Hi Bill
In your very last article for Inside Backgammon you proposed a variation called "Backgammon 2000" that you felt would take some of the luck out of Backgammon.
In essence it was a regular money game session but players could challenge each others moves and pay up on the equity difference based on rollouts.

With the general standards of play much higher now and the gaps between open players and championship players narrowing there's more moaning than ever particularly at this years Monte Carlo WC about having better Snowie error rates and still losing etc etc etc.

Personally I like BG the way it is but would be in favour of a slight shift towards rewarding skill more but it would have to be played out over the board rather than afterwards.
The only problem is, I've yet to hear a variation I like.

My question to you is how do you feel about this topic 10 years on?

Obviously I'd like to hear other forum members views too.

the beauty of games like poker and backgammon is that there is luck

I did a doubletake when I saw this thread as I couldn't believe I would ever write an article entitled "Taking the luck out of backgammon". (Backgammon and poker are great games because of the luck, not in spite of it. If you don't like a random element, play chess.)

So I grabbed the last issue of Inside BG and the article was actually titled "Backgammon 2000", and I was poking fun at the people who wrote articles like "Taking the Luck out of BG". I suggested a new variation where two players would play a heads-up cash game, but each had the right to force the other to play a prop when one made a play that the other thought was wrong. You'll occasionally see two good players doing something like this at tournaments, although not under the rules I actually suggested in the article.