Though Bobby Fischer (70s) and Jose Capablanca (20s) are generally considered to belong to the very best chess players of all time, both of them called publicly for a change of rules (while holding the world title!). Capablanca went so far as to propose a 10x8 board with two extra pieces. However, Fischer's idea might be an eye-opener also from a backgammon perspective. The idea to permutate the home-ranks was suggested already as early as 1792, but for the sake of practicality Fischer put constraints on this socalled shuffle chess, giving the new variant the name chess960.

Both players had the same criticism on the traditional chess setup, namely that the fixed starting position of pieces made the game too predictable for the world top players.

It's surprising that these calls for change have been voiced by two moguls of the “wooden” chess kingdom, whereas the citizens of the republic of backgammon are pandering in complacency.

My personal recommendation is to randomize the basic backgammon setup of checkers, with the constraint that positions with little creative potential are excluded.

If you can play the first three rolls correctly I'll take up the fight. You can't.

Mind you keep to the topic, please?

I am not sure about "creative potential". But I do think you would need to exclude setups that confer a large advantage or disadvantage to the player who rolls first.

Anyway, I do not think this is necessary. Backgammon is much less played out than chess, partly because people play it less and partly because it is nondeterministic. As a result, there is plenty of variability left without altering the setup.

Even so, it might be fun to try a few times.

I am just a beginning player in chess, but it seems me that there are every turn many more possibilities to take into consideration.

In an ideal situation you get your opponent in a zugzwang, in which case chess is deterministic. But it seems that the middle game is so complex, that even the great players often have to follow their nose. So there should be room for luck in chess. But possibly in the opinion of Fischer and Capablanca this happens to much in familiar territory. With the setup in backgammon many games end up in holding games. And I think we would rather see the holding game as an exception.

Well, it depends. If you have already rolled the dice, then probably on average chess will have more legal moves. But if you count all 21 possible rolls, I think gammon will have more possible moves. Also chess has nothing comparable to doubling decisions, no gammon considerations, and rarely match score considerations.

Not really sure what you mean here. In any case, zugzwang is a rare occurrence.

There is no luck in chess. At least, not in the sense that I define luck.

Who is "we"? Holding games don't bother me.

Something like this exists:
https://www.gambit.com/play/backgammon8s

There are a few ways this game differs from backgammon:

8 points per quadrant instead of 6
Players use 2 8-sided dice
There are 4 additional chips
Chip starting locations are partially randomized

I found it a fun novelty, but I'm still not bored of regular backgammon.

I have played a variant where you must bear on as well as bear off. I imagine that this would provide some of the randomness/variability/creativity you are looking for.

assertion1:
If this variation had existed in the time of Capablanca, he might have switched over to backgammon.(lol)

assertion2:
If Robertie writes a -501 problems- for this new game, this might be the backgammon of the future.

There is zero chance of that happening. I find regular old backgammon complex, deep, and fascinating.

It can be complex, deep and fascinating. But in my humble opinion one might question the frequency of those values showing up, and the extent to which those values translate into winning.

At least, it's almost always a lot of fun and excitement.

Write the software, run it over every single possible board permutation, and let us know how it goes.

I suppose you are joking. The number of possible board permutations is a 1 with 20 zeros. If a checker is 2cm thick, and you would pile 10^20 of them, the length would be about 2000 lightyears. Voyager1, who was launched 38 years ago and travels with a speed of 17 km/s, is now 20 billion km from earth. Say it travels with a speed of 500 million km per year, it would take Voyager 4 million years to cover that distance.

Though I am a complete imbecile in this matter, likely neural programming would work. Similar to assessing a cube decision, the bot could give a value to a starting position. It would find the rules for weeding out the unsuitable positions.

PS What's not a joke, is that I found a way to generate dice numbers of which the true randomness can be checked out afterwards. However, the algorithm will not be disclosed at this forum.

Testing dice rolls for randomness is not a new problem. It has been done before now, for example within XG.

Still, coding one is certainly not trivial, and it's kinda cool that you have done so.

As for variants, we can make lots of them, and maybe some will be interesting enough to play more than once. Personally I would rather try some form of hex chess than chess 960. To each their own.

No, I mean checking 1 dice roll for randomness. (mystery...)

I agree with you. Say 100 from a database, randomly generated.

You seem very curious and full of energy, which I admire. It's a shame you're not channeling it in more productive ways, like furthering the study of the game of backgammon as it exists now.

I am not so good in strategy as Robertie.

I am not sure how much backgammon can be furthered as it exists now. It remains a game in which chance plays a predominant role. At the same time we have to consider the fun aspect, and whether variance reduction (weight reduction of luck) would hurt it.

However, the idea of changing it's format will provoke in most players the same feeling, as being forced out of your old comfortable home to a so-called better place, or remodelling the Mona Lisa into a goodlooking blond.

The reality is that history shows that man-made laws get outdated, because context and surroundings change over time. The backgammon players in our modern era are of a different stature, than those in the old days. This doesn't mean that you have to throw the old shoes away. It's nice to have spare ones.

This is a good point. Just because something old is good, does not mean that new things cannot be as good or better.

Indeed, there is an substantial industry around creating and producing new table games. Many hobbyists eagerly await new releases, and have found multiple favorites among games developed in the last 20 years. These games vary widely:

Depth: big variety, from light and easy up to pretty heavy and difficult titles.

Boards: some games have boards, some not, some build the board as the game progresses.

Luck: is variable, so each player can suit their own taste. Many games introduce luck with cards or tiles to be drawn, while comparatively few use dice. Other games have a very minimal luck factor.

Players: most are designed to play best with 3-4 players, but some play well for 2, and a few are for 2 players only.

Play time: is generally from 1-3 hours, although a few are faster or slower. Deeper games tend to take longer.

If your gaming thirst is no longer quenched by backgammon, I suggest you try browsing around board game geek (a website) for a while, and maybe try playing a few games at board game arena. Find what suits you, it is probably out there somewhere.

It feels like a soft version of Bush's phrase: you are either with us or against us.

Has there been any suggestion to Fischer or Capablance to try Go instead of Chess?

I have recommended Go to all my chess playing friends. I would do so if I had the chance to speak with Capa, or Carlson (although I expect he is already aware). Perhaps not Fischer, he was such a weirdo that other Go players might not have wanted him around.

I recommend it also to you, or perhaps bridge. In general it seems that bridge, gammon, and poker players overlap quite a bit.

I hope your chess friends gave you the same feeling, as you give to me.

You are putting me on a sidetrack in front of an audience. I am not interested in what you think should be my course. On a backgammon forum I expect the courtesy to express ideas openly. This feels pretty intolerant.

Besides, recommending chess friends to play Go instead, and at the same time making the statement on this forum that there are people who refrain from backgammon because there is too little variance, is completely incompatible.

I call your straightforwardness into question.

Consider the irony.

I was talking about two different groups of people, in two different threads. Certainly, I would not expect chess and Go to appeal to people who prefer games with a high luck factor. I can't imagine what made you think I was comparing the groups in this way.

You are playing with me. I quit this discourse.

I agree with their offer to change the rules for the professional players. Do not think that they need to change the rules for others. Only on championships, IMO

I don't know any professional players who have a desire to change the rules. What's wrong with the game as it is?