Started with Bill's "Backgammon for Winners" and forced myself to read the opening sections, on how to play.

I'm glad I did, for it raised this curiosity question: Why, when you can only play one die roll out of the two that you have, are you required to play the larger roll if possible?

Example: checker on 19, 18 is open but the 12 point is full. Why do the rules require that I play the 6 on a 6-1 roll?

I'm curious about the reasoning, as there are times where you'd want to play the lower number.

That is just the rule. When this rule was set they choosed among the three possibilities:
lower number, higher number, you can choosing.

Really? I thought they eliminated possibilities four and five...

There isn't any "why" to it. That's the rule. The rule could be that you're required to play the lower number, in which case BG would be a slightly different game. Or the rule could be that when you throw doubles, you play three of that number rather than four. Again, BG would be a slightly different game. Not a better or worse game, just a different game. Rules are rules.

So, someone in the murky past arbitrarily threw a rock and said "high has to play" ?

Really? Ugh. Now I'm disappointed.

And, with all due respect, screw that "rules are rules" crap. I'd like there to be a better reason than "because it is." Maybe there isn't something better, but that again would be disappointing.

OK, I get it. You're an independent thinker and a free spirit, and you don't like to be told that "rules are rules". Very good. You want an optimal solution to the question of why, when both numbers can't be played, the higher number gets played. Well, let's see if we can reason out what that solution would be.

Possibility (1): When both numbers can't be played, the higher number is played.

Possibility (2): When both numbers can't be played, the lower number is played.

Do you have a preference between these two choices? I don't. Either rule resolves the problem. Neither changes the nature of the game in any significant way.

Possibility (3): When both numbers can't be played, the player selects which number is played.

This rule makes it possible for the player to select a choice which damages his position less. In some infinitesimal way, this lowers the inherent variance of the game.

Do you think (3) is better than (1) or (2)? I don't, because I think backgammon is a well-balanced game as is. But if you think (3) is better, well, that's not an unreasonable opinion.

The rules of checker play for the variation of backgammon we now play were codified about 300 years ago. At the time there were several variations of backgammon in common use, and our modern game wasn't the most popular variation then, although it became the most popular about 200 years ago. Whoever decided to codify the rules had to decide what to do in this rare case; maybe all three possibilities were in use at the time but playing the higher number was the most popular. Maybe playing the higher number was already standard and he just wrote it down without giving it much thought. We'll never know.

And who really cares anyway? The point of having a set of rules is so people can play the game without having to argue about these sorts of issues when they arise, which they inevitably do. Rules let us spend more time playing the game and less time arguing and negotiating about the game. Rules sound like a bargain to me.

It seems to me that the idea is to play as close to the full roll as possible. In other words, If I roll a 6 and a 1 and can only play one, playing six pips is closer to playing the full roll than playing one pip.

No, not exactly- gold star for the gloveslap across the face, however


Let's chalk it up to my instinctive "rebel against autocratic decisions" nature.
I think a rule should be made to give the optimal solution, yes. Don't you?
Now, if we're playing Calvinball, then it's a different story.

That's what I was asking- if anyone knew why the rule was made to take away, in the tiniest bit, from the opportunity to use skilled decision-making. That is how you get an edge in backgammon, right? That's why it bothered me enough to ask.

Agreed, but what if there are BETTER rules? Granted, this one isn't all that important and not likely to come up that often, but I'm not sure I'm ever going to agree with a "that's the way it was, so that's the way it is" mentality.

Possibly- I give you a gold star for thinking of it!

So, someone in the murky past arbitrarily threw a rock and said "Bishops move diagonally" ? (chess)

So, someone in the murky past arbitrarily threw a rock and said "Hearts is a higher suit then clubs" ? (bridge)

So, someone in the murky past arbitrarily threw a rock and said "If you fail to make a correct serve you can try once again" ? (tennis)


Are you now disappointed in those games too?

That depends- were those rules created ONLY because of the rock? And, do they take away a skill advantage for no discernable reason?

For the hearts/clubs: there is no inherent advantage lost, by arbitrarily picking a particular suit as superior. Therefore, I don't have any interest in making it clubs instead.

The tennis example is the worst one that you chose.

The bishop example is interesting, but no different than limiting all of the other pieces, in various ways. So, no, I'm not disappointed in that either.
That said, I'd be fascinated to know the reasoning behind the original game creation. Specifically, why the inventors/adjusters of chess came up with the piece movements.
I suspect they had some strong reasons for doing so and didn't just arbitrarily say "It would be cool if the horsey thingy could L-hook!" If they didn't, would I be disappointed? No, because they decided to make the knights operate in a manner different than the other pieces. I don't see that as being the same thing as the "use highest" rule- do you?

Big numbers are more important than small ones. If you doubt it, think of salaries, or size of armies. For the Assyrian or Babylonian (or wherever it was) gentleman who first came up with this game, giving precedence to the smaller number would surely have been perverse, unthinkable. I reckon that although your question is indeed a question, the adjectival modifiers don't apply.

If so, please explain to me why not 1 serve or 3 serves or maybe even 4 serves?

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't one serve, originally, and they figured out that it made it tough to defend serve.

3+? Tennis takes long enough.

You're not making your point here.

One serve: easier to defend against
Two serves: harder to defend against

Right- and, for balance's sake, perhaps two serves were determined to be best. Three is obviously too many (maybe not as much in the past, but NOW? No way you want two free smashing serves, with a safety value third.)

This thread is 45 seconds of my life I'll never get back.

But,you proved you read pretty quickly.... or, did you cheatskim?