Talk:Backgammon

Archives

/Archive 1

Backgammon GA

I have listed Backgammon as a GA due to the fact that it is well written, contains pictures, and is referenced. However, before nominating it for FA, I would reccomend expanding and citing the Gambling section, and adding some more images. Some P. Erson 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I was thinking, actually, that this section ought to be expanded in scope (and renamed) to cover the variety of contexts in which backgammon is played today: competitive tournaments, club and social play, as well as gambling. The main reason I've held off is that it's hard to find sources that aren't like "casinonewshotline123.com". Thanks for your input! —ptk✰fgs 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Variants

Hypergammon gets its own page, but Nackgammon doesn't? We need some consistency...

True. Hypergammon should be merged. nadav 07:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

What we need is sources more than anything. —ptk✰fgs 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize you're up for FA here. Wouldn't have done the merge that way if I noticed. BTW, why in the world did you decide bkgm was not reliable? nadav 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, a lot of its articles rely on usenet posts as their only sources. There's a great variability in source reliability at bkgm, and the things for which it was the sole source were pointing to articles that referenced usenet sources. After removing those, the only citations left to bkgm were in the basic rules, which are also supported by two other sources so we didn't need it there. —ptk✰fgs 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge with Nard (game)?

There's a description of a number of variants of nard at Tables (board game), so I'm not sure it would be accurate to call nard and backgammon the same game. On the contrary, I think the descriptions of the long narde and short narde at tables warrant an expansion of nard.

Mani1, what's your reasoning? —ptk✰fgs 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[12][13][14]

Is it really helpful to have the three footnotes referenced in virtually every paragraph of the Rules section? It strikes me as a bit of an eyesore. I'm not familiar with all the style standard for this sort of thing, but maybe these could be combined in one place? --Nephtes 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it probably isn't. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games suggests that this section ought to be shorter and less detailed, anyway. I'm not sure if there is a style guideline for a large section that is supported by multiple references; I went with that style figuring that it wasn't too annoying as long as they weren't in the middle of paragraphs. —ptk✰fgs 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

ITs not uncommon in scientific articles to use commas in more than one reference , like for example [12,13,14]. But i guess that wikipedia doesn't support this style. SNx 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Backgammon Gambling

I am not sure what is the view on this with respect to adding such a section to the article but the fact is that lots of people are doing it. Have a look at this interesting article on the RedTopBG listed in the external links about blacklisted link removed backgammon compared to other gambling games. I think we should either use this material to form another section here or create our own part about these modern ways people play backgammon on the net (try to look beyond the banner :). any thoughts? Davidoff 14:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this material would add a lot to the "Social and competitive play" section. Our section on gambling is pretty short, and that is both historically and currently an important facet of backgammon play. —ptk✰fgs 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The anectode about the raid in Oregon is particularly interesting — however, I can't seem to find a news report corroborating it. It would be nice if we had specific details. —ptk✰fgs 16:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to add to this post is antother article about the online dice used in such areas of backgammon and its realiability have a look blacklisted link removed Davidoff 14:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

This might be worth mentioning in the computer BG section. —ptk✰fgs 16:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I will start working on these sections then :) Although I would need your help in adding it to the references Davidoff 14:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I like the way this article is expanding it is great :) I added the sections we discussed Davidoff 04:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I still think we should expand and compare the backgammon game to the various skill and gambling games available on online sites, simply because people would be interested to know about these gaming areas played online, and as much as it is hard to say it backgammon is becoming a growing gambling game for people that want to increase their chances of winning by adding a fair bit of skill to the game. I think the comparison with other online gaming like casino games is important and intersting. we might want to restructure the sections that were taken off but i still think we should have them in the article. Davidoff 16:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't that make more sense in Online gambling? We should try to focus on the core topic as much as possible. I think in the case of the article Backgammon we want to 1) be clear about how money play works (which I think needs little expansion as it is now) and 2) give a short description of how online play works (this could use a little expansion, but I think we have the core topics covered pretty well). a comparison between online backgammon gambling and other kinds of online gambling seems like we're straying way off topic. remember, this is an article about backgammon in general, spanning from the 13th century to the present, and I think it would be pretty unbalanced to go into a discussion about why and how playing backgammon online differs from blackjack/roulette/poker, etc. —ptk✰fgs 18:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It definitely should not go in the online gambling article, which serves mostly to point to other articles about specific games. To be consistent it should either be included here; or in a general gambling skill games online article, or most consistently, an online backgammon article. I'd suggest that the content be written, and if a long paragraph or less it be putt here, and if two significant paragraphs or longer it be broken out into an online backgammon article -- which then would also include the free play online content. 2005 23:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Thinking about it some more, a general discussion comparing various gambling games probably belongs in Gambling, and, not surprisingly, it's already written there. General information about online gambling absolutely belongs in the online gambling article, but I'm not sure there's anything more that needs to be said than what's already there. It links to gambling, which has the comparison discussions, and describes (or links to other articles describing) how those games are implemented in software.

I don't quite see what's so significant about online backgammon that we need an article for it. It's exactly the same game, played exactly the same way, just using thoroughly unexciting software. The only differences I can think of that actually bear on the game itself are that pipcounts are displayed on-screen, and that viewing the board on-screen kind of hurts my eyes. The real notable story about backgammon software is in the AI programming: BKG vs Villa, through to the revolutionary TD-Gammon, culminating in the modern NN packages. —ptk✰fgs 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If there isn't anything particularly significant about online backgammon or gambling regarding backgammon, then this article should handle it. 2005 00:25, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

World Backgammon championship

added some information about this special event that happens every year in Monte Carlo hope you like it :) Davidoff 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I only scanned it; is there actually any information that is not cited to RedTopBG.com? We are so far beyond overloaded with references to this site that it's becoming an embarrassment to the article. Additionally, the writing there is of very poor quality, and the articles do not credit an author. More extensive exploration into the site has only led me to doubt it more and more. I hope this weekend to be able to replace every reference to RedTop with sources that meet WP:RS. —ptk✰fgs 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

redtopbg.com source credibility

I have significant concerns about the credibility of redtopbg.com, currently cited for eight separate references in the article.

• The style of writing and these comments ([1] [2] [3]) have led me to conclude that it is a self-published site, and that the links are being added to the article by the site's webmaster.
• The site does not credit an author, so there is little possibility for independent verification of the claims attributed to redtopbg.com. A google search for "red top" backgammon has not yielded any commentary from secondary sources regarding the articles at the site.
• We currently cite redtopbg.com for a claim that a backgammon tournament in Oregon was raided by law enforcement agents. Despite an exhaustive search at my university library, I can find no independent corroboration of this event.
• We currently cite redtopbg.com for a claim that Paul Magriel served as an expert witness at a trial resulting from the Oregon raid. I can find no independent corroboration of this event.

Once we can establish the credibility of redtopbg.com under the guidelines at WP:RS, or once the references (and, where necessary, the attributed claims) have been removed, I think we can remove the verifiability warning template at the top of the article. —ptk✰fgs 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I am going to work on finding more references for the new information on the article, regardless if you feel that the information about the backgammon championship or oregon raid are not valid here then we can remove them and the cite to redtopbg.com I only want to contribute quality information for the article and I do not want to impare the article in any way Davidoff 11:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

in Hebrew

In Hebrew, it is called shesh besh, meaning "six and five".

In Hebrew it is called shesh besh, and shesh does mean "six", but besh does not mean "five" or anything else. I had thought that the name in Hebrew was borrowed from another language, but it's obviously not from any of the other languages on the list. Rusco 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I found a source that says the phrase is probably from Persian, and that "besh" means "five" in modern Persian as well as Turkish. I'll try to get to this today. —ptk✰fgs 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I've addressed this the best I can. I would appreciate any further suggestions on the revised sentence. —ptk✰fgs 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

in hebrew we do call it shesh besh but the word besh does come from Persian as Ptkfgs said Davidoff 16:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

External links section

I suggest the external links section should be reduced to a single link to the Dmoz Backgammon category. As of this moment, all the other links listed are in that category. Some of the similar articles about strategy games with a large variety of good sites on the topic deal with the issue this way, which simplifies things and avoids edit wars or discussions of fine lines. I propose the following text as a note: <There are many quality backgammon information and play sites that could be linked here that would add to the value of the article. However, Wikipedia is not a link repository, so currently what is linked is a link to the Open Directory backgammon category, which lists dozens of topical sites.> 2005 10:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

That's reasonable and seems to be in line with how we handle external links in some other game related articles, like casino for example. Rray 12:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. —ptk✰fgs 12:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've implemented this. Excellent suggestion, thanks. —ptk✰fgs 22:12, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys I have seen the recent changes implemented in the external links, although I think it does makes the article cleaner I disagree that we should send users to ODP in order to search through quality links on the specific article category (most wiki articles do not do this, and it has never been a policy by wikipedians or wikipedia). I think a good article should provide selected resources that fellow wikipedians had chosen instead of sending users to go fetch in ODP. Remember that some or even most users are not that handy with the internet or do not have the patience of looking through ODP listings that they do not know (mind you that some users do not know what is ODP at all). I respect the decision we will make, although I do think we should reconsider this in order to save users the hassle of searching through ODP by listing the best sites relating to this article on this article, that is the main reason for the external links in wikipedia. Davidoff 02:59, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The links on ODP are pretty good. We're linking directly to a well-organized collection of sites about backgammon. We can never hope to be as extensive or as selective as the linked directory listing. —ptk✰fgs 03:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

There is no doubt that the links on ODP are good, although the argument i am making does not talk on the quality alone it also talks about the convinience for users who are not aware of ODP's quality and do not know what it is. I think we should keep to the wikipedia policy of listing quality links in the external links WP:EL as well as a link to ODP in order to serve both type of users. any thoughts guys? Davidoff 12:25, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts? I think you are trying to increase the google rank of your site by posting it here. I think Redtopbg has credibility problems, because there's no author listed for most of the articles. I think the writing is, in general, of a lower quality than at Backgammon Galore. I think you've used an anon ip to assist in maintaining the link here. I think it's starting to get irritating, and I think the article is of higher quality without linking to Redtopbg. I think it's unfortunate that we can't link to Backgammon Galore without you insisting we link to Redtopbg as well, but I think linking only to the ODP category is an acceptable compromise. —ptk✰fgs 13:57, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. 2005 20:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok now listen I DONT care if you take RedTopBG off the backgammon article and I don't care if you take out all the references to RedTopBG from the article. The additions you are talking about were made by me and I stand by them (I said it was me have a look at the top of the page under "World Backgammon championship" so please don't accuse me before checking) and I think they were legitimate, all information on the site is verifiable on news sites and other backgammon sites. I have nothing to hide the fact that I am managing redtopbg is mentioned on my talk page and you missing it is not my problem. If you want to talk without personal attack than let's do it. If you haven't noticed I am not engaging in any attack towards you other then putting forward constructive suggestions. Regardless of what you think RedTopBG is listed in major sites like ODP, backgammon galore, backgammon pages and other major gaming sites so its credibility is well in place. If you don't want to list it because of your personal opinion or because you think I tried to trick you then that is crazy and is not how we work in wiki and you know that. I have been doing lots of good things here on wikipedia and I never used wiki for my personal gain and I am not doing so now. Lots of sites and people value the RedTopBG.com resource and you your self had said in the past that the site is very informative and has good articles. If I get new information about backgammon or online gambling on redtopbg then I might list it here or other locations. I think that it is fair and will benefit the article, and if wikipedians do not like the new information they will take it off or re-edit like you have been doing with some of the information and that is fine isn't that how we work always? Please let's solve this constructively with no attacks Davidoff 02:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe for a moment that you had any intention of deceiving me or anyone else. The reason I linked to the diff wherein you identified yourself as the webmaster was because I did not want to assert that without any supporting evidence. In that case, the site was being used as a reference on this article, and I wanted to establish that the webmaster and an editor here were the same person, to bear on the guidelines for self-published sources and original research. One of the risks of referencing one's own content on Wikipedia is that it may be criticized; I apologize if it sounded as though I was disparaging your contributions.

You are correct that my initial assessment of the site was that it contained a number of useful articles. I changed my mind after reading a number of articles on the site. As I noted in the earlier instance, and as I noted above, there is no author listed on the vast majority of content there. When I compare this to a site like Backgammon Galore, which features articles by authors that I can easily identify as authorities on the subject, I see a significant difference in credibility. I have no idea who the authors at RedTop are because they are not identified.

I'm still not sure what we lose by linking only to the ODP category. Is there a valuable backgammon resource on the web that is not listed there? If so, I'd be glad to suggest it be added to the category. 2005's solution for the external link section is brilliant, and we need a clear plan for this section, because the volume of referrer links and drive-by spam is likely to increase, not decrease.

Really, what it comes down to is that I don't think what this article needs are huge new sections of content. I think your contributions have played a significant role in bringing the article to where it is today, even as I believe it was an improvement to shorten them significantly. I think that for the most part, the current revision covers all of the major issues associated with the game that it needs to be a featured article. What it needs to get there is to raise the quality of references and writing. —ptk✰fgs 03:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Condensing rules

WikiProject Board and table games has developed some helpful style guidelines for articles about board games. I'd like to work on condensing our "Rules" section to be more in line with the WPBTG guidelines. Currently we have pretty much a complete description of the rules here, which is probably too much detail for a general encyclopedia. I've temporarily copied the section to my user page at User:Ptkfgs/Backgammon Rules. This diff is my first stab at condensing the rules section. I'd appreciate any comments here about what we can lose and what we need to keep. —ptk✰fgs 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

"Barr v Oregon"

There are a lot of sites on the internet stating that a backgammon tournament in 1981 was raided by police in Oregon, that the tournament was run by Ted Barr, that Stephen S. Walker eventually heard the case in the Oregon district court, and that Paul Magriel testified as a witness at the trial. I've searched and searched and searched, and no news publication seems to have ever documented this event. I'm no expert legal researcher, but I can't find anything, ever mentioning this in Oregon court cases or any federal case. If this happened at all, nobody ever wrote it down. None of the websites that describe this give a date for the trial besides "1982", and none of them ever cite a specific case number.

The only verifiable part of the story seems to be that Stephen S. Walker was an Oregon district court judge in 1982. This is well-documented, but not very useful.

Since this is such a commonly repeated story, and since the Safe Port Act seems to be veto-proof, it would be really nice if we had a real publication or legal citation for this case. We are going to need a sentence or two to update the "online play" section after the Safe Port Act takes effect. —ptk✰fgs 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

beaver missing

the beaver disambig page refers to this page but there is no mention of beaver at all. someone must have removed it at some point.

Wikikob 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC) I have just corrected this.

Dice software

Is there a reliable source attesting significant doubt of the randomness of dice on backgammon servers? In my experience, this has strictly been the domain of paranoid usenet posts. The redtop site refers to a controversy, but its credibility is still hampered by its lack of any authorship attribution and a writing style which suggests it is a self-published source.

The question here is this: are some fringe theories about internet backgammon dice, which remain unsupported by any serious analysis, a significant enough issue in the game that we need an entire section devoted to it? No, I don't think we do. I added a sentence describing how dice rolls are supplied (using random or pseudorandom number generators). I'd really like to know why we need this section. —ptk✰fgs 00:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is not necessarily to say there is doubt in the online dice and trying to prove that gaming site manipulate it, but more to make people aware that this doubt, if exists, can be easily refuted. I guess it is more of an assurance from an authority site such as wiki to say that such manipulation of the dice is not possible without players picking it up and raising the issue. Davidoff 13:49, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have serious objections to this article being the first "authority site" to raise the issue. If there's no reliable source that raises the issue, then it's original research for us to speculate on it here. We have a sentence describing how dice rolls are generated in backgammon software. The rest is paranoid junk. I will remove it now. —ptk✰fgs 04:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

All this paragraph is trying to say is that it isn't an issue and that players should not be worried. This is not to raise any new issues with the dice and has nothing to do with being paranoid it is to assure players that such manipulation is not possible due to the reasons you just stated that there is no reliable source online doubting the cube as well as the reasons the paragraph lists as well, I am adding it again. Hope you agree :) Davidoff 04:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

All this paragraph is trying to say is that it isn't an issue and that players should not be worried.

Why do we need to do this? It's an encyclopedia article, not a soapbox. If backgammon server operators want to convince people their dice are random, that's their job, not ours. Maybe it's part of your job? If so, please take it elsewhere.

it is to assure players that such manipulation is not possible due to the reasons you just stated

Of course it's possible. It would be a fairly trivial python script to get jokers and roots for a given position from gnubg. It's just not an issue. We don't talk about magnetic boards here, or loaded dice, or people playing online with Snowie. The purpose of the article is not to promote backgammon servers. It's to provide a balanced and informative article about important aspects of the game, and having a whole section about the fairness of dice on backgammon servers adds a particularly irrelevant dollop of fancruft to the article.

Without a reliable source to back up the claim that a substantial number of players have doubts about the fairness of the dice, this is just a distraction. Please, if you are going to add this to the article again, provide a reliable source that raises the issue. —ptk✰fgs 05:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok fair enough, if i find a reliable source i will add it otherwise we will leave it out. Davidoff 08:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Ambiguous?

I am trying to learn the rules of backgammon. I found this sentence ambiguous: "Checkers placed on the bar re-enter the game through the opponent's home field." Who is the opponent in this context?

Jameshfisher 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi. This article is not meant to contain comprehensive rules for backgammon. You will find this page more helpful. —ptk✰fgs 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

The sentence is so nicely phrased it puts a lot of information across in few words. It may seem strange, but concise language can often lead to significant details being missed by readers. Here the significant detail is that the implied subject is the owner of the checkers which are placed on the bar. This player's checkers re-enter play through her opponent's home field. The implication follows from the fact that checkers in backgammon always belong to one player, throughout each game -- white to one player, black to the other, for example. Alastair Haines 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

They/their as a singular

This article is not a situation where we would want to use "they" and "their" as singular nouns. There are always at least two players in backgammon, and using these pronouns to refer to a single player here would introduce unnecessary ambiguity, since they are most often used as plurals in formal writing. I don't think gender-inclusiveness is a problem at all in this article, as it uses male and female pronouns in roughly equal numbers to refer to players generically. —ptk✰fgs 02:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into a revert war with User:ICarriere, but my opinion is that "The winner is the first to remove all of his/her" should be "The winner is the first to remove all of her". mpetch 19:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "his/her" is clumsy, and it seems like there's someone blasting through here every other week to change "his" or "her" to "their" or "his/her" (today was the first "there" I've seen, to be sure)... or something else ugly. I've changed it to "his or her". I seriously just. do. not. get. why this sentence attracts so much grammatical damage. —ptk✰fgs 22:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Might want to catch the commentary/discussion over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Backgammon. I've tried to direct it back here. mpetch 22:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd just make them all "she".

I agree that the plural option is not well suited to the context (imo it's non-ideal anywhere). I also agree that her/his is just awful, same with "her or his", "she (he)", or other variations. This is an article about backgammon, not about gender equality. Given, the political nature of the issue, I simply always use "she", and when refering to women and men, always put women first. In other words, I use the traditional English conventions, only in reverse. That never gets reverted.

I find the constant change between "she" and "he" makes me dizzy. I had to correct one sentence that read something like, "he rolls the dice and then she moves the pieces", but only one player was intended! May I suggest, if the pronouns do have to alternate, that this is done on a section by section basis, not paragraph by paragraph (or within sentences!). But why not keep it simple? Use "she" everywhere. Alastair Haines 12:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Works for me. I think at some point it was originally on a section-by-section basis, but a lot of crap got merged around and rewritten. Certainly, the within-sentence example was not intentional. Just as long as it isn't "they", for reasons I noted above. —ptk✰fgs 12:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

that she shit is hella annoying, i make this comment as a reader not editor, i expect it to be correctly, surely there is rules to this encyclopedia business 86.13.202.173 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The constant use of the female pronoun and possessive in this article is offensive, and consitues a sexist use of language. If the default had been the male pronoun, *nobody* would dare suggest that it was acceptable to use this exclusive language. The fact is that neither case should be seen as acceptable, lingusitically or morally - unless the actual intention of the writer is to explicitly refer to the sex of a backgammon player, which surely is not the case here. My point is that to use gender specific pronouns and possessives when not intended is at the least poor use of English, and is technically misleading in semantic intent, just as it would be to use a neuter pronoun such as 'It". I agree that "His/Her" is clumsy annd awkward, and unnecesarily verbose. The actual key is skill in language use itself - to construct sentences which avoid this problem in the first place, by manipulating voice, tense, referent or quantifiers. I have done this in a couple of paragraphs myself. It should not be an issue of arguing over how to patch up sentences that are neccesarily inevitably going to manifest this problem, but rather of rewriting them wholesale, and avoiding writing similarly bad sentences like this in the future. Many of us have spent years studying and working in universities, or writing professionally, and have never had to submit work that suffers from any of these problems.

Get it right - or stop editing entirely and let somebody who can use the language properly do so please. ~~—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.50.36.40 (talk • contribs).

The use of "they" and "their" would be vague and grammatically broken in this context. We need to refer to singular generic individuals, and the use of "they" and "their" here would introduce unnecessary confusion, often making it impossible to determine whether we are referring to one player or to both. "She" and "her" were selected arbitrarily to replace an inconsistent mixture of masculine and feminine pronouns sprinkled throughout the article. Please do not attempt to use Wikipedia as a personal soapbox for promoting your own views on sexist and nonsexist language.

We could probably come up with sentences in every case here that would avoid the use of personal pronouns, but the resulting prose would be so verbose and unwieldy that it would probably be unreadable. Our concern here should be to communicate information about backgammon in a clear and neutral manner. To contort sentences into longer and more confusing forms for the sole purpose of avoiding the use of personal pronouns is not the skillful use of language and will not help us here. —ptk✰fgs 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I personally find, as a reader, that using 'she' and 'her' makes it sound like the game is exclusive to women, and for the sake of political correctness you have all slapped some feminine pronouns in where the usual masculine ones would do. This is political correctness gone mad.82.15.9.10 12:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

First off, the use of "her" and "his" was/are both used throughout the article before your revision, thus making your comment "Exclusive to women" false. Then you make a circular argument that you want to use the masculine form and make it "Exclusive to Men". Clearly exclusivity to you is fine as long as the masculine form is exclusive. The use or "his"/"her" has nothing to do with political correctness - it comes down to readability (Using they and their is more difficult to read and more ambiguous). Replacement of the gender based pronouns with neutral ones makes it harder to follow the article without significantly increasing the level of unnecessary verbiage (But if you wish to discuss a neutral form be my guest). At no point did you argue the article was unreadable - just that you take issue to use of feminine pronouns mpetch 14:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying that I want it changed and if you could find the line in my comment where I say that I would be very grateful. I'm just saying that mostly in situations where "their" won't fit, using "his" is generally understood to apply to anyone, or at least I thought it was, if you say it isn't then that's fine.82.15.9.10 18:11, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry someone on the same day (not you - my apologies) went and modified the article and used all masculine. I hadn't noticed your IP was not the one that actually posted. My comment should actually be directed at 82.3.76.207. mpetch 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I understand the reasoning for not using "his or her" and the choice to use her. But lets face it, using "her" sounds out of place and seems too feminist. There is no need to make a political statement in an article about backgammon. When addressing a group of people (informally) one would say "Hey you guys" not "Hey you girls". Every her should be changed to his and every she should be changed to he.

All of you. Read the singular they article before continuing. Serioulsy. —M (talk • contribs) 16:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pop Culture

I just added back the pop culture section that was removed (chess has a large section on culture). Any comments on why it was removed.169.139.225.2 21:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

We really don't need it. Pop culture sections tend to attract the worst kind of unencyclopedic trivia and add little to the article. —ptk✰fgs 22:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think a “popular culture” section could be useful and informative, like the one at Go (game) #In_popular_culture 169.139.225.2 23:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the only example anyone has proposed is Locke's discussion of the game, which is only one of many board games he's depicted playing. The Lost themes article already has a complete discussion of the topic. Do we really need to mention Lost in every single article on a topic the show has briefly touched? Most everything backgammon discusses is a crucial and substantial topic in the game. While I was of course pleased to see that the castaways were equipped with a backgammon set -- I always fly with one, of course -- I just don't see why that's important to mention in this article.

The situation with go is different, in that it is far and away the most played and studied board game in the East. The same is true of chess in the West. These games have a substantial presence in popular culture. Backgammon has not left that sort of enduring mark in 20th century media... at least not yet. —ptk✰fgs 23:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks for your thoughtful response and explanation.169.139.225.2 23:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As usual, all the focus is on the extrema of the planet: West and Far East. What about the the Near East, where it (and close variants) are by far the most popular board games? Backgammon is an essential part of the culture there. nadav 05:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

One, one's as alternative to gender-specific pronouns

"One" is the formal alternative to the informal "you." It's not meant to replace pronouns referring to nouns that have already been introduced. nadav (talk) 05:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this getting old? Someone flip a coin, already, and get this overwith. —ptk✰fgs 05:17, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's quite easy to use gender neutral language for only a slight sacrifice in readability. Personally, I always use "he" and "his" but I guess some people care about this. nadav (talk) 05:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I'd call it a slight sacrifice -- let's just use some little pronouns, shall we? Good ol' pronouns! —ptk✰fgs 05:30, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I prefer using the standard english pronouns for when the gender isn't known: he, him and his. But another editor (who will probably show up soon) changed them all to the female-specific pronouns. When I changed them back because of standard english usage, she reverted them because of "blatent sexism", not understanding the extreme irony of doing so with that comment.

With the changes, I tried to get the usage correct, but I made some problms. Thanks for correcting them. Val42 05:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I merely replaced some instances of masculine pronouns with feminine pronouns so that there was an equitable balance of feminine and masculine pronouns throughout the article. Also, it would be "he reverted them", so it seems that you are not without biases of your own.

At any rate, I'd favor any solution where the usage of pronouns of a specific gender is not favored at the expense of the other gender. However, the article still seems to have some problems in this respect, so I will fix those momentarily. Ofhcal 20:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but be careful with "the 15-point" vs "his 15-point" -- my 15-point is across the board from my opponent's. —ptk✰fgs 21:38, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What's wrong with this strategy paragraph?

Why do you people insist on deleting this paragraph from the strategy section. The concepts in this paragraph are fundamental to any understanding of the game. The article on Backgammon as it is is crap because it is so conceptually superficial. This paragraph gives the article a firm conceptual elucidation of the game:

The basis of strategy in backgammon is to try to slow down the opponent through skillful and timely placement of blocking points (two or more checkers stacked on one position), and via hitting loose checkers that the opponent may leave on the board. For a particular player, the most valuable blocking points tend to be those that are located within that player's goal quadrant, and the most valuable such points are the ones towards the periphery of that goal quadrant. In the initial game setup, each opponent already has five backgammon checkers stacked on their six-point (the sixth position in each player's respective goal quadrant). Each player also has three checkers stacked on their respective eight-point. These three checkers, along with the five on the six-point, can be used as "builders" to help build up more points within that goal quadrant. These goal-quadrant blocking points are extremely valuable because each on reduces by one dice number the number of dice numbers available to the opponent, if the opponent's loose checker is hit and the opponent must try to return to his beginning quadrant (which is the other player's goal quadrant). In Backgammon, a central tactic is to try to "make the five-point," or place a block on the fifth point in the goal quadrant. It has been demonstrated conclusively that a player who makes this five-point block early on in the game has a clear strategic advantage against his opponent. Every computer neural net program has taught itself to follow this key tactic. This will give the player a 3-prime, or three points in a row at the goal quadrant area, making it difficult for the opponent to escape from this area. These points are also a safety zone where the player can place more extra builder checkers for building even more points on the inner board. If the opponent makes the 4-5-6 prime early on in the game and places spare builder checkers on it, on each turn the player will have a chance of making a roll that will enable the player to make another point in the goal quadrant. Accordingly, the opening roll of 3-1 is the most valuable opening roll in the game, because it allows a player to instantly make the five-point block, by moving a checker from the six to the five, and another checker from the eight to the five. In addition, 4-2 is the second most valuable opening roll because it allows a player to instantly put a block on the four point, which is almost as valuable as the five point block because it is almost as near to the periphery of the goal quadrant as the five point. 6-1 is another very valuable opening roll, because it allows a player to put a block on the seven-point, which prevents the opponent from using a six dice number to escape checkers in that opponent's beginning quadrant. If all six points within the inner quadrant are blocked and the opponent checker is hit, the opponent will not be able to move until the first player is forced to break up a point on that board. By that time, the player could advance all of his pieces to the goal quadrant and begin the process of moving them off the board and winning the game. As a defensive strategy, a player could try to place a block of his own on the five point of his opponent's goal quadrant; this is possible if the player rolls a 4-4 opening roll, since the player can move the two checkers on the 24-point to the 20-point and form a block on the 20 point (the 20-point for a player corresponds to the five-point for the opponent). As long as this defensive point remains in place, the opponent cannot place a block on the five point, reducing the probability of preventing the player from being blocked if the player's loose checker is hit during the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.115.232.209 (talk • contribs).

It's unsourced, it rambles without any break, unnecessarily advocates a position, and reads like original research. Additionally, it repeats information found elsewhere in the article in a confusing context. Lastly, it provides an inappropriate level of instruction and advice for an encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I made the second deletion, but I forgot to log in when I did so. Ptkfgs pretty much said it. A summary of what Wikipedia "isn't" can also be found here. Your comment " is is crap because it is so conceptually superficial" actually is what wikipedia is about. Your perspective didn't say its crap because its wrong - its because it is superficial - which is what is intended per wikipedia NOT being a textbook/manual. All is not lost - if you wish to create a primer on backgammon strategy you may consider adding your knowledge to the wikibooks project and in particular the backgammon wikibook. You will find your style will need to be cleaned up. Mpetch 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Five checker rule

I added a paragraph to the varients section, I've always played with this rule (in UK) and encountered it in other places (US and Holland). I think it is widespread enough to merit a mention, especially since many seem to think it is part of the official rules (as I did initially). However, I'm not sure if the note about why it is called the 'Egyptian rule' in GNUBG is appropriate here, although it is interesting. EasyTarget 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely a common variant, but I think we need better sources than the IRC log and probably than the GNUbg documentation. —BurnDownBabylon 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Names of the pieces

An IP went through this article and changed every instance of the words "pieces" and "checkers" to "stones." Those things can be called pieces, stones, checkers, men, pawns, counters or chips. The article was fine the way it was. This has all the makings of one of the most idiotic edit wars Wikipedia has ever seen. (Remember he/him/his v. she/her/hers?) I reverted to checkers, since that was most often used before the most recent edits, and put a parenthetical list of names in the intro. Let's just leave it alone, please. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd assume good faith for both edits.. Keeping it consistent through the main text is good, and I think that 'checkers' or 'pieces' seem to be the most common terms for this, with the rest also in use (and noteworthy). I would associate 'stones' more with similar (mostly African) games or historical/Fictional contexts. EasyTarget (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh my, that lead sentence was a disaster. I've moved the long litany of names for the pieces to a footnote. Let's keep in mind that the overwhelming preference of contemporary backgammon literature in English is to call the pieces "checkers" and follow that convention here, shall we? Certainly we should mention that there are other names still in use, but to fight that war in the first sentence of the article is an abrasive and embarrassing way to introduce the reader to the game. —BurnDownBabylon 05:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Board Game Geek

I disagree with linking to the Board Game Geek website in this article. In the first place, the site is very spammy - lots of advertising. Second, this template is most often used with proprietary games like Monopoly (game), Trivial Pursuit, and The Game of Life. A certain amount of commercialism is inevitable when mentioning these games because they're copyrighted and owned. Note that other classic strategy games in the public domain such as Chess, Go (board game), English draughts (checkers) and Draughts do not use this template or link to Board Game Geek. Also, there's no real value added in the link. I'm deleting the template to encourage discussion. Please comment here before re-adding. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's reasonable. First, I think for public domain games, that you are correct that it's less relevant. Second, because the site is in fact extremely spammy. I Hadn't realized this because I'm a member there and have all ads turned off, but for non-member visitors it's a mess (and thus inappropriate encyclopedic content.) — Aldaron • T/C 22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Backgammon is really a sport ! Yes

Backgammon is a sport ! Really ! Why ?! Because it needs training ! Practising ! Progressing ! Backgammon players work ! They can have levels ! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastasija Marachkovskaja (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Backgammon is a sport , or can be considered as a sport !

I would like to say that backgammon is a sport , or can be considered as one ! Backgammon necessite training , concentration , activity , like sports in general ! This is a MENTAL sports , or psychical ! You can write a message on my Eremia (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)discussion page ! Eremia (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)Eremia