| |
BGonline.org Forums
Die-on-a-checker rule.
Posted By: Joe Russell
Date: Saturday, 10 December 2016, at 10:30 a.m.
To set the record straight, Bill Riles was not a proponent of the die-on-a-checker rule because he anticipated the potential blow-back from the backgammon community. The strongest advocates of the rule were Neil Kazaross and myself. Neil grew up playing Armenian style: one set of dice; touch move; die-on-a-checker. I, uncomfortably, recently agreed to play a series of matches with someone that insisted on the die-on-a-checker rule. After playing this gentleman a few matches and never having a single debate as to whether a die was cocked or not, I began to see the advantage of the rule. We played over 100 matches, over 9 months, and NEVER had one instance where we disagreed about a die being cocked. I think there was one case where we had to look closely and were able to agree the die was cocked. Neil having played 1000's of matches using Armenian rules had long been aware how much more efficient the rule was in saving time and energy.
It is notable that the Armenian rules, developed over centuries of play, are rules which are based on experience and logic. Not all new things are better. Not all things you are comfortable with are preferable. The Armenain rules: do not allow shuffling of checkers(touch move); use one set of dice (which improves the mechanics of the game); allow dies on checkers (saves time and energy).
Even though I find the major benefit of the rule to be the saving of time and energy, I would have not have been a proponent for adopting it, due to the potential blow-back, had the USBGF not faced the dilemma of how to deal with the inequity of clocked matches, where the player rolling on the bear-off side has a disadvantage. Other federations came up with cumbersome rules such as stopping and starting the clock, which not only wastes time re-rolling, but in stopping and then starting the clock. Adopting the die-on-a-checker rule seemed so much more efficient.
While I anticipated some blow-back, Bill Riles was much more insightful than I in the scope and intensity. Had I known it would be met with this much resistance, I would not have favored it at this time. Bill suggested we wait a year on this rule. He may have been right.
I do feel the rule is an advancement of backgammon for many reasons: saves time; saves energy; makes clocked matches more fair; may keep streamed or televised audiences more tuned in; removes the irritation that occurs when you play an opponent that constantly cocks the dice.
This is not a critical new rule. The USBGF is attuned to its membership. If the community tries it and does not like it, the board of the USBGF will review it and consider changes. I do predict that many people will be unhappy if we abandon the rule after they have some experience and become aware of the time and energy savings. I do not buy the argument that there is no need to try the new rule. I do believe most people can easily adjust to it and will see the benefit. If not, it will, likely, be changed.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.