolute it would make it far less appealing.

Can you tell me in which other strategic games anyone can play anyone? Chess has objective measures, and one of the skills in poker is to find the right table.

The present win ratio is particularly a boon for beginning players, and also you will rise above this stage. Though the better players talk about grinding as refers to the gradual profit increase, this is only in the case of a significant skill gap. It means getting a small advantage from the wishful thinking and presumption of the inferior player. Though he deserves to be humbled, it does not seem to me very rewarding.

Backgammon is a very interesting game as it is, but I think that some experimentation wouldn't do harm.

I recently attended my first American Backgammon event -- the Chicago open. It was great.

It was a clock's preferred event so if one of you wanted a clock then you used a clock then you used a clock. This was the first time I had played in a tournament with clocks and I was a little nervous but in every match I ended up with more time than my opponent. So I think that clocks preferred is a great way to introduce clocks but the ultimate goal is clocks mandatory.

In New Zealand (without clocks) we use the 2 dice rule. We anticipated that players would resist this when Tony and I introduced it, but everyone liked it right from the start.

As for shuffling checkers, we made the rule that when you shuffle checkers you cannot touch the checkers on the point you are moving to so it is clear which checkers you have moved. I would like to introduce the rule that as soon as your checkers touch the checkers on the then that part of your move is made. This is a compromise that will work for a few years but the goal is touch a checker move a checker.

As for Baffle boxes, again start with them preferred but the ultimate goal is mandatory.

I have stepped down from running tournaments and although my successor has kept the 2 dice rule, he does not believe that clocks or baffle boxes should be preferred. As the TD that is his call, I have made my opinion known and would encourage players to make their opinions know to the TD's and to the USBGF or their local federation.

As for cheating, I have seen cheating at tournaments over the years. I am a former magician. The best way to spot cheating is to know what you are looking for. I would encourage players to buy "The Amazing Book of Backgammon" by Jon Tremaine. He is a professional Magician and this book has an excellent section on common cheating practises. You can get it on abe books for around $10 USD. Essentially use lipped cups (if you are using cups) and smaller dice as they are harder to manipulate. The 2 dice rule makes it hard for dice replacement to occur.

Most of the cheating I have seen has been to do with shuffling, and then going back to a position that was not the original. Then the player makes a play that is better for them but not possible from the original position. Hard to prove and easy to claim as an accident if challenged. Another reason to stop shuffling.

In important matches I would also use monitors who are able to point out illegal moves. In the final of the World champs between 2 South America players, one of the players made an illegal move that was not spotted. Was it deliberate? It was reported at the time that he did not like to have his matches videoed. Use monitors and make it a condition of entry that your matches can be videoed and by entering you are agreeing to this.

Never heard of baffle boxes. Simborg will not like what I say, but this is definitely not chique. I think a lot of us prefer to preserve the traditional backgammon atmosphere without "horizon pollution". Or the money stakes must be high, only in that case. As for tournaments, I suppose that in finals and halve finals there are onlookers watching. Better idea is to set up a black list for notorious offenders.

Devising an elegant structure to put your phone on?