Just started reading backgammon for serious players, and noticed Robertie mention the world cup held in dallas as the most prestigious bg tournament. In any case I was wondering what happened to this tournament, since it seems to there is much more info/coverage regarding the world championship (and its winners) than the world cup. Has this tournament died out recently or no longer attract similar prize pools?

I assume this is a list of the winners of that tournament, is it incomplete? In the book (published in 2003) it says it's held every year although that list stops in 1998 and only lists winners every 2 years.

The World Cup was run every other year from 1988 to 1998, a total of six times. The event was held over 10 days with many small events going on for players of all strengths, but the highlight was the World Cup itself, which attracted many of the world's top players and featured the longest matches of any tournament before or since. Each round was best-of-5 11-point matches, increasing to 13-point matches in the semis and finals. The consolation bracket had 23, 25, and 27-point matches.

The World Cup was a refreshing contrast to most modern events, in which matches have gotten shorter and shorter over the years.

Someone once told me that in order to increase the skill factor it is better to play a lot of short matches. I didn't enter that discussion because I was just a beginner at that time. As a matter of fact I am still not knowledgeable enough, but I could guess that firstly a match can hinge on an 8 or 16 cube, so that the match can be decided in a relatively short time, and secondly that is more sour to lose the match by a couple of points than by the difference of a whole game.

Having said that, I think a long match offers generally more suspense.

For a given length of time, a single long match is generally a better test of skill then a series of best n-out-of-m shorter matches.

Whatever happened to it? Was there a particular reason it stopped after '98?

We played the tournament at a hotel in Dallas owned by a backgammon enthusiast, who let us have a tremendous function space for a minimal rate. When he sold the hotel, the new owners wanted to charge something more like a true market rate which the tournament couldn't support.

I thought the idea behind the "best of 5" format (as compared to one long match) was that matchscore considerations come in to play much more frequently. I guess this does not add enough skill to compensate for the shorter matches?

Correct. People assume that a 'best 3-of-5' short match format is full of difficult match play decisions. But if you look at a bunch of 7 or 9-point matches, it turns out that a large number of cube decisions are trivial.

For instance, suppose we play a 7-point match but you start out winning a 2-game, then a doubled gammon in the next game. Now you're ahead 6-0 to 7, and while the match might last another four games, every cube decision will be forced and easy.

Multiply this by potentially five matches in a best-of-5 series and it's clear that you can have a lot of very easy cube decisions. In a single long match you'll have fewer because you're basically playing a long money sessions with some match play cube decisions tacked on at the end.

I guess there is also the problem that a 9-8 win is treated equal to a 9-0 win. 17-9 or tied 1-1 is a big difference!

Very good point. A series of shorter matches ends up containing a lot of lost information.

With a shameless jump into the lion's den I admit that I can be horribly superstitious sometimes. After some years of experience with poker and backgammon I definitely believe in lucky streaks. (We are all born sinners). But besides the hocus pocus, it can be quite demoralizing when the opponent's dies roll against all odds, and you yourself hardly hit any of his blots. Possibly you start to fume, and as a consequence the smoke blinds your eye for the right moves. But don't worry, this round is for the opponent, and in the next one you will start refreshed.

i agree 10000%,

in pool the races have gotten longer over the years, back in the 80's a race to 11 in 9 ball was the standard thing. rarely were races longer, Now races to 21, 25 are the thing. funny how that is, trends in games in general. I suppose its because everyone thinks they are getting a edge with a change. at the end of the day it all balances out.

At the end of a day, a year, or a life time, and otherwise it is being hoped that the person had a lot of fun while playing. It is beyond the scope of this topic, but is likely not attractive for backgammon players to start a new topic about this, so I say it here.

I think it is very difficult to discuss to what extent superior play will pay back. For example, it might be that the superior player wins many single games in a convincing way, however often a little bit short of a gammon victory, whereas many of the wins of the inferior player are pretty close. As a consequence, analogous to matches one could say that in games information gets lost.

I have been wondering this same thing. In some games against XG I think I am doing great, and when I win I feel smug right up until the time XG tells me I played at 20 or thereabouts. So I've been horribly lucky. Someone betting money on the better player would have come really short.

However, in my career against XG where I allow no hints, pip counts, or any aids, mirroring live play, after 642 games, I am down 320 points. Skill is very clearly carrying the day here, even after the occasional upset like the one mentioned above. (I'm playing at about 11 here.)

What difference in PR would you feel comfortable betting on if you somehow had access to the information?

I suppose you are asking me. I have never given any attention to performance ratings. As I am used to relativize things, without doubt I would do that also with pr. (Anyhow, by you I am one post closer to 300 to get rid of that weird -journeyman- status).