| |
BGonline.org Forums
Legal moves and first-order/second-order rules
Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Thursday, 9 June 2016, at 1:06 a.m.
I've mentioned several times in the past the book Characteristics of Games, which introduces some excellent terminology for discussing games. The book makes a distinction between "first-order" and "second-order" rules.
First-order rules are the basic rules that you need to know in order to play the game at all. Second-order rules are additional rules that govern things like irregularities or tournament play. In backgammon, the rule that rolling double 6's gives you four 6's to play is a first-order rule. The rule that a die that lands flat on a checker is consider cocked and must be re-rolled is a second-order rule. There are a few borderline cases that one might argue about; e.g., is the rule that if you can play only one die then you must play the larger-numbered die a first-order or a second-order rule? But usually it's clear what the distinction is.
When "legal moves" have been debated, I've always tacitly thought that it was referring to first-order rules about moving the checkers and handling the doubling cube. The recent brouhaha about the ruling between Michel and Steve shows that apparently, second-order rules are also included in "legal moves." This is mildly surprising to me. It's one thing to condone a violation of a first-order rule, but condoning a violation of a second-order rule (and in this category I'd put clock rules) seems to be in a different category.
Does anyone else see the same distinction that I do here?
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.