Well you could change the rule in chess to allow a 3-1 knight move only being allowed if you are in check if you want it to apply to fewer situations but that I feel still misses the point. What I am trying to explain is not the number of moves it actually applies to but how you think about the game. If a 3-1 knight move was allowed then clearly every move you make you would have to take into account that your opponent had that option as indeed you would too. It is the same with backgammon, you must think about what your opponents rolls can be and how they can move them and also what your next roll could be and how you can move that given any possible move your opponent makes. Knowing that your opponent or you could make a move that allows only one die to be used, whereas the rules state both must be used if possible, will then come into many more moves you make than appear likely at first sight, and therein lies the problem. I do like Big Bad Wolf's analogy of the en-passant move at chess but would also say I feel that this backgammon rule affects many more moves than that would at chess.

As I said before though, without a cube, even if the rule is fixed we still won't have true backgammon, it will just be nearer is all. Anyone here could beat the current world champion in a 1 point match, I doubt anyone would if it was 21 points!!

Well lets look at chess shall we? Why does a knight move in a 2-1 "L" shape? Why not a 3-1 "L" shape? That certainly isn't "The whole game" as you put it. Now suppose here you could move your knight 3-1 as well as 2-1, would you say well it sometimes suits me to be able to do that so it's ok or would you instead pass a comment that the game wasn't being played to the rules? It is the same with backgammon. You keep asking why that is the rule. The answer to that is that if you understand the die roll possibilities and you understand that this rule applies then it is paramount as to how you move prior to the situation arising to avoid leaving yourself where having to play both dice will hurt you. Similarly you can create situations by using a backgammon tactic known as killing numbers to place your opponent in that same situation. You say it is not common, well it certainly isn't rare but what is common, though you may not realise it, is that many moves are made with the idea in mind of creating that situation, though not all will ever materialise.

To finish I would just like to deal with your comment "It would be fine if every piece could move like that through the whole game, although it wouldn't be chess." That is exactly the point, it may be fine although what we are playing certainly isn't backgammon. Having said that, without a cube in use which is far more fundamental to the game, then even if this is corrected what you are playing certainly isn't backgammon either, as cube action accounts for over 50% of the skill at the game. Regard it as a practice game for the real thing but even if you can play well here don't fool yourself you know how to play backgammon as when/if you do ever play the real game you will soon find out how little of the game you do actually understand.

I will tell you Kevin why you should not be able to move your 2 instead of your 6 if it suits you. It is simple, those are the rules and this one is fundamental to the game. Clearly your skill level does not extend to comprehend why that is so but rules are not changed to suit your knowledge of the game. Maybe you and I should play chess and I will argue that maybe I should not be checkmated even when I am as it "suits me" not to be? As for the argument players who dont like it should design their own site, you are missing the point. This is not a complaint it is simply drawing it to the designer of this site's attention who may not realise the software is doing this. With or wiithout the rule implemented the better players will still find their way to the top, it would just be better if we were playing the game to the rules is all.

I would question that this is an "odd rule". It is fundamental to end play strategy where a stand off arises to play in such a way that your opponent must break first. That is the main area though others arise too. I would also question that it is only 3% of games this applies to but if for now we assume it is, then if you lose/win 3% of games you should have won/lost then that is effectively a 6% change and that is significant.

The rules of backgammon state that both dice must be played if possible but where play is only possible with one die the higher number must be played. I am not sure about the second part but certainly the first part is not implemented here.