Talk:Backgammon/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Changes/Additions

A couple of things that should be added/changed in my opinion:

Note that for a long time it has been, and remains, very popular in the Mediteranian and Middle East, often played publicically in bars and cafes - but tin the traditiona form without doubling cube.

Doubling cube was an innovation in the 1920's by American clubs The Cube increases the potential for large profit in money games, and also gives more weight for skill (because it adds the skill of accuratly judging your current chance of winning)

- steve

Mid-East Popularity

Mentioned the Middle Eastern popularity of the game, also that it is played in three main variants. These are all referred to as 'Tawila' in Arabic, with their own names for each variant so on this basis describing them as variants of backgammon seems more appopriate. Unfortunately I don't know whether these correspond to the Greek variants mentioned in the paragraph beneath my one, and I haven't yet played or found the rules of maghribiyya.

I also added in the British English names for the checkers/men and outfield/outer table at the beginning of the article. --Palmiro 6 July 2005 15:59 (UTC)

Ideas for expansion

This article could be expanded with

  • the history of the game
  • an expanded section on strategy
  • a section for on-line, club, and tournament play.

--Karl Juhnke

Most of the online histories of backgammon are unreliable, so I'm researching the history myself. I'll try and get it up in a few days.

--Imran Ghory

Old Article

Shifted the old article here:

The following was originnally from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. As such, it may not yet be properly adapted to Wikipedia (obsolete, typos, no accidental links, etc.). It is included as a stub of sorts to inspire you to fix these problems and modify it:

BACKGAMMON, a game played with draughtsmen and a special board, depending on the throw of dice. It is said to have been invented about the 10th century (Strutt). A similar game ‘(Ludus duodecim scriptorum, the “ twelve-line game “) was known to the Romans, and Plato (Republic, bk. x.) alludes to a game in. which dice were thrown and men were placed after due consideration. The etymology of the word “backgammon” is disputed; it is probably Saxon—baec, back, gamen, game; i.e. a game in which the players are liable to be sent back. Other derivations are, Dan. bakke, tray, gainmen, game (Wedgwood); and Welsh bach, little, cammaun, battle, (Henry). Chaucer alludes to a game of

tables,” played with three dice, in which “ men “ were moved from the opponent’s “tables,”~ the game (ludus A nglicorum) being described in the Harleian MSS. (1527). ‘The French name for backgammon is trictrac, imitative of the rattle of the dice.

Backgammon is played by two persons. The “board” (see diagram) is divided into four “ tables,” each table being marked with six “points” coloured differently. The inner and outer tables are separated from each other by a projecting bar. The board (in the ordinary form of the game) is furnished with fifteen white and fifteenblack men,” set “or arranged as in the diagram.

four was called “quatre “ (pronounced “cater”); the five, “cinque” (pronounced either “sank” or “sink”); and the six, “ six “ (size).

For the right to start each player throws one or two dice; the one who throws the higher number has the right of playing first; and he may either adopt the numbers thrown or he may throw again, using both dice.

The men are moved on from point to point, according to the throws of the dice made by ‘the players alternately. White moves from black’s inner table to black’s outer, and from this to white’s outer table, and so on to white’s inner table; and all black’s moves must be in the contrary direction. A player may move any of his men a number of points corresponding to the numbers thrown by him, provided the point to which the move

BLACK would bring him is

Black’s Home or Inner Table. Bfack’s Outer Table, not blocked by two

______________________________________ or more of his

~ ~ TI 1T adversary’s men

I I I I I being on it. The

II I j whole throw may

II Il U be taken with one

~ II II man, or two men

______________ ____________ maybe moved,one

3 the exact number

of points on one

die, the other the

2 number on the

~ A A A other die. If doub

/ lets are thrown

(e.g. two sixes),

four moves of that

number (e.g. four

_________________ movesofsixpoints)

may be made,

White’s Home or Inner Table. White’s Outer Table, either all by one

WHITE man or separately

Backgammon Board. by more. Thus,

I. Black’s ace-point. 3. Black’s bar-point. suppose white 2. White’s ace-point. 4. White’s bar-point, throws five, six, he may move one of his men from the left-hand corner of the black’s inner table to the left-hand corner of black’s outer table for six; he may, again, move the same man five points farther on, when his move is completed; or he may move any other man five points. But white cannot move a man for five from the black’s ace-point, because the six-point in that table is blocked. Any part of the throw which cannot be moved is of no effect, but it is compulsory for a player to move the whole throw unless blocked. Thus if the men were differently placed, and white could move a six, and having done so could not move a five, his move is completed. If, however, by moving the five first, he can afterwards move a six, he must make the move in that manner.

When a player so moves as to place two men on the same point, he is said to “make a point.”

When there is only a single man on a point, it is called a” blot.” When a blot is left, the man there may be taken up (technically the blot may be “hit “) by the adversary if he throws a number which will enable him to place a man on that point. The man hit is placed on the bar, and has to begin again by entering the adversary’s home table again at the next throw should it result in a number that corresponds to an unblocked point. The points in the home tables count for this purpose as I, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, beginning from the ace-point. A player is not allowed to move any other man while he has one to enter. It is, therefore, an advantage to have made all the points in your own board, so that your adversary, if you take a man up, cannot enter; and you can then continue throwing until a point is opened.

The game proceeds until one of the players gets all his men into his inner table or home. Then he begins to take his men off the board, or to bear them, i.e. to remove a man from any point that corresponds in number with his throw. If such ,a point is unoccupied, a move must be made, ii there is room for it, and a move may be taken, instead of bearing a man, at any time; but

when six is empty, if’six is thrown a man maybe borne from five and so on. If, after a player has commenced throwing off his men, he should be hit on a blot, he must enter on his adversary’s inner table and must bring the man taken up into his own inner table )efore he can bear further.

Whoever first takes off all his men wins the game:—a single ~ame (a “hit”) if his adversary has begun bearing; a double game (a” gammon “) if the adversary has not borne a man; and i triple game (a” backgammon “) if, at the time the winner bears us last man, his adversary, not having borne a man, has one in :he winner’s inner table, or has a man up. When a series of ~ames is played, the winner of a hit has the first throw in the ;ucceeding game; but if a gammon is won, the players each ;hrow a single die to determine the first move of the next game.

In order to play backgammon well, it is necessary to know all ;he chances on two dice and to apply them in various ways. The uumber of different throws that can be made is thirty-six. By :aking all the combinations of these throws which include given uumbers, it is easily discovered where blots may be left with the east probability of being hit. For example, to find the chance of )eing hit where a blot can only be taken up by an ace, the adversary nay throw two aces, or ace in combination with any other number ip to six, and he may throw each of these in two different ways, so :hat there are in all eleven ways in which an ace may be thrown. This, deducted from thirty-six (the total number of throws), leaves Lwenty-five; so that it i5 25 to II against being hit on an ace. It s very important to bear in mind the chance of being hit on any sumber. The following table gives the odds against being hit on my number within the reach of one or two dice:-—

It is 25 to II, or about 9 to 4, against being hit on I

,, 24 ,, 12, or 2 ,, I, ,, 2

22 ,, 14, or about 3 ,, 2, , ,, 3

21 ,, 15, or 7 ,, 5, ,, 4

,, 21 ,, 15, ,, 7 ,, 5, ,, 5

,, 19 ,, 17, ,, 93/4 ,, 83/4, ,, 6

,, 30 ,, 6, ,, 5 ,, I, ,, 7

,, 30 ,, 6, ,, 5 ,, I, ,, 8

31 ,, 5, or about 6 ,, I, ,, 9

‘ 33 ,, 3, or II ,, I, ,, 10

,, 34 ,, 2,,, 17 ,, I, ,, II

33 ,, 3, ,, II ,, I, ,, 12

The table shows that if a blot must be left within the reach of ~ne die, the nearer it is left to the adversary’s man the less probeDility there is of its being hit. Also, ‘that it is long odds against Jeing hit on a blot which is only to be reached with double dice, fnd that, in that case (on any number from 7 to II), the farther off :he blot is, the less chance there is of its being hit.

The table assumes that the board is open for every possible throw. If part of the throw is blocked by an intervening point being held by idverse men, the chance of being hit is less.

Two principles, then, have to be considered in moving the men :— (i) To make points where there is’ the best chance of obstructing the opponent. (2) When obliged to leave blots, to choose the position in which they are least likely to be hit.

The best points to secure.are the five-point in your own inner Lable and the five-point in your adversary’s inner table. The next best is your own bar-point; and the next best the four in your own inner table.

The best move for some throws at the commencement of a game is as follows :—Aces (the best of all throws), move two on your barpoint and two on your five-point. This throw is often given to inferior players by way of odds.

Ace, trey: make the five-point in your inner table.

Ace, six: make your bar-point.

Deuces: move two on the four-point in your inner table, and two on the trey-point in your opponent’s inner table.

Deuce, four: make the four-point in your own table.

Threes: play two on the five-point in your inner table, and two on the four-point of your adversary’s inner table, or make your bar-

point. -

Trey, five: make the trey-point in your own table.

Trey, six: bring a man from your adversary’s ace-point as far as he will go.

Fours: move on two on the five-point in your adversary’s inner table, and two from the five in his outer table.

Four, five and four, six: carry a man from your adversary’s acepoint as far as he will go.

Fives: move two men from the five in your adversary’s outer table to the trey-point in your inner table. ‘ -

Five, six: move a man from your adversary’s ace-point as far as he will go.

Sixes (the second-best throw): move two on your adversary’s bar-point and two on your own bar-point.

In carrying the men home carry the most distant man to your adversary’s bar-point, to the six-point in your outer table, and then to the six-point in your inner table. By following this rule as nearly


Max five on a prong

No mention of rule of only allowing five on a prong at the end of each turn. Could this be clarified please? 80.255.219.52 10:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There is no mention of the rule, because there is no such rule. You can have all fifteen checkers on the same point if you want to and the rolls work out that way. Most people play an opening 6-5 from the 24-point to the 13-point, making 6 checkers on a point right from the start. It isn't all that uncommon to see ten checkers piled up on someone's 1-point when they have checkers stuck behind a prime and have to play little rolls that tear up their home board. Anyway, maybe a rules clarification is necessary simply because some house rules differ from the standard of tournament and international play. --Fritzlein 19:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The rule of having only 5 men on a point is a known variation, however, it is usually only observed by Egyptians. The International Rules for Backgammon have no such rule.

I have also used this rule having been taught it, but hae found that it is not normally played or specified in sets for the reasons above. However, I have found that once people adopt it, they agree that the resulting games are more interesting with such a restriction. I have entered a non POV entry to the article. Dainamo 11:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Backgammon is the oldest known recorded game in history !

It is not correct to say that Backgammon is the oldest known recorded game in history. Backgammon is an old tables game as other ones are (Tabula for example).

You should say "tables games" (all games played in a same board than Backgammon) are very ancient. Senet and Game of Ur aren't played in the same board and cannot be compared to Backgammon.

It's like to say football is the oldest sport in the history. No of course it's just a ball game and ball games are very ancient.

Are you saying that there are other non-board games older than it (how do we know they existed?) or are you saying that we cannot know what game was played on the board, or are you simply claiming that it's not true? Gadykozma 19:14, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I only say that we cannot know what game was played on the board (except Tabula)and that Backgammon is just one of those games amid a long list of other ones. And Senet, game of Ur, Pachisi ... were not played on the same board than Tabula.

That's all what I want to say ! In the same way, Bridge is not the oldest game but card games are very old (not so old than tables games) !

Backgammon is at least 5,000 years old:

http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=197701&query=dice&ct=%22ebi%22 I know no other game in existence older than backgammon. GiftliteGiftLite

The information from this link is wrong, this is not the game of backgammon, and not even an ancestor of Backgammon probably more something like the game of Ur.

Buzurgmihr

I was unable to verify the following sentence:

The present form of backgammon was invented by Buzurgmihr in Persia.

Does somebody have a reference for this fact? Gadykozma 15:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

There was no answer so I removed it. In the meantime I found out that Buzurgmihr is affiliated with the introduction of Chess into Persia, which made the above sentence suspect of a simple confusion. Gadykozma 13:08, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What was the first champion-level backgammon program?

Beginning in the late 1980s, creators of backgammon-playing software began to have success with a neural network approach. TD-Gammon, developed by Dr. Gerald Tesauro of IBM, was the first computer program to play at or near the expert level. This program's neural network was trained using Temporal Difference learning applied to data generated from self-play.

I thought the first champion-level backgammon program was BKG 9.8 by Hans Berliner, which used some principles of fuzzy logic. It was finished in 1979, long before the "late 1980s", but it defeated then current champion Luigi Villa, 7-1. It was comparable to Deep Blue against Kasparov. Granted, according to Berliner, Villa made better moves more often, so BKG's victory is owed at least partly to luck, but BKG didn't make any gross errors, certainly no more and no worse than many highly skilled players. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Changes made by 24.112.130.106

I removed these edits. I consider the added paragraph in the Introduction/History section to be unclear and confusing. If someone wants to incorporate parts of it and can integrate it in a seamless manner, feel free to do so. Hylas 20:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Applause

I just wanted to comment on how much I liked this article. I'm a member at Pogo.com, and every week there are different challenges for badges. Usually the Wiki articles are a little hard to understand (such as when I had to play gin and euchre) but I want to applaud you for making an article that made sense! I had NO idea how to play backgammon, and now I kind of understand it, and I've won a game. Keep up the good work, and give yourselves a pat on the back. --chicken_queen

Images

The images in the sample game section appear to be screen shots from Jellyfish. Since the interface for that program is copyrighted, it might be a good idea to put the fairusein template on those image pages.--malber 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

heh, just noticed that this was mentioned on the FAC nomination page back in August and was never corrected.--malber 15:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Frozen after capturing?

When I was taught the game originally as a child, the piece that captured another playerrs blot was prevented from moving again (frozen) on the same go. For example if a 3 and 4 were thrown and the piece captured on 4 it could not use the other 3. I have not seen any refernece to this rule (which made some interesting game play such a sometimes forcing a capturing piece to be left vunerable unless another could cover it) but I doubt it came from nowhere. Has anyone el;se hear of this? Dainamo 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Iranian version of the game this rule exists, but it only applies to hitting a piece within your own home board. One variation on this rule allows this hitting piece to move again, but only if it ends its turn exposed. Hitting pieces in other parts of the board is done as in the "standard" version of the game. Now that I mention this, I should put it in the article at some point. MisterBigH 6:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, it's the way my grandma plays it... You are basically not allowed to hit and run to safety in your home. I thought it was invented on the spot to prevent me from winning, I still think it was, but not by my grandma, other Iranians, they are such bad losers! Anyway, I liked this article, it's a little messy, but the content is really goog! Well done! 82.131.13.36 08:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Gul Bara

I've done some edits on this article's page. I found this "variant" and added it to that section. I don't see the difference between it and regular backgammon. I figured that someone more familiar with the game can evaluate and see if it should be merged in to this article. Val42 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Starting Positions

The article states, "Each player begins with two checkers on his 24-point, three checkers on his 8-point, and five checkers each on his 13-point and his 6-point." Is this correct? I thought it was five checkers on the 24-point, two checkers on the 13-point, five on the 7-point and three on the 5-point. (Basically like the picture at the top of the page, except that the three brown checkers at the upper left should be moved one position to the right.) Can someone confirm?

I (Bdevel) was the user who uploaded the picture of the board with the pieces in the wrong spot. I have uploaded a new picture with them in the write spot.

In fact, to remove any ambiguity, ideally the article should show a graphical representation of the starting positions, as well as the direction in which each player's checkers move. Thoughts? -- Hux 18:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The article is correct, although I can see how confusion about which side of the board the tracks connect on could spawn local variants.
Incidentally, that reminds me to ask about the starting position of Nackgammon. As the article reads now, Nackgammon adds two checkers for a total of 17 for each player. It seems like that would be a radical change resulting in every game being primed due to the large number of checkers; not very fun. Yet when I was introduced to Nackgammon, it merely moved back two checkers on each side, so that each side still had only 15 checkers total. I believe the checkers were moved back from the two heavy points. Can anyone confirm this? Thanks. --Fritzlein 22:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of contradictory information, I'll make the change to Nackgammon. --Fritzlein 21:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I figured out my mistake: I was assuming, looking at the first picture in the article, that white's home board was at the bottom left, so the white checkers move clockwise and thus the point at the top left is the 24-point, when in fact white's checkers move anticlockwise, with the 24-point at the top right, correct? I think the article could definitely use some improvement on this though. As it stands, the initial setup and direction of play isn't very clear. -- Hux 18:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I really like this picture from the Czech wikipedia, it would be extremely helpful to have something like that early in the rules section. --82.131.13.36 08:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Advertising links

Someone is always adding links to external pages that don't give any added value besides advertising a certain backgammons server. One should either add all common backgammon servers or none!

--ace 10:32


CE/BCE vs AD/BC

Would anyone object to altering the era-naming convention in this article to use CE and BCE as opposed to AD and BC? (the recent fly-by by a MoS sockpuppet appears to have ended). I think that for a topic that is of a decidedly secular nature, and for a game which has crossed the boundaries of many nations, the more secular naming would be more appropriate. Thoughts? --Ptkfgs 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

In general, the problem with calling "CE" more secular is that it still starts at the same year as AD so the year system is the same, and "AD" as an abbreviated notation that is effectively secular. —Centrx→talk • 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)


Conflict

This page claims that backgammon is the oldest recorded game but the igo page claims that it is older than backgammon. --A Sunshade Lust 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am also skeptical of a claim that backgammon is the "oldest recorded game" (and skeptical of the same for Go, for that matter, but I'm not going to worry about that article). What do you think would be a more accurate way of putting it? I tend to think that we can safely say that backgammon 1) is among the oldest board games played today and 2) is "descended from racing games such as Foo and Bar" (for example), citing the earliest examples. --Ptkfgs 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
Unless we have a good source showing that backgammon, or igo, are older than an other or the oldest I would keep is among the oldest board games played today, as you put it. It may be impossible to know which is the oldest game played today. I have done a slight modification of the conflicting sentence, it is now "Backgammon is one of the oldest board games played today." instead of "Backgammon is one of the oldest known recorded game." The old sentence sounded a bit awkward anyhow. --A Sunshade Lust 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

New images for sample game

I have uploaded new images for the sample game (Image:Bg sg w1.png, Image:Bg sg b1.png, Image:Bg sg w2.png), and an image depicting the path of movement (Image:Bg movement.png). They are screenshots of GNU Backgammon, which means their licensing is preferable to that of the previous images. I have retained the same colors and positions, since otherwise the sample game would make no sense. I welcome any comments on the board design and lighting; many of the parameters for the 3D board engine in GNU Backgammon are configurable, so I can change them if they're ugly. —ptk✰fgs 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Dashes and hypens

I've tried to bring the article in line with Wikipedia:Manual of style (dashes) by using – and — where appropriate, and using the hyphen for separating dice rolls (as they are not ranges or durations). If there's anything I missed please feel free to change it or point it out here. —ptk✰fgs 17:24, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

This is an en dash: –
This is an em dash: —
They look the same in a fixed-width font (i.e., when editing a page), but we want to use en dashes for the ranges in the infobox. I don't care if they're entities or unicode characters. —ptk✰fgs 15:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: go

I still don't see why we need an explanation of the specific rating of go players here in the software section. We don't have any discussion of backgammon ratings in the article and it just reads as confusing to me. I think the point of the comparison to computer chess is that chess and bg software have some really notable similarities (strength of play) and really notable differences (algorithmic approaches). Since go software is so easily destroyed by less-than-average players I really don't think we need a huge blurb about it other than to compare it to something that's solved. —ptk✰fgs 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

External links

Should we keep the link to Backgammoned.net, or not? The amount of articles on the site is pretty slim compared to (for example) Backgammon Galore. I find the amount of advertising on the site to be objectionable, but before removing it I thought I would ask for other opinions. —ptk✰fgs 23:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I see almost no advertising on the site. Most pages have none at all. The volume of articles would seem to qualify to be linked, however I barely play the game so I don't know if the quality is very good. Also the link was added at the top of link list which is a Spam signal in itself enough to remove the link. While I'd look past that though and judge it on its merits in terms of quality, it would be fine just to remove it becaomes it was top spammed by an anon. 2005 23:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, there's the banner, but I'm mostly talking about the referrer links for the commercial sites. For now I'll alphabetize the list and otherwise leave it alone. —ptk✰fgs 01:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think this link should be removed it is owned by gammonempire and run by them, as a backgammon player i don't think this link is good enough to be on wiki. You might see i added a resource i think is the best resource online after backgammon galore (redtopbg.com). just as a side note, i am a backgammon player and i have been playing online for a number of years now. i am happy to teach any of you more about this great game if you want :) Davidoff 03:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
What exactly is gammonempire? Their website is horrifying. Redtopbg appears to have a lot of referral links to gammonempire; what is their connection? —ptk✰fgs 03:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Gammonempire is an online gaming site were you can gamble for money. most if not all backgammon resources have affiliate links to other gaming sites and you can see similar links on the backgammon galore site, this is common practice with backgammon resources. Regardless both redtopbg and backgammon galore are great resources for the game. Backgammon galore has affiliate links to a number of gaming sites Davidoff 03:39, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to pull out the backgammoned.net link, then, because it doesn't appear to offer much over this article (heck, it even has a mirror of a previous revision), and compared to bkgm and redtop its selection of articles is pretty slim.
What about Backgammon.org? I would say that I have a pretty low threshold for "objectionable amounts of advertising", but theirs is pretty obnoxious. —ptk✰fgs 03:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Funny but backgammon.org is also owned by gammonempire, as you can guess their tactics is to buy quality domains like backgammon.org which is supposed to be a non-profit site. they do this from obvious reasons of profit :). backgammon.org is a good site and it has some good articles that were written by some of the best backgammon players, although as for what i mentioned before we can think of weather they should be in wiki extenral links. Maybe we can link directly to good articles instead of linking to the homepage Davidoff 03:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia frequently links to sites like CNN, which are also for-profit businesses. I hate to see Wikipedia used for advertising, but I do think that the External Links section ought to represent a handful of the best of the best resources on the web relating to the topic. —ptk✰fgs 04:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree and in that case backgammon.org has some good articles about backgammon and other interesting aspects relating to the gambling game aspect. I am just making everyone aware of who is behind some of these sites and their interest :) Davidoff 04:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to post anonymously here im still sorting everything out. I would just like to make a point or 2 in relations to backgammoned.net.
1. Backgammoned.net is not owned by Gammonempire.
2. We are trying to list good articles and provide some valuable information.
3. We are new and posted the link anonymously not too spam.sorry therefore but if you are going to make statements about ownership of site(s) please be accurate.
4. Yes we mirrored a copy of wikipedia in acordance with guidelines because it was good information for our visitors.
Lastly me and a group of friends are truly trying to build a decent backgammon site also we are translating all our articles into different languages for people's benefit. Our site is a work in progress but if the majority opinion is that we dont offer any value to potential backgammon players then dont place our link. I can always be reached at jerry@backgammoned.net for any questions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.134.207.23 (talk • contribs) .
I stand corrected backgammon.net is not owned by gammonempire, it is backgammon.org sorry for the confusion, still I don't think this site is good enought to be listed in the external links and that was the consensus we reached in our discussion. feel free to try listing it again when it is improved and see what wikipedians might think Davidoff 15:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As I noted with backgammon.org, I'm not particularly concerned with who owns the site. Mirroring a wikipedia article is fine; just be sure to check Wikipedia:Copyrights to make sure the right notices are in place. I hope that y'all are successful in putting together a good site, but as I said before, I'm just not sure it offers much right now compared to the other links we have, which cover the topic in extensive detail. Thanks for coming here to discuss it. —ptk✰fgs 21:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, it is generally considered problematic to add links to one's own web site, see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. —ptk✰fgs 01:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

I think adding this article to Category:Board games is redundant, as Category:Backgammon is already listed there. A user visiting Category:Board games will see Category:Backgammon easily, and Backgammon is space-sortkeyed to the top of that category. Is there another reason that Backgammon should be listed in Category:Board games? —ptk✰fgs 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No, aside from one editor thinking it should and reverting at least three editors who want to properly categorize it. It is appropriate for the article for Backgammon to be listed in the same category as the category for Backgammon because of the "topic article rule" Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, however, that category should be Category:Tables games which is described as "Tables is a generic name given to a class of board games similar to Backgammon". Listing it in board games is inappropriate given the direct subcategorization of Tables games AND the categorization of Category:Backgammon -- which it should be obvious to everyone else is the category that people will look for this article. Much of the Board games categorization is problematic and will only get worse if taken to the (il)logical conclusion of listing this article in Category:Tabletop_games and Category:Games. If the editor wants to eliminate the Tables games category then there is a process for that, but listing this article in any category it can fit in is absurd and counter to the categorization guidelines. Again, the proper categorization is for the backgammon category and article to both be listed in Tables games. 2005 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Read this. It may help: Categorization discussions. It discusses about its philosophy and the sets of rules. --Wai Wai (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I understand the concerns about excessive duplication of categories, and I think they're valid. I'm not sure what to do in this case, because Category:Tables games almost certainly doesn't help anyone using categories to navigate when they're looking in Category:Board games for articles on Backgammon. Since the overwhelmingly predominant discussion of tables games today is as ancestors, relatives, or variants, but with the primary focus on backgammon, perhaps the best categorization would be to make Category:Tables a subcategory of Category:Backgammon, and put Category:Backgammon in Category:Board games. This solves the navigation problem and avoids duplication. Anyone? —ptk✰fgs 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This certainly would solve everything, but I'm totally unfamiliar with what "tables games" are or meant to be. If Category:Tables games can at all plausibly be made a subcategory of Category:Backgammon that would solve everything... as would simply renaming Category:Tables games to Category:Backgammon, but again I don't know how related or unrelated those other articles are to "backgammon" as opposed to tables games. 2005 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Tables games are, in short, games played on a backgammon board. A few centures ago the term referred to pretty much any board game (including, e.g., chess and draughts), but today I would say that "tables game" and "backgammon variant" are essentially interchangeable. I'm not sure if there is a sufficient distinction between a backgammon category and a tables category to have both. But I don't think this should be decided on my assessment alone. —ptk✰fgs 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
A comment left today at the talk page of the Backgammon variant article has changed my mind. I think it would be a misnomer to use backgammon as the supercategory for a lot of games that can't legitimately be described as backgammon variants. I merged the variants article into Tables (board game), and I think the proper categorization is Board games->Tables (board game)->Backgammon (cat)->Backgammon (article). —ptk✰fgs 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


The criteria for external links isn't clear, for example - the added value link of www.play65.us, Live web-based backgammon game, rules and tournaments, was deleted 5 minutes upon writing while affiliate sites of the game remain in the main page for months... where is the logic?

The logic starts with deleting links crudely dropped like you did with "Online Internet Backgammon" anchor text. 2005 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
The external links section is meant to include sites which offer a significant amount of information about the game over what the article offers. The affiliate status of sites listed here is not a significant consideration. The links at this article should point to resources with information about backgammon. It's not a web directory of places to play online. —ptk✰fgs 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"Sample game" section

Can we lose this? It's well-written, but I think it borders on being an instruction manual. Since we link to b:Backgammon, and it could be freely expanded there, I'm not sure we need it. I think it would be better if we just focused on getting the "Rules" section as clear as possible. —ptk✰fgs 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

It's fine. The chess article has even a separate page (sub-page) for the sample game. Several pages do similarly (eg keys to become a good player, strategies and tactics etc.). As long as the main article is not largely created for instructions or the like, it is fine. I think what is important is the main purpose of the article or section. The sample game is here to help readers to understand more about backgammon (eg gameplay, the flow of the game) by illustrations. It is fine and great. However if someone makes up a whole page focussing on teaching readers like how to play the game, how to win the game etc., it is not fine.--Wai Wai (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Sample chess game has a {{tone}} at the top right now, and I'd have to say I agree with the tag. It's difficult to write subjective commentary on a game while still remaining neutral, and the value of a sample backgammon game depends almost entirely on subjective commentary — otherwise it's just going to be a list of forced moves and rollout results, which would be pretty boring and not very useful. I'm also concerned that a sample game could never avoid being original research. —ptk✰fgs 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay. Well, I've moved the sample game to Wikibooks. —ptk✰fgs 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to say we should make a whole page just for that. I would like to point out is the main purpose of that secton. If it is to enrich people's understanding about the topic, it is fine. Normally information in an article may have overlapping uses or purposes, but it should be the main purposess is important. Take the case of day trading into account, there is a section which states about keys of being a good daytrader. If you take this out of the context, it is like an instruction or a guide and is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you look further, its main purpose is to explain the characterisitics of a successful day trader (so readers will know more what a successful day trader is about). There is no really step-by-step guide on how to daytrade. Anyway, it is up to you t decide if this secton will benefit the readers (but I think you have made up your mind)--Wai Wai (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)