Hrqls: Would you be so kind as to narrow the gap between the columns so that I don't have to scroll so much horizontally to view your post, nor deal with the extra width until your post has cleared the front page? Just a few spaces per column should shrink it down to fitting on the page.
Thank you.
It's very nice how you are able to line up the columns. How are you able to do that? It'd come in handy for some of my posts and messages on this site, but everytime I type them lined up they don't appear that way after I post or send them.

alanback: And I imagine there's a few people that are willing to do such a thing to have an inflated rating to match their inflated ego? What's the point? If someone has to bend the rules to achieve something, have they really achieved it? And who are they fooling? What does having a higher rating get one as compared to having a lower rating? Especially in a rating system used here that is flawed for Backgammon? I play to win. I play the same speed, winning or losing. Why hold up one game of a pair against the same opponent? This seems very discourteous to me.

If you're right that losing your game first and winning the other will give you a higher rating, why do these people do the exact opposite? Maybe they don't really care about the rating, but want an inflated win/loss record?

Czuch Chuckers: Perhaps they mean the Outer Board 5 point? Just because the 1 through 24 numbering system is used here for notation doesn't mean that some people don't describe Backgammon by the actual names of the points. Could that be what the author means? Your Outer 5 point is the 11 point on this site.

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?

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.

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.

Czuch Chuckers: Actually the real game is Pegity and it's played on a 15 × 15 board. I used to have one.

Pythagoras: Thank you for your reply. I'll keep in mind what you have said and see if Reinhard is up for another game with the SMIRF and me. Perhaps I'll check over my 30 odd games against the SMIRF and see what went right or wrong in them against it and see how it applies when comparing your anti-computer play. Perhaps I did some of that just using my usual plan of always trying to make the best move no matter what the goal is, long term or short term. Thinking horizon, eh? Yes, us humans can see the big picture and miss all the details. It's an idea. That SMIRF sure is strong in the tactical department. Alway leaving bait or blazin' in with something that looks bad and then you've lost the game.

What you say seems to hold for Backgammon, and that explains a big difference in the nature of the two types of games. Alas, I've stopped playing Backgammon until a couple of features are added, but I'll keep it in mind if and when the time comes. playBunny has lots of Backgammon ideas and knows some of these programs quite well. I think he argues with them too! :) Backgammon isn't as cut and dried as Chess is.

Pythagoras: I saw that you did this. I can't beat the SMIRF any more and yet I can hold my own against you. I'm confused. THough recently I had chance to win a game of Janus Chess against SMIRF. Perhaps my play has gotten better recently, but I can't say.

What I want to know is, what is this anti-computer play you talk of? IS it something that I could easily adopt and use? Does it work against human players? How come the computer programmers don't keep such plans in mind while designing their programs? Does this work against the Backgammon programs? Somehow I think not. These neuronets you speak of for Backgammon, why aren't they used for Chess type games? And what about Dark Chess?

grenv: But dominos only come with one 1-2. With dice you can roll it two different ways. If this variant has both 1-2 combinations calling it Domino Backgammon is not a good name for it. It should just have the dominos possible or give it a different name. Have you played this version before?

playBunny: I count 21 combinations of dominos, not 36 if you're just going to use 1-1 through 6-6 and not the blanks or higher dominos. 1-1 1-2 1-3 1-4 1-5 1-6 2-2 2-3 2-4 2-5 2-6 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-6 4-4 4-5 4-6 5-5 5-6 6-6. Or does your version have two of each domino that isn't a double? That'd add 15 more to it to make 36. With the blanks there's 28, still not 36. And how would you move a blank? Perhaps 1-1 to 8-8? That makes 36.

About the set of dominos that the players draw from. Is there one set that the players draw from, or does each player get his own set to draw from?

playBunny: I'd say Dark Chess is different enough from Chess and most of the variants. It takes different skills to play it well. As different as Atomic Chess is from regular Chess, Atomic Chess still requires the same skills to play it well. I don't like Anti-Chess, but it seems like it requires the same skills as regular Chess, you just have to apply them differently. Shogi Chess and Loop Chess might be different enough too. Dropping pieces back on the board is a whole different kind of play. I would certainly put Janus Chess, Grand Chess, Gothic Chess, Los Alamos Chess, soon to be added Embassy Chess, CRC, Fischer Random Chess, Corner Chess, Fortress Chess, and the other games that have the same object but a different set up or board and pieces all in the same category.

plaintiger: I just read playBunny's post about the double cube in reply to your questions on the BrainKing discussion board. The last sentence is very important,
Gammons and backgammons are not relevant when a cube offer is declined.
Keep this in mind if you are far enough ahead in the game that you have a good chance to score a gammon. If you offer a double, you opponent will decline and you'll get the one game point. If you just play on, you might score the gammon and get two game points. Playing on has one disadvantage though, your opponent might get lucky and turn the tables on you and had you doubled he would have resigned.

alanback: It's mainly a problem because of how trivial it is. Think about it. If autopassing was a feature, would there be a lot of people posting to have it shut off? Or a least be made an option so that they could indeed click each move? Yeah, right, I don't think so either.
Yes, in the grand scheme of things it's nothing, but just because it doesn't bother you to hit the button each time doesn't mean there aren't those of us that it drives crazy. And I bet you'd opt for passing too.

alanback: You might be right, but I do like playing Backgammon.

After awhile it just drives me crazy sitting there on the bar and for no reason other than some people not wanting it made possible for those of us that want to be able to pass voluntarily being forced to click buttons when the whole thing could be taken care without me having to deal with it. It's not a small thing. I do not like to be a part of things I consider stupid and I try to avoid them. Those that wouldn't want to pass could have their games played as is now. I'd be willing to bet that even those few people would eventually see the error of their way and would click autopass too. If autopass is ever implimented on this site, that'd make for something to chart. I bet over 80% of people would opt to use it most of the time. Let the rest of them click the button each turn while everyone else can get on with the game and not be some button pushing knucklehead.

I have decided to stop playing Backgammon. I just can't handle the stupidness of hitting the button when I can't make a move, or watching my opponent go through it. I earlier asked for a trimmed down version of autopass that would only be enabled with the consent of the players in the game and only when no matter what rolled on the dice would still leave you without a move. This is not the full-blown autopass of some sites, but how it would be played if two people were playing the game in person. Home base is blocked and you got a man on the bar, you don't touch the dice and your opponent just keeps rolling and moving until a blot or point opens up. Simple, straight forward, and common sense approach. The first roll you couldn't move could show you the position and then it'd be your opponent's turn until you actually had a chance to move on the roll of a good number.

Anyways, time for Halloween! :)
Have a good one you all.

redsales: Your link and alanback's say exactly what I was saying! Both links do not mention how the percentage of payoff is figured or changed. I used 7760 coins out of 8000 positions as an example of 97%. To change it to say 95% you'd have to lower the total payout to 7600. This could as easy as changing a two cherry payout from 6 coins to 5 if there was 160 ways of getting two cherries. This would make the machine "tighter". It has nothing to do with random numbers, electric motors, or mechanical drives.

And the whole thing works on the long run of the game, not your particular visit. If you're going to win, then you need to get lucky. It's that simple. As for increasing your chance of winning on a slot machine, understanding the casino's marketing tactics and how they use human nature to their advantage is how you do it. As the one link shows some of their tactics by positioning the looser machine where they'll be seen by people waiting line. What it says about machines next to a buffet line being tighter makes sense too. The loose ones should be three rows away so that the people in line will see people winning and will try the ones next to the line because they don't want to lose their spot in line.

alanback: I'm sure there's more to it than that. The link you sent me too is little more than a piece of propaganda. It doesn't say why it is so, it just says it is so. I'd get the details before I start saying it that way.
That is an interesting promotion they have come up with to lure people to join the club and to play at their casinos.

Regardless of the facts of how the casinos are doing it, the pull of a slot machine is a fresh start each time, not as redsales wrote about there being a time for it to pay out. That was what I was writing about when comparing his analogy to the roll of the dice in Backgammon.

alanback: I think you have it wrong. What they say is it will progress to a certain amount until someone hits it. If no one does, it will stop progressing once it reaches that amount. Sooner or later someone will get lucky.
Think about it, if they knew when the slot machine would pay out, there'd be something rigged, right?

I haven't been to Las Vegas to gamble in a long time, but the last time I was there the video slot machines were really moving in. A lot of them have four reals. I wasn't able to count how many symbols are on each real, but if it's at least 20, that'd up it to 160,000 combinations. Assuming there's only one way to win the progressive pot, that's 159,999 to 1 against it happening on the next pull. The fallacy that a lot people think is that even if you were to play it 200,000 times in a row and yet not have had a jackpot you start to think the machine is due to payoff because of some mystical law of averages. The odds don't change even if the pay out amount does. I certainly would expect to have hit a jackpot or two by the time I'd play 200,000 times in this example, but that doesn't mean it will happen. Then you're hooked and can't leave the machine because all it needs is one more play. You can feel it. Just ask Fred Flintstone about it. :)

Aren't there some slots that don't have a maximum progressive and continue to go higher until someone hits?

redsales: Slot machines are not programmed to payoff as you write in either method. It doesn't matter how much money they've taken in or how long it's been since they've paid out. The reels have symbols on them. Some of the combinations pay and most of them don't. Let's say there's 20 symbols on three reels 20 × 20 × 20 = 8000. Any of they possible 8000 combinations could happen each pull of the handle. If it's a winner you get your money, if not too bad. The casino's percentage is figured out by adding up all payouts of every combination. If this happened to be 7760 coins or units for this example the payout would be 97%. It's harder to figure out when they use a progressive payoff, but it's the same principal. Just like rolling the dice in Backgammon, each play on a slot machine stands apart from what has gone on before and what will happen next. But unlike slot machines, how you have played in Backgammon does have bearing on the game just not what numbers will show on the dice each roll. This is assuming the machines and casino are not cheating.

alanback: Apparently you are correct in your assertion. I found a number of sources calling Backgammon a perfect information game. Perfect information games are divided into two categories. Those with no luck in them, which are called predeterministic, and those with luck in them, which are called either non-predeterministic or stochastic.

The definition seems to be if you can see every move made in the game and know where every game piece is and what they can do, the game is a perfect information game.

Thank you for making me learn something today. :) Now I know.

alanback: I disagree with your assertion that Backgammon is a perfect information game. There are unknowns in it and that means that it isn't a perfect information game. Chess or Checkers are perfect information games. Dark Chess is usually not. As for whether or not one might be able to bluff in Backgammon, even with the cube in play, I don't see a way for that to be done. You either go for it, or you don't. It is true that your opponent can see the whole game, but he doesn't know what the dice will roll and lacks information on exactly what the coming rolls will be. A player may take an anti-percentage stance, but that's not the same thing as bluffing.

jolat: I think you have made a mistake in the creation of your tournament. It is not 3 points with double cube tournament. It is 2 games each player. The 3 points with double cube only applies according to your tournament page if the tournament ends in a two way tie.

Pedro Martínez: I asked my opponent about this and his reply would seem to explain why I don't get the option.

Since I only need one point to win the match, doubling does nothing for me and that's why I don't get the option. I guess winning extra points is meaningless as far as playing a match goes.

In this game http://brainking.com/en/ShowGame?g=1131636 my opponent offered a double right as soon as the game started. I have the cube. When my turn comes up, I'm not being given the choice to double. Is this a bug related to the implementation of the Crawford rule? When the score was 3 to 2 he doubled and I doubled him back. I went on to win that game making the score 6 to 3 my favor. We're playing first player to seven game points wins. In the following game, the double choice was never offered. This is the Crawford rule, right? Anyways, he won that game making it 6 to 4. We are now playing the next game. As I said he doubled immediately and I accepted. The double cube indicator is now on my side of the table showing a 2, but when my turn starts I am not given the choice to offer a double. I don't want to double in this current position, but I should have the option to, shouldn't I?

Vikings: It's especially bad when you have two games with a person and they play in one, but not the other and the circumstances are as you say.

Vikings: You can do what I do. Avoid people that do this. It makes no sense, but I've seen this behavior a few times. Losing is part of the game, just like winning is. So why the sudden change in playing speed? I guess it means that much to them to not lose, and way too much to them to win.

playBunny: I'd rather be able to set the game up how I want it played and let the site take care of all the details. I remember the bad blood from people forgetting or missing their gentleman's agreement about the dice usage not too long ago. It is true that I could play selected people that would honor it, but if I want to have an open tournament without the double cube and still have gammons count I wouldn't be able to stop someone from ignoring it and playing it their advantage when the time was right.

alanback: Do these other sites have a sliding scale to take into account these things you write about?

Is it possible to set up a series of games that counts gammons and backgammons but does not use the double cube?
That's how I remember playing the game. First one to five game points is a pretty good game.

Since I'm just trying out the double cube, I might like playing that way better after I've played it a few times. I'll have to see. In the meantime, it'd still be cool to play a series without the double cube and still count gammons and backgammons instead of the games always being valued at one point. A skunk should count extra, and that is what getting a gammon is all about. I definitely do not like the proposal of not counting the gammons in games that use the cube that haven't yet been doubled. If that comes to pass it should be an option for the game creator.

I'm thinking that the longer matches make the rating award more fair because it allows the luck a chance to even out and let the higher rated player supposedly better playing skills to make the points closer to the odds of their winning a series of games.

I've never played with this double cube, but when I did Backgammon we always counted gammons and backgammons though we didn't bet on the game. We'd usually just play first one to five game points. I'll have to get me a Backgammon set one of these days and see if I can get a game going. We usually play cards, so I doubt if it comes to pass. Least ways I still have BrainKing to play it on.

grenv: If a recalculation of everyone's rating takes place, it won't fix anything. It will just use this rating system retroactively. I agree that a higher rated player should get less reward for winning a game against a lower rated player, but the points should be based on the ratings of the players involved and their actual odds of winning a single game. For a series of games it should break even after awhile if the odds are calculated correctly. For a match where the points are awarded at the end of a series of games, I can see having it set up with higher points, but this would again be because of the odds. In a long match, the better player will win more often.

It used to be when I played someone a game of Backgammon and we were within a few hundred points of each other in rating we'd be playing for 8 rating points. Now there's this sliding scale and I find it completely unfair to the higher rated player. I will never be able to play a higher rated player that cares about his rating on this site because how disadvantageous the odds are now. Someone that's 300 points above me risks 14 rating points to my 2! This is nowhere near the odds of my actual chance of winning. It may not 1 to 1, but it can't be 7 to 1.

Can we please have a ratings system for Backgammon that reflects the odds of winning and keeps in mind that there's luck involved? This disparity will further segegrate the Backgammon playing community or will encourage people to not play rated games at all. I can see having a big difference in the points awarded if we were playing a match to 10 wins or game points, but to have it like this for a single game is ridiculous.

Hrqls: You may do either move as you see fit. Nothing compells you to be efficient in the usage of the pips or in baring pieces off. Perfectly fair and part of the strategy of the game. Especially if your opponent has pieces in your home base.

Another example similiar to this is when your opponent has a piece on the bar and you're bearing off. Say you have two pieces on your 2 point and one on your 1 point and no others and roll 6-1. You have some choices here. You could bare off two pieces on the 2 and 1 point leaving one piece on the 1 point. Better is to move one piece from the 2 point to the 1 point and bare off the other piece on the 2 point.

The rules that I've read of Backgammon say moving the pieces around in your home base instead of baring off is allowed and they also say you needn't use the most pips possible. This is different than the maximum usage of the dice because you have used both dice.

Vikings: If that proved to be too much information, the point in question could just be shown as guarded without giving the number of pieces on it.

I would still like to try the game first with it showing all the pieces on a point if the dice would let you move there even if the point is guarded. There would still be plenty of darkness in such a game. Too much darkness and it'd just turn into a running lucky game. I don't know if it'd work or not. Too much information and it'd be very much like regular Backgammon, that I agree with.

Let's pretend it's the start of the game and I roll 5-3.Even before this roll I know the four points where all of your pieces are and how many are on them even though I cannot see any of your pieces. This is analogous to the start of a Dark Chess game. I can see my four points and the rest of the table would be dark. Now the roll of 5-3 would show me your two runners on my 1 point, the 3 point, the 5 point, the 16 point(Your outer table 9 point), your 5 pieces on your 6 point, and your 4 point.

Whatever move I decide to make will be unknown to you until you roll the dice. Now this is where how the game would be played will make a difference. Will the game show my dice roll or not? If it doesn't show the roll, then you'll always be in the dark except for those cases of when your next roll happens to reveal where I might have moved from an earlier position. If it does show the roll, then you'll have information about where I might have moved, but you won't necessarily know where I moved.

As the game progresses, they'll be an increase in information as the pieces become spread out and some rolls would reveal a lot of the table. And then, just like Dark Chess, it would get real dark as the last of the pieces passed each other and it became a running game. I can imagine other scenarios, such as me having five or six points guarded in a row. No matter what roll I received it would show up a lot of points in front of this and be very dark behind it. When both people have all the pieces in their home bases it would be a very dark board. Here again, the information shown would make a difference. Are born off pieces shown? I think they should be, but it could work without showing them too. This is sometihing I don't like about how Dark Chess is on this site as compared to IYT version, the promoting of Pawns and showing them and the piece promoted to. BrainKing reveals nothing about this happening. IYT, will either take the piece out of the opponent's captured pieces bag, or in the case of an extra Queen or third Rook, Knight, or Bishop, will show that an extra piece is on the board though it doesn't reveal its position. Both ways are playable, but it makes a difference in the play at times.

Walter Montego: Who's up for some beta testing? :)

BIG BAD WOLF: Oh, it'd still be dark all right. It'd be more like Kliegspiel than Dark Chess. The same situation is possible in Kliegspiel in that if you move your King into check one the assistants watching the game will tell you that the move is illegal, but won't give you any details. In Dark Chess, your opponent takes your King and the game is over.

I think a dark version of Backgammon would work, though I'm not sure if it'd be a fun game or not. I'd give it a try if it was here. Sure, I'd try different moves to investigate if a point was guarded. Remember you would only be able to do this with the dice that you roll.

An alternative to having the whole board dark except where your pieces are would be to show all those points that are available to be moved to with the current dice roll. This would save the time and trouble of checking every move possible. In Dark Chess you can see the squares that your pieces can move to. If you block a piece or move it to a different place, the view will change, but not until you have made the move and it is too late for you to undo the move. Depending on the roll, it could be very illuminating or not so much. 1-1 for example. Also, would your opponent be able to see what roll you received? If so, he'd be able to figure out what you know of his position and maybe plan, trap, or play accordingly. At the start of the game you'd know your opponent's position. I'm thinking that after just a few moves it'd be real dark and you'd need to see where the pieces might be with the help of the rolled dice.

playBunny: You forgot in rebutting Pedro about copying that writing about what someone has written is not the same thing as copying what someone has written. I think I will change my profile to reflect this because I believe that anything that someone sends me is fair game for public dissemination unless I have expressly asked for the information and have agreed in advance that I would hold it in secret. Unsolicitated writing is not something that I will grant special privilege to even if the writer asks for it in the message. This being said, I avoid repeating what others say unless it has some baring on the conversation.

The flaw rests with the site and it's naming of the game we play here "Backgammon". This site has a game very similiar to Backgammon, but it is not Backgammon. As I've said, I will move as the site allows. My opponents are welcome to too. I think Fencer should make the game called Backgammon on this site play as Backgammon is commonly played, or the name of the game should be changed to reflect the fact that it isn't regular Backgammon. This is done with other games here, such as Pente. If the game is going to be left as it is, then Fencer should address the moving of the men as they relate to the dice to how the game is played on this site. If it really is a bug as lots of people say that it is, then it really should be fixed as soon as possible. This conversation about the forced use of the dice has come up too many times to be thought of as a trivial problem and a lot of Backgammon enthusiasts are greatly troubled by this.

You, playBunny, made a false assumption about your opponent in assuming that she held the same ideals as you do when it comes to playing a game called Backgammon. You were playing a different game than what the game on this site is. I would agree with you that she was cheating if the both of you said you were going to play by the "forced to use the dice" rules of regular Backgammon and the game was a side game between the two of you. Otherwise, she moved as allowed, bug or no bug, and you're just going to have accept it or get Fencer to fix the problem with this game. If it was regular Chess instead of Backgammon and someone castled through check, I am sure the "bug" would be fixed with an alacrity that'd make your head spin. So why isn't this use of the dice problem fixed? I played Janus Chess on this site using Extinction Chess rules. I made moves that would have lost the game had it been regular Janus Chess, but my opponent resigned when two of his pieces became extinct. It was an agreement between us. Now, had he continued on with the game I would have considered it cheating, because those weren't the rules we agreed to play by. We discussed it ahead of time and we played by our agreement. To do otherwise would have led to a situation similar to yours.

How about, "Any use of Dice Allowed Backgammon" ?

WhiteTower: I'd certainly give the game a try. Thanks for the link. Going the same direction and without hits. It'd take an adjustment of thinking, that's for sure.

WhiteTower: Where can I see the rules of the Fevga version?

WhiteTower: The rating system that we use here might work OK for games without any luck in them like Chess or Checkers, but it doesn't seem like a good system for single game matches of Backgammon. I remember a few weeks back a discussion about the ratings for the various games. I would like a ratings system to match each game's characteristics instead using the blanket approach and giving us one that's main effect is to discourage people from playing games that have luck in them with someone that is rated far below them. This isn't a problem in Chess since someone ranked far below has almost no chance of winning the game. In Backgammon even I might beat the world's champion of Backgammon just because I get lucky. I'd never stand a chance against any Chess master, let alone the world's champion. I think the rating should reflect this reality.

playBunny: Does the dice guy know about these special dice? You might put him out of business. :)

grenv: Yup, that ought to clarify the whole shebang! Thank you very much. :)

Peeky: The amount of change in your rating also has something to do with the number of games that you have completed. Less games finished, more variation. Perhaps you've just played a few games and your opponent has played a lot of games?

Wil: Yeah, right. Suppose you and I were playing a game and this very example happened in it and I played the four to win the game. If you object to it, just what can you do about it? That's what I thought, now pay up and let's get another game going.

playBunny: Law 13 says:

Plays must be made for both dice if possible. Either number may be played first. If either may be played, but not both, then the higher number thrown must be played.

Law 17 states:

When in a position to bear off, you may bear off a man from a point corresponding to the number on a die thrown, or from the highest occupied point which is lower to the number indicated by a die. If a number is thrown for an unoccupied point, no man below can be borne off, using such number, while any man remains on a higher point. You are not required to bear off a man if you are able to move a man forward on the board. Law 13 applies here as in all other situations.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXx
The authors pause here to show what ChessMaster1000 was talking about when not necessarily using all of the pips. What he said is correct according to these rules. You do not have to use the pips to maximum gain as long as you use both dice in either order. They show an example of when you would want to play it one way as compared to the other.

OK, this may or may not answer the question about how one moves his last man off the board. You guys will have to appeal to the Supreme Court while I will refer you to Law 20 in the scoring section:

A game is won by the player who first bears off all of his men.

This to me means either way of moving the last man off is OK by the rules. If I use the 4 and bear my last man off, the game is over by Law and I am no longer able to make any more moves. If I use the 1 to hit my opponent's blot and then the 4 to bear my last man off, I have again won the game and it is over. It is clear to me that both are permissable without any of this illegal move stuff I keep reading about. I could see an argument if one made an illegal move that won him the game that was against the rules, but that isn't the case here. In NFL and NCAA Football, even with the clock at zero time left, the game will continue if the defense had a penalty charged to it and the offensive side accepts the penalty. I imagine there's other sports and games that have similiar situations too.

The game's over. Now pay up, and let's get another game started. :)

playBunny: I just put the book away, but I will go get it and read what it says about this. I have the feeling that it isn't directly answered since it has no bearing on the outcome of the game, but you have me curious now. :)

Pedro Martínez: Those rules in your link are not very well written and have the feel of someone translating them from a different language. I know what playBunny means by official rules. Baseball has such a set of them. Table of contents and the various aspects of the game broken down into chapters and subsections. I've always wanted to find such a rule book for NFL rules, but have not been able too. I'm sure there's a place for Backgammon rules on the internet. I have a copy of the "Official Rules of Backgammon" in a book written by Oswald Jacoby and John R. Crawford and published in 1970. The two paragraphs before the actuals rules are:

As we said in the Introduction, back in 1931 Wheaton Vaughan, the chairman of the Card and Backgammon Committee of the Racquet and Tennis Club of New York, invited representatives of the other clubs to join with the Racquet Club in order to produce a code of laws for Backgammon. That code was soon universally adopted and accepted generally. As far as we know, Oswald Jacoby is the only member of the committeee still alive, but their laws have lasted with practically no change, and the laws presented here are essentially the same. They have been prepared in conjunction with the International Backgammon Association and the Inter-Club League of New York.
Remember that laws are made to prevent arguments, not to cause them. Never attempt to use the laws to gain an advantage.

Then it lists 34 laws of Backgammon.
1 through 6 define the game
7 through 10 define the throwing of the dice and when a player's turn ends
11 though 17 define the play and how the dice are used
18 and 19 deal with errors, in the set up or playing
20, 21, and 22 deal with scoring the game after it ends
23 through 34 deal with Chouette, which is backgammon for three or more people.

The next chapter in this book has modifications to these rules rules some people might want to play with or can be used in tournament play.

In all this I find it amazing how simple a game Backgammon is and yet how complicated the play of it can be. Good qualities in any game.

I have a saying about games, "If you can't argue about it, it usually ain't much fun to play."

playBunny: Maybe you can use some of the keywords in the paragraph in a google search and find some links that way. Since my book is over 30 years old, some of the organizations might have merged into others or gone out of business. The authors should be a good link. Rex Nihilo mentions a Walter Trice as a good source of modern Backgammon information. Try asking him if knows about a rule book or link. He gave me a link for a book store that carries Backgammon stuff. I'm sure he could help you out.

Chessmaster1000: You are arguing what is called a moot point. The game is over and there is no recourse. Both moves are legal whether or not they logically follow from your premise.

grenv: Yes, Abigammon seems like a good name for it, though I was thinking Fencer's Backgammon would be workable too. :) I think you're right, he didn't purposely make the game play how it does, it just happens to play how it does.

AbigailII: If Fencer asks, I will indeed write up an English version of the Backgammon rules as the game is played here. And it will be clearer than what exists now, followed with examples. From what I've seen of what happens in various forced move situations, it isn't implimented consistantly. Sometimes after swapping the dice you may not be allowed swap them back. If one is aware of how this game is played on this site and is going to play it as allowed, then it is wise to check out how you want the dice played with this in mind. That is why 1-6 isn't the same as 6-1 on occasion. This is definitely a flaw in the programming and is not consistant with the playing of the game regardless of which rules we are playing the game with.

Lots of games and sports have more than one set of official rules. Major League Baseball is a well known example. How about football? Chess has plenty of organizations with rules that are mostly the same. The differences involve things besides the movement of the pieces, which are the same for everywhere. Backgammon can be played in lots of ways. Remember, some rules of Backgammon were made up in the last fifty years. Dark Chess doesn't have any organized rule making body that I know of and I've seen four different ways that it is played. I haven't played enough Backgammon to know if the "forced to use the dice rule" is the best way to play the game, but those are the common rules. I wouldn't mind a version that allowed me to control how I use the dice more than the official rules, but that's not what we have here. We have a game pretending to be official Backgammon and yet it doesn't play like official Backgammon. This is more like the arguments concerning Pente with board size and whether or not the opening moves are restricted or not.

I think this site should have the game played as is commonly played around the world. For some reason it doesn't. The rules should clearly spell out that you may play the dice as you see fit, instead of the customary way of having to play both if able or the larger of the two if only one but not the other will play. You can say what you want AbigailII, but I find the rules misleading on this point or at least not as straight forward that I would know just from a casual perusal of said rules. Perhaps you could write a clearer version and send it to Fencer? You know how translating game rules from one language to another can make for hard to read writing? I'm thinking that's part of the problem here.

Now, as for playing over the board in person, what happens if I make an "illegal" move? It's up to my opponent to do something about it, right? He has the choice of letting my move stand or making me take it back. It'd be nice to have an internet Backgammon set up so this would be how it would be played. Then it would be like playing it over the board with someone instead of having the machine enforce perfect play and remove some of the thinking involved. Even experts can miss forced moves and they should get penalized like everyone else.