Life In 19x19

hyperpape wrote:Palapiku, it may not be apparent from Cyclops' comment, but the doubling rules are a huge part of serious backgammon.

Not really. The doubling cube is a part of the Western backgammon fad of the last century, which was fairly short-lived and is now over anyway. The doubling cube was only introduced in the 1920s and in the West. The overwhelming majority of backgammon playing happens around Mediterranean and the Middle East (edit: and Iran, and Turkic countries further East), without a doubling cube and usually not for money.

The Western perspective seems to be that Backgammon is meant to be played for money or else it's not serious. This is demeaning to the game. This "gambling" backgammon is the equivalent of Bangneki, and yeah, like daniel_the_smith said, adding the doubling cube to Bangneki doesn't seem like a bad idea either.

Well, komi is a pretty recent introduction to Go, and yet it's not suspect. At the time, while it was introduced in Japan, it was derided in terms that match our conception of Eastern vs. Western modes of thought. Komi was seen as rationalizing the game and making it more meritocratic, as opposed to preserving the kind of deference implicit in taking no komi against a teacher or higher ranking player.

I also don't see any intrinsic connection between the doubling cube and money. It seems to be a perfectly reasonable strategic element of the game whether it is played for money or not.

Analogy: you can play poker without money or for trivial stakes, but you'll still bet.

My real problem with the doubling cube is that there's nothing backgammon-specific about it. You can add it to any other game with the exact same effect. The impact on the strategy would be the same, governed by a simple formula. The cube would add excitement and "shorten dull games" in Go and Chess just as well as in Backgammon. But Go and Chess don't need a doubling cube, and Backgammon doesn't either.

Komi addressed a real deficiency in the rules of Go - the game was not fair. I don't think the doubling cube addresses any real deficiency. The game is fine without it. It made the game more popular among gamblers, but they're all playing poker now anyway.

Because Backgammon depends on throwing dice a game is seldom hopeless as it is in go. Waiting till the game becomes hopeless takes relatively long in backgammon. The doubling forces the behind player to resign earlier.
In matches of many game not about money a doubling dice makes sense as well.

Still I agree backgammon is enjoyable without a doubling dice.

Well, Go had a well-established system of ranks plus adjustable handicaps, which is only fair on the assumption that a single game has to give fair chances for a win. But that assumption is not that important--Chess does fine without it, and you can only infer so much from a win in backgammon because of the influence of dice.

I agree that you can play backgammon without the doubling cube, but disagree that it's no more suited to backgammon than any other game. Because it's non-deterministic, judgments of how far ahead and whether it's worth continuing are more salient. In chess and go, the idea of "the probability that I win" are for monte carlo bots, not humans.

Anyway, not many games have purely organic rules. Go comes closest, but it's rare. Chess*, poker and backgammon are all exquisite games whose rules exhibit a lot of contingent choices.

* So I don't like chess. But I think this is still true.

hyperpape wrote:I agree that you can play backgammon without the doubling cube, but disagree that it's no more suited to backgammon than any other game. Because it's non-deterministic, judgments of how far ahead and whether it's worth continuing are more salient. In chess and go, the idea of "the probability that I win" are for monte carlo bots, not humans.

I think a doubling cube wouldn't be out of place in bangneki, though I've never tried bangneki with or without a cube. I can imagine situations with lots of redoubling as the fates of two dragons change.

cyclops wrote:Because Backgammon depends on throwing dice a game is seldom hopeless as it is in go. Waiting till the game becomes hopeless takes relatively long in backgammon. The doubling forces the behind player to resign earlier.
In matches of many game not about money a doubling dice makes sense as well.

Still I agree backgammon is enjoyable without a doubling dice.

It is different with backgammon because backgammon has the random element of dice there are opportunities where it is proper play for one player to offer the cube and the other to accept it. That is, both offering of the cube and accepting of the cube increases both players' expected return from the game (it is not just a means of forcing your opponent to resign).

In go (theoretically), you would never have a case where that should happen, since the player who is at a disadvantage on the board would be making a mistake by amplifying his or her losing position, without the random chance of having the game swing back in his or her favor. Of course in practical application there might be instances where it could be exciting (let's say you have a lead, but your opponent has more time on the clock, you double them hoping to clinch the game, they accept hoping to earn the difference back as your clock winds down). I think adding the cube to go could be quite fun!

palapiku wrote:

hyperpape wrote:I agree that you can play backgammon without the doubling cube, but disagree that it's no more suited to backgammon than any other game. Because it's non-deterministic, judgments of how far ahead and whether it's worth continuing are more salient. In chess and go, the idea of "the probability that I win" are for monte carlo bots, not humans.

I think a doubling cube wouldn't be out of place in bangneki, though I've never tried bangneki with or without a cube. I can imagine situations with lots of redoubling as the fates of two dragons change.

I've actually thought about this before, I also have never played bangneki (even at the Korean clubs, those who bet usually avoid it unless they have a lot of cash on hand or if they're close friends), and you'd have to set the stakes really low unless you wanted the risk of someone shelling out thousands of dollars, but it might be fun.

I think it could be used in a Jubango type series (no bangneki required), the value of the game doubles.

It's useful in backgammon in that it mitigates the effect of luck. But the luck component in go is based on players' morale, something they can control, whereas the luck component in backgammon comes from dice, something they can't.

I still think it would be a fun variant though.

palapiku wrote:

cyclops wrote:Finally it is a pity she doesnt like the doubling rules which are helpfull in shortening dull games.

And why don't you add a doubling cube to Go while you're at it. To shorten the dull games.

.. to double what?

zinger wrote:

palapiku wrote:

cyclops wrote:Finally it is a pity she doesnt like the doubling rules which are helpfull in shortening dull games.

And why don't you add a doubling cube to Go while you're at it. To shorten the dull games.

.. to double what?

Why, the same thing as in Backgammon: the value of a win.

palapiku wrote:Why, the same thing as in Backgammon: the value of a win.

And what is "the value of a win" in Go? We are not talking about matches here, only single games.

The cube is great idea in gammon, but not for Go.

zinger wrote:

palapiku wrote:Why, the same thing as in Backgammon: the value of a win.

And what is "the value of a win" in Go? We are not talking about matches here, only single games.

The cube is great idea in gammon, but not for Go.

And what is "the value of a win" in Backgammon? We are not talking about matches here, only single games.

palapiku wrote:Not really. The doubling cube is a part of the Western backgammon fad of the last century,

true

which was fairly short-lived and is now over anyway.

false.

The Western perspective seems to be that Backgammon is meant to be played for money or else it's not serious.

Totally wrong. The cube adds a tremendous amount of skill and complexity to multi-game matches, regardless of gambling. It makes gammon a far, far better game.

Playing single games and looking to see who rolls better is booooooring.

palapiku wrote:And what is "the value of a win" in Backgammon? We are not talking about matches here, only single games.

Well, *I* am talking about matches. Single games of backgammon are almost entirely pointless, to my mind, with skill taking a back seat to the luck of the dice.

zinger wrote:

palapiku wrote:And what is "the value of a win" in Backgammon? We are not talking about matches here, only single games.

Well, *I* am talking about matches. Single games of backgammon are almost entirely pointless, to my mind, with skill taking a back seat to the luck of the dice.

Well, then *I* am also talking about matches. Single games of Go are almost entirely pointless, to my mind, with skill taking a back seat to how well the players slept the night before, how much they ate, what mood they're in, or the luck of finding or not finding a specific tesuji on the limit of their reading ability.

This is why title matches are a series of games, why 10-game matches were popular in the past, and why X winning once against Y doesn't really prove anything about their relative strength. (Example: Fernando Aguilar 6d KGS beat several Japanese 9p, but he's still just 6d.)


(This discussion is pointless.)