playBunny: The Crawford game is always cubeless; also, any game that is played when both players are 1 point away from winning the match is cubeless.

This debate reminds me of when nackgammon was introduced on Dailygammon (there's that name again!). DG doesn't have separate ratings for Nack and Back. I was concerned with this and actually played nackgammon under a different name for quite awhile. Ultimately, I realized that my ratings in nack and back were essentially identical, and stopped using the nack name.

Now, that won't necessarily happen with cubeful and cubeless. Nack and back really are the same game, except for the starting position; the strategies are identical. Cubeful backgammon does require an entirely different skill set. However, that doesn't mean that separate ratings should be maintained; it just means that a complete backgammon player has to be able to use the cube properly. There aren't separate ratings among golfers for driving and putting, or among tennis players for serving and volleying; so why should there be different ratings for cube play and checker play? The cube seems strange to people here now because it is unfamiliar; but in a few months' time, we will all be wondering what the big fuss was about.