| |
BGonline.org Forums
Backgammon clock rules - introduce standard, rapid and blitz?
Posted By: Colin Owen In Response To: Backgammon clock rules - introduce standard, rapid and blitz? (Bill Riles)
Date: Friday, 15 September 2017, at 2:51 a.m.
"I'm absolutely opposed to baffle boxes personally. I think they condone the poor rollers, accommodate the whiners, and demean the game."
You (try to) qualify your stated viewpoint with those three observations/perspectives. One might ask you to clarify exactly what you mean by each of them, but I don't think any of them are worthy of such enquiry; frankly, I have never heard such rubbish. The last point, about demeaning the game, is the worst. Baffle boxes are espoused by players who value the purity of rolling, and who wish to wear their integrity on their sleeve. Your stated view demeans only yourself.
That is NOT to say that any player not bringing a baffle box along or, indeed even declining one, necessarily falls into the same category! A proper and consistently thorough shaker - and plenty of players are not - will gain little (or nothing) from a baffle box in terms of the approach to randomness.
In an earlier post in this thread you stated how you routinely shake the dice 2-3 times. You have also stated previously how you tend to employ directional rolling (so as to avoid chequers). Now, 2-3 shakes may (just about) satisfy a convention in our game, now also to be an actual legal requirement with the 2018 USBGF Rules ("...vigorously shaken at least twice up and down...") . But, just because 'x' shakes is an acceptable (legal) minimum this does not imply that it is also the optimum number, nor the most considerate or, dare I say, courteous.
At the other end of the scale, certainly - in an unclocked match (at least) - excessive shaking can be irritating to an opponent, though the point where this starts to be viewed as such will naturally vary somewhat from player to player, But, if I was being rolled off the board I have to say that I would much prefer it to be by excessive shakers of the order you describe than by a minimalist (albeit legal) one, and I believe I would not be alone in this. The two anecdotes you gave in that post were amusing, and clearly those players created their time problems with their excessive shaking. But, in response to one of them who stated how he felt disadvantaged on the clock by the big disparity between your shaking habits, instead of implying that he simply drop down to your own minimalist levels, might it not have been more considerate to propose meeting somewhere in the middle, particularly as you now had plenty of reserve time left in your bank? Your opponents routine 23 shakes was clearly excessive, but your own 2 or 3 shakes will hardly be considered 'thorough' by many players. I realise this is an area of ethics rather than legality, and the former can be personal to each player, but I believe it is also a relevant one.
As for (your) directional rolling - I have said this before - there are players who much prefer to see dice rolled Neilkaz style, flung more freely and towards the end of the board, frequently colliding with chequers; it is just more satisfying and convincing for some. Of course, they might not want to tell their opponent this, but it doesn't stop them wishing for it, nor setting an example themselves.
When one organises a tournament one does, of course, have the right to apply any stated rules/format that one likes; potential entrants play on this basis. But, just because we respect a right it does not mean we respect a choice. I believe in my heart that the closed, negative perspective on baffle box use that you and some others have is not formed from any ethical basis. It also ignores the practical advantage (amongst others) that the use of one by both players obviates any real reason to consider the immensely controversial 'on chequer' rule.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.