playBunny: It seems that the game was "lost to history" until Carter found King Tut's tomb in 1922- so the various rules are the result of educated guesses. I am trying to follow Kendall's rules with some modifications- (I made a homemade board while I'm waiting for one to come in the mail.)

DragonKing: What's the link?

I'm trying the one from Terry's Egyptian pages. It's hugely different to the P.S. Neeley's one. "Rules vary WIDELY" is true - same board but a completely different game!

playBunny: The version I have is a free download for PCs I believe. Isn't that what Rose was talking about? (I'm not really a computer person- so I"m not sure I undretsand your question.) The version I have keeps trying to load with Adobe reader but an error message tells me it's not supported by Adobe.

DragonKing: I've just been googling Deluxe myself and all I can find are Palm OS versions for the Palm PDA. Could that be the problem you're having?

playBunny: I have one from a site called Terry's Egyptian page and one from a museum site called "The Challenge." For some reason I cannot get Senet Deluxe to load on my computer- but I'm still trying! (I found these by using "senet" in a Google search.) I should warn everyone that the rules vary WIDELY between different versions of this game! What I like about it- is that there is a combination of luck and strategy. This is making me want to learn to play Backgammon again!

DragonKing: What programs do you have?

I've just tried P.S. Neeley's Windows version and it's quite fun.

DragonKing: Just called Senet deluxe.. you can likely find a download online

Rose: Do you remember what program it was? I have 2 simple software programs, but I would like to find one a bit more challenging if such a thing exits. I really enjot this game as well. Seems like a good mix of skill and luck!

DragonKing: I've played it a while back. Had it on my PC but lost it in a crash. Very fun game too!

Does anyone here ever play the ancient Egyptian board game called Senet? It may be the earliest version of backgammon ever found. I'm looking for people interested in senet or those who play Senet too.

Jim Dandy, Vikings: Not being redundant, Jim, because only you can give your opinion. Just that it was in the wrong place.

I and Walter Montego both agree with you both that non-cube matches should have gammons. Well, N-wins matches shouldn't but N-points matches should. So the votes have gone up.

Here's where the last of that conversation occurred..

(and my apologies, it was 2 days ago)

alanback: ditto, it's much better with the cube. And my rating skyrocketted since it's introduction ;)

I thought that the only thing worse that hypergammon would be hypergammon with the cube. But I just started playing some cube matches, and I love it!

grenv: ah ok .. i guess i am in a defensive mood today ... right now i would be terrified by the idea of being closed in by a block over 19,20,21 :)

Hrqls: 24/20(2) is correct if saving a gammon it seems.

Pythagoras: not 24-20(2) ?

grenv: *nod* agree :)

grenv: I think I made a mistake, but want to be clear:
After the opponent plays 4-2 (which has to be 8/4, 6/4 or it's a mistake) then I roll a 2-2, I'm playing 24/20, 6/4(2).

Since you cleared it up, i have the impression that you would NOT play the awful 24/20 6-4(2) after a 42 of your opponent so you retract your statement i have quoted above.....
After a 42 of our opponent, if we have 22 then we should play 24-22(2) 6-4(2) or 6-4(2) 13-11(2)....

playBunny: hmmm, i'm going to amend after some thought. In that situation 24/22(2), 6/4(2) is better, although 24/20(2) is obvious in a gammon save situation.

24/20, 6/4(2) is probably only good if you hit a blot on 20.

grenv: Yes, Although it was incongruous with the others, I reckoned you were referring to that player's second move (ie. third overall) just for that instance.

I agree that if your opponent has just made the 4-point then there's the danger of becoming closed in, but rather than put a blot on the 5-point with 24/20, it's better to grab the point entirely 24/20(2) and be secure, especially in Gammon-Save.

playBunny: I think I made a mistake, but want to be clear:

After the opponent plays 4-2 (which has to be 8/4, 6/4 or it's a mistake) then I roll a 2-2, I'm playing 24/20, 6/4(2).

I think I confused you into thinking I played 4-2 first.

grenv: Yes, blot-splatting gets the high priority.

5-5: Always 8/3(2), 6/1(2) if you can hit a blot. Blitz time! :-)) else 13/3 because what else can you do?

4-4: Likewise 8/4*(2)  6/2(2) or 8/4(2)  6/2*(2)
3-3: And 8/5*(2)  6/3(2) or 8/5(2)  6/3*(2)

2-2: If you've done the 4-2 and made the four point then 6-4 is inadvisable. That man is a builder for the 5-point. In fact almost all advancement of builders past empty points in the home table is to be done only if forced.

1-1: 6/5(2)  6/4*

What do the talkative players here think?

6-6: always 24/18(2), 13/7(2) except after 6-1 opening, then 13/7(2), 8/2(2)
5-5: usually 13/3, but sometimes 8/3(2), 6/1(2) if you hit a blot.
4-4: as playBunny suggests, except consider 24/16, 8/4(2) or 24/16, 13/9(2) if you hit a blot on 16.
3-3: Far too many options to fit.
2-2: Usually 13/11(2), 6/4(2) but sometimes 24/22(2), 6/4 (e.g. after a 4-2 opening) and occasionally 24/20, 6/4(2) if you hit a blot on 20.
1-1: either 8/7(2), 6/5(2) or 24/22, 6/5(2) depending on the situation. Don't forget to hit a blot on 20 though.

Hrqls: If your opponent has split his back men and there's a direct shot at your 8-blot then you're better off making only the 5-point. Use the other two 1s to split your own back men. 6/5(2)  24/22

playBunny & Pythagoras: thanks!
a lot depends on my mood for sure ... i know myself to play too aggressive sometimes .. but sometimes i just noticed and and tend to be quite careful :)

i always wondered if leaving the single on 8 is a bad thing (when rolling double 1 for example) .. but i guess its danger is outweighed by the move :))

thanks!

playBunny: Much better.....

KotDB: lol! *slap forehead* you are right :) i forgot about that :)

i guess the games in which i wondered about it is when my opponent had the first move and my double roll was in fact the second roll in the game

Pythagoras:

How about this more bracketty version?

Make your opponent's 5-point and your 8-point (as you would when moving second (unless there's a blot on your own 5-point in which case you hit it 13/5*(2) with glee)).

Playbunny:.
.
.
I can't find a way that there could be a blot on 5 in the starting board! Perhaps a forgotten one from the previous game.....?

KotDB: .
.
.
Correct although here in Greece we sometimes play it with the rule: "The winner of the starting roll doesn't use the rolls occured to determine the starting player, but rolls again!"
So we have doubles as well. And actually i prefer that games although some of my opponents don't like this and play without doubles....

Hrqls:
D-6: Yep clear.....
D-5: Clear again....
D-4: Your prefered play is the one i play too in most cases....
D-3: Many things here. It depends on the mood:-) In most cases: 6-3(2) 24-21(2) or 6-3(2) 13-10(2). I used to play 13-8(2) long ago but i found it to be inferior....
D-2: 2 choices for me: I play regularly 6-4(2) 24-22 13-11 but when i don't feel confident(55 is devastating but if you escape you are OK!) go to the superior 6-4(2) 13-11(2)....
D-1: This is clear.....

Hrqls, KotDB : Well, the dice to go first could be an independant roll. I know that one option in playing (though not on any online site that I know of) is to roll again if you don't want to use the who-goes-first roll. That gives a considerable advantage to the starter.

I imagine that doubles are considered to give too much advantage to the first player on top of being able to go first.

Double 6, 5 and 1 - as you say.
Double 4: Make your opponent's 5-point and your 9-point as you would when moving second (unless there's a blot on your own 5-point in which case you hit it 13/5*(2) with glee).
Double 3: Attack as you suggest, though Gammon-Save would be 13/10(2)  24/21(2)
Double 2: Again attack, 13/11(2)  6/4(2).

Hrqls: A game of backgammon begins with each player rolling one die. If the two dice are equal, they roll again; otherwise the player who rolled the higher number moves first, using those two dice. Thus the game can never begin with doubles.

I never see any doubles in the opening rollouts, why is this ?

• double 6 is clear to me, 24-18 (2x) and 13-7 (2x)
  
• double 5: most probably 13-3(2x)
  
• double 4 is a doubt: 13-5(2x), or 13-9(2x) and 6-2(2x), or 8-4(2x) and 6-2(2x). I tend to go with 13-9(2x) and 24-20(2x)
  
• double 3: i have no real idea, i go either 13-8(2x) or 6-3(2x) and something else
  
• double 2: i have no idea either, i usually go 6-4(2x) and 1-5 or 13-11(2x) or 13-9
  
• double 1: 6-5(2) and 8-7(2x) ?
  

Pythagoras: nice site! thanks!

playBunny: thanks! that looks like what i felt as well.

thanks for the explanations! it now shows a lot more to me :)

BIG BAD WOLF: I thought that was exactly what we had already concluded!

In a backgammon game (multi-point / multi-win games)which does NOT use the cube, a resign will only cost you 1 point - no matter where your pieces are at.

In a backgammon game which DOES use the cube, but the cube has not been turned yet, it can cost you anywhere between 1-3 points depening on where your pieces are left on the board.

pgt: Yes, that way of resigning has been discussed. Perhaps it is me that misread his post? I think of each game, even if part of a set for a number of game points, individually. So when someone one resigns I think it should be for the current game involved, not the whole series to determine things. Perhaps both types of resigning should be offered for matches?

Walter Montego: I did not misread the question Walter. I believe my response was correct for BG as currently implemented. I guess I could have expanded it to cover some hypothetical variation which may or may not be implemented in the future.
Should a variation be implemented, I believe my response would be the same for an "n wins match", but hopefully, for an "n points match" then 2 points would be awarded for a resignation in a gammon position, and three points in a backgammon position. Ideally, the resignation should be able to specify whether the resignation offered a 1, 2 or 3 point resignation, and the other player could accept or reject the resignation accordingly (but this last point has all been discussed in the past, I believe.)

Czuch Chuckers: I think pgt has misread your question. I would hope that this site if it was to have Backgammon with gammons but no doubling cube would still give the the winner of the game when his opponent resigns the gammon or backgammon he would have coming whether or not there was a cube in the game.

pgt: ahhh, so you could resign from any position and still only lose that one game? Really? OKay, thanks!

I would like to try non cube gammon matches.

Czuch Chuckers: You opponent wins one game

How do resignations work in non cube match play with gammons?

redsales:

grenv: i can tell you ONE reason...less clicking!

grenv: When I returned to Backgammon a couple of years ago I wanted to concentrate on chequer play. The cube was a complication that I didn't need - in fact, couldn't handle. I was playing a very aggressive robot and, almost invariably, accepting a cube meant that I'd lose even much of the 25-30% that were "supposed" to go my way. I just wasn't good enough at that point. Eventually (after about a year, I'd guess) I got to a very good rating and decided to add the cube. Naturally my rating plummetted as I was offering bad cubes and taking huge drops. So then came the second learning curve and ratings climb. In fact I've only recently got to the top of the list against that particular bot. (It's a GnuBg a couple of versions old and with a voracious appetite for blots and a love of blitzes and primes.)

Now I can't speak for Walter, and he's a much better player than I was when I first came back to the game, but I think doing it in stages is a good idea. Polish your chequer play, which means gammons, and then learn the cube. BrainKing's missing that middle stage, ie. multi-game matches with gammons. Perhaps N-wins matches could be just a collection of single games and N-point matches could include gammons.

playBunny: I understood, but I don't even understand why you'd play a cubeless game if the cube is available, gammons or otherwise.

grenv: No, not take the cube out - it's already out of cubeless games! Add gammons in. Make them much more interesting. :=)

Walter Montego: Why take the cube out? it's much more interesting with it.

I would like to be able to play Backgammon counting gammons and backgammon without the cube. It should be an option for the game or tournament creator. First one to 5 or 7 without that cube is a good way to play if gammons count.