bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]

## Re: Re: FW: [Bug-gnubg] Interesting backgammon scoring system_OK?

 From: Massimiliano . Maini Subject: Re: Re: FW: [Bug-gnubg] Interesting backgammon scoring system_OK? Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2006 09:53:55 +0200

```I had a look at the "fair backagmmon rules" and I must admit that my first
reaction has been something close to "no way, that's another game".
Even knowing that the same happened when the cube was first proposed, I
don't think these new roles are interesting (personal opinion, time may
prove me wrong).

The idea of alternating the first roll connected with an old info somebody
gave me about bridge tournaments. I don't know if it's true and how it
exactly works, but the overall concept was something like : each team has
to play at many tables, hence teams takes turns, but each table has always
the same cards. Team1 playing at table 1 has the same cards Team2 will have
when playing at that same table.

Trying to transpose to backgammon, I came up with the following :

Players A and B, boards B1 and B2, only 1 set of dice.

1st roll is 3-1 :
- player A will start with 3-1 on board B1
- player B wil lstart with 3-1 on board B2.
2nd roll is 5-2 :
- player A will start with 5-2 on board B2
- player B wil lstart with 5-2 on board B1.

And so on. I would call this "playing with dual rolls".

Notice that :

- the two parallel games evolve at the same pace : one roll must be
played over the two boards before moving to the next roll
- player A shouldn't be allowed to see player B decisions (chequer
AND cube) until A has made his own decision

That last point makes it very difficult to play this way over real
boards : you would need a "wall" between the two boards and a kind
of refree that verifies if one player doubles and, if none, rolls
the dice (or two buttons, one for each player, that once pressed
signal the intention to roll, as soon as they are both pressed then
the dice is rolled).

I don't know how much luck this will factor out.
Also, I don't know if playing 2 parallel games can lead to "strange"
strategies in matchplay (e.g. post-crawford ?). For sure you may
have to adapt your strategy over one board according to how the game
is evolving on the other, but at first glance it doesn't seem to me
that the changes are huge. It's still our old good backgammon.

How interesting would that be in your opinion ?
Has it already been proposed ?

MaX.

```

reply via email to