| |
BGonline.org Forums
Let the next thread on the subject begin
Posted By: Mike Main
Date: Thursday, 1 September 2011, at 10:32 a.m.
If the underlying proposal of the Touch Rule is to turn even more people off attending live backgammon events then I consider this an excellent scheme to achieve that ridiculous aim.
Comparisons with chess are invalid because chess is a pure skill game and thus attracts pure skill players; players that are by definition pedantically minded. Backgammon is a skill/luck game and thus attracts, in part, those that think they can get lucky and are thus sloppy in their procedure of playing the game.
Reality Check Time: Most people who play backgammon and a good percentage of people who turn up to live tournaments do so for LEISURE PURPOSES.
The popularity of backgammon stems from the fact that it resembles life; life is not perfect ergo backgammon is not perfect. Make backgammon perfect and it will lose its popular appeal.
Please, BgOnline Forum members, remember that you are generally the elite of this game. You are far, far deeper into this game than most are.
I have no wish to be rude or to insult posters of this forum but there is no way to put my following thought very kindly so here is my best attempt to do so: Generally the last person to fathom out that they have an OCD is the person that suffers from it.
If you really want to cut off your nose to spite your face, go ahead, bring in a whole array of procedural rules such as this one being proposed now. But please do not be surprised when attendance at bg events drops off and your prize funds crash. Poker providers will not complain.
Sure, you’ll make the game more skilled based but pigeons will be even scarcer than they are now since the advent of bots have taught those that wish to play better to up their game to what is already an incredible degree.
If you want pigeons you need to cut them some slack by allowing them to piss about over the board making cock-ups and confusing themselves. You are the better players; part and parcel of that should be your ability to remember your opponent’s starting position before they make their move and then you being able to clearly and kindly explain to them what it was before they muddled themselves up.
If this idea were to be introduced, you would, as already stated by some highly experienced T.Ds, land a whole new load of T.D. decisions on your T.Ds plates. Generally every time there is a T.D decision to be made there are no winners; 1 player is highly likely to feel aggrieved, the other player’s concentration will probably have been marred and the T.D. might have to make a subjective call that might go to Committee which thus slows down the proceedings. The net result: Each party might well consider not going to future events.
Etiquette is, by necessity, a large part of our game. Until such time as every backgammon match is played via a computer program that is NOT GOING TO CHANGE. So I suggest that players would do better to more ably learn to live with etiquette please.
The etiquette of while considering a move of moving checkers to the top of points is generally sound. THIS IS THE IDEA THAT SHOULD BE KEYED INTO instead of bringing in the proposed draconian measure.
Checkers with Xs on the other side of them: this would introduce problems such as “I don’t want to play in his board because he refuses to use a permanent marker pen on the undersides his checkers.” How often do you play a game in which you turn over a checker just because it’s easier to do than to place it the same way down that it was? Try playing a game with one sided dimpled checkers; I think you’ll be surprised just how many you do turn over without realising it.
Extra checkers off the side of the board to memorise pre-move positions: “Where am I going to get an extra 4 vaguely similar checkers for my 20 year old set and where am I going to store them without them rattling around inside my board and thus harming the interior walls when in transit?” Aside from that those extra checkers would have to be placed off the side of the board BEFORE every time there MIGHT be a shuffle move to play; do you anticipate the playing player to do this off his/her own back? I think it more likely that the opponent is going to be the one to insist this happens. Then we have the problem of the non-moving player being accused of interrupting the playing players’ thought process and time. Whose clock time is this going to happen on?
The introduction of clock play has benefited the game. That’s something that’s extremely good that has mostly come about via this forum. So yes, keep on coming up with ideas; some of them will become reality. But not all ideas translate into good reality (see thread relating to “A good Dr.”)
Popularity of Mike Main: Hits a new low with the elite bg players of this world. Damned if I care. Somebody needed to speak up.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.