Talk:Backgammon

Equity

For analyzing checker play or cube decisions, the concept of equity is fundamental but I'm not seeing it treated in this article or elsewhere on Wikipedia. A brief definition and discussion would be helpful. Normalized equity and Equivalent to Money Game (EMG) for match play should be included. Jeremy Bagai's article (http://www.fortuitouspress.com/emg) could serve as a reference.

I'm not sure where the best place to put it in the article. Thoughts? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like an aspect of computerised Backgammon which is covered under the section entitled "Software". And if that section grows much more it probably ought to be spun off as a separate article. Bermicourt (talk) 07:48, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

While we now use computer software to compute equity, equity is a basic concept that predates the bot era. As we say in the article:

A doubling cube was first introduced in the 1920s in New York City among members of gaming clubs in the Lower East Side. The cube required players not only to select the best move in a given position, but also to estimate the probability of winning from that position, transforming backgammon into the expected value-driven game played in the 20th and 21st centuries.

In unlimited (money) play, equity is simply the expected value of the position. I think a brief subsection under strategy and tactics would be the right place to introduce it. The software section seems to mostly address the history of backgammon software, not how it works.

In coming days I'll see if I can work something up in my sandbox. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, it took a while but I've added material on equity and EMG. Thinking about moving the EMG material to the match strategy article. Opinions? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 18:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Gammon and Backgammon

@Bermicourt: There's no change in meaning in my edit. The version you restored contravenes multiple MOS entries:

• MOS:CAPS – no reason to have the conjunctions in all-caps
• MOS:SPELL09 – it should be "one point", not "1 point"
• MOS:WORDSASWORDS – "backgammon" and "gammon" should be italicized, not in quotes
• WP:EPSTYLE – "called" is not encyclopedic.

It also must be emphasized that a gammon and a backgammon, as game results, are mutually exclusive. As-is, the text could be interpreted to mean that a player getting a backgammon gets points for both a gammon and a backgammon. Also, "in the process of bearing off" is too vague as it does not explicitly cover the situation where the loser's last move is to move their last pieces not in their home table into their home table; they can then be said to have begun the "process" of bearing off which is not the definition of a game, which requires at least one stone of the loser's to be born off. Your revert makes no sense and is therefore undone. I'm quite frankly appalled that an editor of your experience would openly and blatantly contravene multiple core style guidelines instead of working to improve the actual text.--Jasper Deng (talk) 10:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jasper Deng: Please try to follow WP:BRD. If your bold edit is reverted, the next step is to discuss, not re-revert - that just risks a pointless WP:EDITWAR. That said, I actually don't have too much of an issue with your changes having had a second look. My comments are:

• MOS:CAPS - I think the point of the "AND" was to emphasise to readers that both conditions need to be fulfilled. I agree that we are encouraged to do this using italics and propose that as the solution.
• MOS:SPELL09 – I think that's open to interpretation e.g. "Sport scores... should be given as figures, even in the zero to nine range".
• MOS:WORDSASWORDS – "backgammon" and "gammon" italicized. Fair enough.
• WP:EPSTYLE – don't agree that "called" is not encyclopedic and the guidance doesn't say that either. It is a fact that certain feats are "called" gammon, backgammon, etc.

Have you read the sources to ensure your edits don't conflict with what they're saying?

I think we can agree some positive changes if we work together. Bermicourt (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I don’t need to read those particular sources. I quickly Google searched backgammon and gammon and nothing is wrong with what I wrote. For SPELL09, that exception applies only within a game result. It does not apply to point values for units of scoring:

• Basketball — two and three point shots and one point for a free throw
• American football — touchdown is worth six points
• Roller derby — grand slam is worth four points, formerly five

I would not be so picky if you weren’t restoring the clear WP:BADEMPHASIS, and also since you don’t overall take much issue with my edits now I don’t get your need to try to filibuster here, so I’ve undone your edit again and request you at the least leave the formatting fixes in.—Jasper Deng (talk) 20:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid your comment that you "don't need to read sources" is entirely at odds with encyclopaedic editing. Wikipedia is based on WP:RS and it is clearly not sensible to change cited text without checking those sources; otherwise how can you possibly know that your revised text is supported by those sources?

You also might also want to consider whether re-reverting text twice because there is "nothing wrong with what I wrote" is in line with Wikipedia policy on reaching consensus via discussion.

Finally, please avoid personal attacks. Querying an edit and inviting a discussion is not filibustering. And if you don't understand other editors ("I don't get your need...), why don't you ask appropriate questions?

Your approach seems to be "I don't understand your perspective, but I'm right, regardless of the sources and so I'm going to re-impose my edits rather than waste time discussing them." I thought I'd offered some common ground and openness to discussing the rest, so I'm a bit surprised by your reaction considering your clear experience as an editor here. Bermicourt (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree the original wording was not great, so I've reviewed the source text and re-written it to a) make it more succinct and b) reflect what the sources say much more closely. I've gone for italicisation, which interestingly reflects one of the sources anyway, and I've removed the the caps and quotes. The word "called" is not used. So I've incorporated 90% of your concerns and hope the result is now an improvement we can live with. Bermicourt (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Emmet Keeler and Joel Spencer 1975 model

The article currently includes a paragraph on Emmet Keeler and Joel Spencer's 1975 model which concluded that 20% was the gammonless takepoint. This is quite outdated - most modern estimates are that the gammonless takepoint is somewhere around 22%. (22.3 IIRC) I'm trying to find a good source for that, but it's one of those things that everybody knows so it doesn't appear as much as one might think.

In the meantime, I'm going to remove the paragraph - it's misleading and probably of only historical interest at this point. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Add reference for sentence

"The objective is for players to bear off all their disc pieces from the board before their opponent can do the same"

Add source: [1] 80.208.69.137 (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2025 (UTC)