Talk:Backgammon/Archive 1

message: No mention of rule of only allowing five on a prong at the end of each turn.  Could this be clarified please? 80.255.219.52 10:32, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no mention of the rule, because there is no such rule.  You can have all fifteen checkers on the same point if you want to and the rolls work out that way.  Most people play an opening 6-5 from the 24-point to the 13-point, making 6 checkers on a point right from the start.  It isn't all that uncommon to see ten checkers piled up on someone's 1-point when they have checkers stuck behind a prime and have to play little rolls that tear up their home board.  Anyway, maybe a rules clarification is necessary simply because some house rules differ from the standard of tournament and international play.  --Fritzlein 19:45, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I have also used this rule having been taught it, but hae found that it is not normally played or specified in sets for the reasons above.  However, I have found that once people adopt it, they agree that the resulting games are more interesting with such a restriction.  I have entered a non POV entry to the article. Dainamo 11:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Max five on a prong

message: I was unable to verify the following sentence:
:The present form of backgammon was invented by Buzurgmihr in Persia.
Does somebody have a reference for this fact? Gadykozma 15:04, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buzurgmihr 

message: :Beginning in the late 1980s, creators of backgammon-playing software began to have success with a neural network approach. TD-Gammon, developed by Dr. Gerald Tesauro of IBM, was the first computer program to play at or near the expert level. This program's neural network was trained using Temporal Difference learning applied to data generated from self-play.
I thought the first champion-level backgammon program was BKG 9.8 by Hans Berliner, which used some principles of fuzzy logic. It was finished in 1979, long before the "late 1980s", but it defeated then current champion Luigi Villa, 7-1. It was comparable to Deep Blue against Kasparov. Granted, according to Berliner, Villa made better moves more often, so BKG's victory is owed at least partly to luck, but BKG didn't make any gross errors, certainly no more and no worse than many highly skilled players. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:05, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What was the first champion-level backgammon program? 

message: I removed these edits. I consider the added paragraph in the Introduction/History section to be unclear and confusing.
If someone wants to incorporate parts of it and can integrate it in a seamless manner, feel free to do so.
Hylas 20:43, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes made by 24.112.130.106 

message: The images in the sample game section appear to be screen shots from Jellyfish. Since the interface for that program is copyrighted, it might be a good idea to put the fairusein template on those image pages.--malber 15:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: heh, just noticed that this was mentioned on the FAC nomination page back in August and was never corrected.--malber 15:41, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: When I was taught the game originally as a child, the piece that captured another playerrs blot was prevented from moving again (frozen) on the same go. For example if a 3 and 4 were thrown and the piece captured on 4 it could not use the other 3.  I have not seen any refernece to this rule (which made some interesting game play such a sometimes forcing a capturing piece to be left vunerable unless another could cover it) but I doubt it came from nowhere.  Has anyone el;se hear of this? Dainamo 14:53, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: In the Iranian version of the game this rule exists, but it only applies to hitting a piece within your own home board. One variation on this rule allows this hitting piece to move again, but only if it ends its turn exposed. Hitting pieces in other parts of the board is done as in the "standard" version of the game. Now that I mention this, I should put it in the article at some point. MisterBigH  6:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, yes, it's the way my grandma plays it... You are basically not allowed to hit and run to safety in your home. I thought it was invented on the spot to prevent me from winning, I still think it was, but not by my grandma, other Iranians, they are such bad losers! Anyway, I liked this article, it's a little messy, but the content is really goog! Well done! 82.131.13.36 08:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frozen after capturing? 

message: I've done some edits on this article's page.  I found this "variant" and added it to that section.  I don't see the difference between it and regular backgammon.  I figured that someone more familiar with the game can evaluate and see if it should be merged in to this article. Val42 23:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gul Bara

message: Would anyone object to altering the era-naming convention in this article to use CE and BCE as opposed to AD and BC? (the recent fly-by by a MoS sockpuppet appears to have ended). I think that for a topic that is of a decidedly secular nature, and for a game which has crossed the boundaries of many nations, the more secular naming would be more appropriate. Thoughts? --Ptkfgs 02:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, the problem with calling "CE" more secular is that it still starts at the same year as AD so the year system is the same, and "AD" as an abbreviated notation that is effectively secular. —Centrx→talk • 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CE/BCE vs AD/BC 

message: This page claims that backgammon is the oldest recorded game but the igo page claims that it is older than backgammon. --A Sunshade Lust 00:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am also skeptical of a claim that backgammon is the "oldest recorded game" (and skeptical of the same for Go, for that matter, but I'm not going to worry about that article). What do you think would be a more accurate way of putting it? I tend to think that we can safely say that backgammon 1) is among the oldest board games played today and 2) is "descended from racing games such as Foo and Bar" (for example), citing the earliest examples. --Ptkfgs 01:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless we have a good source showing that backgammon, or igo, are older than an other or the oldest I would keep is among the oldest board games played today, as you put it. It may be impossible to know which is the oldest game played today. I have done a slight modification of the conflicting sentence, it is now "Backgammon is one of the oldest board games played today." instead of "Backgammon is one of the oldest known recorded game." The old sentence sounded a bit awkward anyhow. --A Sunshade Lust 14:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict 

message: I have uploaded new images for the sample game (:Image:Bg sg w1.png, :Image:Bg sg b1.png, :Image:Bg sg w2.png), and an image depicting the path of movement (:Image:Bg movement.png). They are screenshots of GNU Backgammon, which means their licensing is preferable to that of the previous images. I have retained the same colors and positions, since otherwise the sample game would make no sense. I welcome any comments on the board design and lighting; many of the parameters for the 3D board engine in GNU Backgammon are configurable, so I can change them if they're ugly. —ptk✰fgs 07:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New images for sample game 

message: I still don't see why we need an explanation of the specific rating of go players here in the software section. We don't have any discussion of backgammon ratings in the article and it just reads as confusing to me. I think the point of the comparison to computer chess is that chess and bg software have some really notable similarities (strength of play) and really notable differences (algorithmic approaches). Since go software is so easily destroyed by less-than-average players I really don't think we need a huge blurb about it other than to compare it to something that's solved. —ptk✰fgs 13:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: go 

message: I think adding this article to :Category:Board games is redundant, as :Category:Backgammon is already listed there. A user visiting Category:Board games will see Category:Backgammon easily, and Backgammon is space-sortkeyed to the top of that category. Is there another reason that Backgammon should be listed in Category:Board games? —ptk✰fgs 05:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, aside from one editor thinking it should and reverting at least three editors who want to properly categorize it.  It is appropriate for the article for Backgammon to be listed in the same category as the category for Backgammon because of the "topic article rule" Wikipedia:Categorization/Categories and subcategories, however, that category should be :Category:Tables games which is described as "Tables is a generic name given to a class of board games similar to Backgammon".  Listing it in board games is inappropriate given the direct subcategorization of Tables games AND the categorization of :Category:Backgammon -- which it should be obvious to everyone else is the category that people will look for this article.  Much of the Board games categorization is problematic and will only get worse if taken to the (il)logical conclusion of listing this article in :Category:Tabletop_games and :Category:Games.  If the editor wants to eliminate the Tables games category then there is a process for that, but listing this article in any category it can fit in is absurd and counter to the categorization guidelines.  Again, the proper categorization is for the backgammon category and article to both be listed in Tables games. 2005 05:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Read this. It may help: Categorization discussions. It discusses about its philosophy and the sets of rules. --Wai Wai (talk) 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand the concerns about excessive duplication of categories, and I think they're valid. I'm not sure what to do in this case, because :Category:Tables games almost certainly doesn't help anyone using categories to navigate when they're looking in :Category:Board games for articles on Backgammon. Since the overwhelmingly predominant discussion of tables games today is as ancestors, relatives, or variants, but with the primary focus on backgammon, perhaps the best categorization would be to make Category:Tables a subcategory of :Category:Backgammon, and put Category:Backgammon in Category:Board games. This solves the navigation problem and avoids duplication. Anyone? —ptk✰fgs 21:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This certainly would solve everything, but I'm totally unfamiliar with what "tables games" are or meant to be.  If :Category:Tables games can at all plausibly be made a subcategory of :Category:Backgammon that would solve everything... as would simply renaming :Category:Tables games to :Category:Backgammon, but again I don't know how related or unrelated those other articles are to "backgammon" as opposed to tables games.  2005 06:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tables games are, in short, games played on a backgammon board. A few centures ago the term referred to pretty much any board game (including, e.g., chess and draughts), but today I would say that "tables game" and "backgammon variant" are essentially interchangeable. I'm not sure if there is a sufficient distinction between a backgammon category and a tables category to have both. But I don't think this should be decided on my assessment alone. —ptk✰fgs 07:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: A comment left today at the talk page of the Backgammon variant article has changed my mind. I think it would be a misnomer to use backgammon as the supercategory for a lot of games that can't legitimately be described as backgammon variants. I merged the variants article into Tables (board game), and I think the proper categorization is Board games->Tables (board game)->Backgammon (cat)->Backgammon (article). —ptk✰fgs 13:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The logic starts with deleting links crudely dropped like you did with "Online Internet Backgammon" anchor text. 2005 09:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The external links section is meant to include sites which offer a significant amount of information about the game over what the article offers. The affiliate status of sites listed here is not a significant consideration. The links at this article should point to resources with information about backgammon. It's not a web directory of places to play online. —ptk✰fgs 13:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization 

message: Can we lose this? It's well-written, but I think it borders on being an instruction manual. Since we link to b:Backgammon, and it could be freely expanded there, I'm not sure we need it. I think it would be better if we just focused on getting the "Rules" section as clear as possible. —ptk✰fgs 08:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fine. The chess article has even a separate page (sub-page) for the sample game. Several pages do similarly (eg keys to become a good player, strategies and tactics etc.). As long as the main article is not largely created for instructions or the like, it is fine. I think what is important is the main purpose of the article or section. The sample game is here to help readers to understand more about backgammon (eg gameplay, the flow of the game) by illustrations. It is fine and great. However if someone makes up a whole page focussing on teaching readers like how to play the game, how to win the game etc., it is not fine.--Wai Wai (talk) 11:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Sample chess game has a  at the top right now, and I'd have to say I agree with the tag. It's difficult to write subjective commentary on a game while still remaining neutral, and the value of a sample backgammon game depends almost entirely on subjective commentary — otherwise it's just going to be a list of forced moves and rollout results, which would be pretty boring and not very useful. I'm also concerned that a sample game could never avoid being original research. —ptk✰fgs 20:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay. Well, I've moved the sample game to Wikibooks. —ptk✰fgs 06:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not going to say we should make a whole page just for that. I would like to point out is the main purpose of that secton. If it is to enrich people's understanding about the topic, it is fine. Normally information in an article may have overlapping uses or purposes, but it should be the main purposess is important. Take the case of day trading into account, there is a section which states about keys of being a good daytrader. If you take this out of the context, it is like an instruction or a guide and is not suitable for Wikipedia. If you look further, its main purpose is to explain the characterisitics of a successful day trader (so readers will know more what a successful day trader is about). There is no really step-by-step guide on how to daytrade. Anyway, it is up to you t decide if this secton will benefit the readers (but I think you have made up your mind)--Wai Wai (talk) 08:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Sample game" section 

message: I have listed Backgammon as a GA due to the fact that it is well written, contains pictures, and is referenced. However, before nominating it for FA, I would reccomend expanding and citing the Gambling section, and adding some more images. Some P. Erson 16:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I was thinking, actually, that this section ought to be expanded in scope (and renamed) to cover the variety of contexts in which backgammon is played today: competitive tournaments, club and social play, as well as gambling. The main reason I've held off is that it's hard to find sources that aren't like "casinonewshotline123.com". Thanks for your input! —ptk✰fgs 23:15, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgammon GA 

message: added some information about this special event that happens every year in Monte Carlo hope you like it :) Davidoff 02:05, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I only scanned it; is there actually any information that is not cited to RedTopBG.com? We are so far beyond overloaded with references to this site that it's becoming an embarrassment to the article. Additionally, the writing there is of very poor quality, and the articles do not credit an author. More extensive exploration into the site has only led me to doubt it more and more. I hope this weekend to be able to replace every reference to RedTop with sources that meet WP:RS. —ptk✰fgs 04:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  World Backgammon championship 

message: I have significant concerns about the credibility of redtopbg.com, currently cited for eight separate references in the article.
* The style of writing and these comments (  ) have led me to conclude that it is a self-published site, and that the links are being added to the article by the site's webmaster.
* The site does not credit an author, so there is little possibility for independent verification of the claims attributed to redtopbg.com. A google search for "red top" backgammon has not yielded any commentary from secondary sources regarding the articles at the site.
* We currently cite redtopbg.com for a claim that a backgammon tournament in Oregon was raided by law enforcement agents. Despite an exhaustive search at my university library, I can find no independent corroboration of this event.
* We currently cite redtopbg.com for a claim that Paul Magriel served as an expert witness at a trial resulting from the Oregon raid. I can find no independent corroboration of this event.
Once we can establish the credibility of redtopbg.com under the guidelines at WP:RS, or once the references (and, where necessary, the attributed claims) have been removed, I think we can remove the verifiability warning template at the top of the article. —ptk✰fgs 05:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to work on finding more references for the new information on the article, regardless if you feel that the information about the backgammon championship or oregon raid are not valid here then we can remove them and the cite to redtopbg.com I only want to contribute quality information for the article and I do not want to impare the article in any way Davidoff 11:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redtopbg.com source credibility 

message: : In Hebrew, it is called shesh besh, meaning "six and five".
In Hebrew it is called shesh besh, and shesh does mean "six", but besh does not mean "five" or anything else. I had thought that the name in Hebrew was borrowed from another language, but it's obviously not from any of the other languages on the list. Rusco 08:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a source that says the phrase is probably from Persian, and that "besh" means "five" in modern Persian as well as Turkish.  I'll try to get to this today. —ptk✰fgs 13:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've addressed this the best I can. I would appreciate any further suggestions on the revised sentence. —ptk✰fgs 15:50, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  in hebrew we do call it shesh besh but the word besh does come from Persian as Ptkfgs said Davidoff 16:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  in Hebrew 

message: WikiProject Board and table games has developed some helpful style guidelines for articles about board games. I'd like to work on condensing our "Rules" section to be more in line with the WPBTG guidelines. Currently we have pretty much a complete description of the rules here, which is probably too much detail for a general encyclopedia. I've temporarily copied the section to my user page at User:Ptkfgs/Backgammon Rules. This diff is my first stab at condensing the rules section. I'd appreciate any comments here about what we can lose and what we need to keep. —ptk✰fgs 20:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Condensing rules 

message: There are a lot of sites on the internet stating that a backgammon tournament in 1981 was raided by police in Oregon, that the tournament was run by Ted Barr, that Stephen S. Walker eventually heard the case in the Oregon district court, and that Paul Magriel testified as a witness at the trial. I've searched and searched and searched, and no news publication seems to have ever documented this event. I'm no expert legal researcher, but I can't find anything, ever mentioning this in Oregon court cases or any federal case. If this happened at all, nobody ever wrote it down. None of the websites that describe this give a date for the trial besides "1982", and none of them ever cite a specific case number. 
The only verifiable part of the story seems to be that Stephen S. Walker was an Oregon district court judge in 1982. This is well-documented, but not very useful.
Since this is such a commonly repeated story, and since the Safe Port Act seems to be veto-proof, it would be really nice if we had a real publication or legal citation for this case. We are going to need a sentence or two to update the "online play" section after the Safe Port Act takes effect. —ptk✰fgs 02:47, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Barr v Oregon" 

message: Is it really helpful to have the three footnotes referenced in virtually every paragraph of the Rules section?  It strikes me as a bit of an eyesore.  I'm not familiar with all the style standard for this sort of thing, but maybe these could be combined in one place?  --Nephtes 21:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it probably isn't. Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Board and table games suggests that this section ought to be shorter and less detailed, anyway. I'm not sure if there is a style guideline for a large section that is supported by multiple references; I went with that style figuring that it wasn't too annoying as long as they weren't in the middle of paragraphs. —ptk✰fgs 21:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: ITs not uncommon in scientific articles to use commas in more than one reference , like for example [12,13,14]. But i guess that wikipedia doesn't support this style. SNx 18:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [12][13][14] 

message: I am trying to learn the rules of backgammon.  I found this sentence ambiguous: "Checkers placed on the bar re-enter the game through the opponent's home field."  Who is the opponent in this context?
Jameshfisher 17:32, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. This article is not meant to contain comprehensive rules for backgammon. You will find this page more helpful. —ptk✰fgs 17:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is so nicely phrased it puts a lot of information across in few words. It may seem strange, but concise language can often lead to significant details being missed by readers. Here the significant detail is that the implied subject is the owner of the checkers which are placed on the bar. This player's checkers re-enter play through her opponent's home field. The implication follows from the fact that checkers in backgammon always belong to one player, throughout each game -- white to one player, black to the other, for example. Alastair Haines 11:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous? 

message: Hypergammon gets its own page, but Nackgammon doesn't? We need some consistency...
:True. Hypergammon should be merged. nadav 07:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What we need is sources more than anything. —ptk✰fgs 19:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, didn't realize you're up for FA here.  Wouldn't have done the merge that way if I noticed. BTW, why in the world did you decide bkgm was not reliable?  nadav 23:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, a lot of its articles rely on usenet posts as their only sources. There's a great variability in source reliability at bkgm, and the things for which it was the sole source were pointing to articles that referenced usenet sources. After removing those, the only citations left to bkgm were in the basic rules, which are also supported by two other sources so we didn't need it there. —ptk✰fgs 00:52, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Variants 

message: Why do you people insist on deleting this paragraph from the strategy section.  The concepts in this paragraph are fundamental to any understanding of the game.  The article on Backgammon as it is is crap because it is so conceptually superficial.  This paragraph gives the article a firm conceptual elucidation of the game:
The basis of strategy in backgammon is to try to slow down the opponent through skillful and timely placement of blocking points (two or more checkers stacked on one position), and via hitting loose checkers that the opponent may leave on the board. For a particular player, the most valuable blocking points tend to be those that are located within that player's goal quadrant, and the most valuable such points are the ones towards the periphery of that goal quadrant. In the initial game setup, each opponent already has five backgammon checkers stacked on their six-point (the sixth position in each player's respective goal quadrant). Each player also has three checkers stacked on their respective eight-point. These three checkers, along with the five on the six-point, can be used as "builders" to help build up more points within that goal quadrant. These goal-quadrant blocking points are extremely valuable because each on reduces by one dice number the number of dice numbers available to the opponent, if the opponent's loose checker is hit and the opponent must try to return to his beginning quadrant (which is the other player's goal quadrant). In Backgammon, a central tactic is to try to "make the five-point," or place a block on the fifth point in the goal quadrant. It has been demonstrated conclusively that a player who makes this five-point block early on in the game has a clear strategic advantage against his opponent. Every computer neural net program has taught itself to follow this key tactic. This will give the player a 3-prime, or three points in a row at the goal quadrant area, making it difficult for the opponent to escape from this area. These points are also a safety zone where the player can place more extra builder checkers for building even more points on the inner board. If the opponent makes the 4-5-6 prime early on in the game and places spare builder checkers on it, on each turn the player will have a chance of making a roll that will enable the player to make another point in the goal quadrant. Accordingly, the opening roll of 3-1 is the most valuable opening roll in the game, because it allows a player to instantly make the five-point block, by moving a checker from the six to the five, and another checker from the eight to the five. In addition, 4-2 is the second most valuable opening roll because it allows a player to instantly put a block on the four point, which is almost as valuable as the five point block because it is almost as near to the periphery of the goal quadrant as the five point. 6-1 is another very valuable opening roll, because it allows a player to put a block on the seven-point, which prevents the opponent from using a six dice number to escape checkers in that opponent's beginning quadrant. If all six points within the inner quadrant are blocked and the opponent checker is hit, the opponent will not be able to move until the first player is forced to break up a point on that board. By that time, the player could advance all of his pieces to the goal quadrant and begin the process of moving them off the board and winning the game. As a defensive strategy, a player could try to place a block of his own on the five point of his opponent's goal quadrant; this is possible if the player rolls a 4-4 opening roll, since the player can move the two checkers on the 24-point to the 20-point and form a block on the 20 point (the 20-point for a player corresponds to the five-point for the opponent). As long as this defensive point remains in place, the opponent cannot place a block on the five point, reducing the probability of preventing the player from being blocked if the player's loose checker is hit during the game. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.115.232.209 (talk • contribs).
:It's unsourced, it rambles without any break, unnecessarily advocates a position, and reads like original research. Additionally, it repeats information found elsewhere in the article in a confusing context. Lastly, it provides an inappropriate level of instruction and advice for an encyclopedia. —ptk✰fgs 04:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the second deletion, but  I forgot to  log in when I did so. Ptkfgs pretty much said it. A summary of what Wikipedia "isn't" can also be found here. Your comment " is is crap because it is so conceptually superficial" actually is what wikipedia is about. Your perspective didn't say its crap because its wrong - its because it is superficial - which is what is intended per wikipedia NOT being a textbook/manual. All is not lost - if you wish to create a primer on backgammon strategy you may consider adding your knowledge to the wikibooks project and in particular the backgammon wikibook. You will find your style will need to be cleaned up.  Mpetch 06:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's wrong with this strategy paragraph? 

message: An IP went through this article and changed every instance of the words "pieces" and "checkers" to "stones."  Those things can be called pieces, stones, checkers, men, pawns, counters or chips. The article was fine the way it was. This has all the makings of one of the most idiotic edit wars Wikipedia has ever seen. (Remember he/him/his v. she/her/hers?) I reverted to checkers, since that was most often used before the most recent edits, and put a parenthetical list of names in the intro. Let's just leave it alone, please. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd assume good faith for both edits.. Keeping it consistent through the main text is good, and I think that 'checkers' or 'pieces' seem to be the most common terms for this, with the rest also in use (and noteworthy). I would associate 'stones' more with similar (mostly African) games or historical/Fictional contexts. EasyTarget (talk) 16:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of the pieces 

message: I disagree with linking to the Board Game Geek website in this article. In the first place, the site is very spammy - lots of advertising. Second, this template is most often used with proprietary games like Monopoly (game), Trivial Pursuit, and The Game of Life. A certain amount of commercialism is inevitable when mentioning these games because they're copyrighted and owned. Note that other classic strategy games in the public domain such as Chess, Go (board game), English draughts (checkers) and Draughts do not use this template or link to Board Game Geek. Also, there's no real value added in the link. I'm deleting the template to encourage discussion. Please comment here before re-adding. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's reasonable. First, I think for public domain games, that you are correct that it's less relevant. Second, because the site is in fact extremely spammy. I Hadn't realized this because I'm a member there and have all ads turned off, but for non-member visitors it's a mess (and thus inappropriate encyclopedic content.)   — Aldaron • T/C   22:12, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Board Game Geek 

message: Backgammon is a sport ! Really ! Why ?! Because it needs training ! Practising ! Progressing ! Backgammon players work ! They can have levels !  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nastasija Marachkovskaja (talk • contribs) 11:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgammon is really a sport ! Yes  

message: Having two boards, one with a hard wooden playing surface and one with a felted I also noticed there is no doubling cube in the wooden game. This has been suggested to be because the wooden edition is of an Eastern Origin where the game is noisier and does not have the doubling option and the felt is of the Western trdition.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.152.0.171 (talk) 11:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if this comment belongs here. Do you have in mind some kind of improvement to the article? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  International Variations 

message: There's a description of a number of variants of nard at Tables (board game), so I'm not sure it would be accurate to call nard and backgammon the same game. On the contrary, I think the descriptions of the long narde and short narde at tables warrant an expansion of nard.
Mani1, what's your reasoning? —ptk✰fgs 23:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking to H.J.R. Murray 6.1.2 has no mention that Nard or Persian forms of backgammon use a different starting position or have different objectives.  gameboardgeek has no mention of Nard.  Other web sources per Google have no special mention of nard. Nard means 'wooden block or cylinder'; The game is also called Nardshir and 'shir' means lion and applies to the pieces used in more elaborate versions of the game. Murray identifies a first date of between 300 and 500AD.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salisbury-99 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Nard (game)]]? 

message: I moved the History section to the end for two reasons:
*I thought it wrong for this long section to start the article talking about stuff that isn't backgammon; I think the casual reader will first want to get an idea about the existing game, and now it goes straight into that information.
*I thought it odd that the introduction mentioned pieces & checkers in the first two sentences, and the "notes & references" section started with one note about piece names, and everything else was references. I can see why this was done from the earlier discussion, and agree it shouldn't be in the introduction. I think the various names of pieces deserves to be in the main article, after the introduction, but it needs to come before anything that mentions checkers, which couldn't be done with the first (historical) section talking about "checkers".  Now the introduction mentions pieces without saying what they are, and the following rules section starts by defining the names and settling on checkers for the article.  This should help anyone who comes in and thinks "oh, they should be called stones/men/women/whatever but this article doesn't mention that, I'll randomly change it".
Lessthanideal (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved "History" section 

message: I appreciate that this is only anecdotal, but those I have played socially have always acknowledged a rule whereby the doubling dice is frozen (i.e. cannot be raised further) once both players have passed each other.  In other words, once your last piece has gone past your opponent's last piece and there are no further opportunies to take each other, the stakes are frozen.  Raising the odds has to be done before this stage of the game, you can't double on your last roll when you know you've already won.  I couldn't find mention of this in the article.  Is anyone else familiar with this rule?  Traveller palm (talk) 17:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubling dice Rule 

message: OK, this might be considered really pedantic, but I was always taught that you must exit the board on your own colour.  Just like when you set up a chess board, the queen sits on her own colour.  So if you are black, the last (number 1) position should be a black peg/spike/whatever.  It makes no difference to game play obviously, it's just a standard convention.  This might be too trivial to mention, but I couldn't help notice that the diagram in the rules section has the board set up the wrong way round. Traveller palm (talk) 17:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Setting the board up correctly 

message: I added a paragraph to the varients section, I've always played with this rule (in UK) and encountered it in other places (US and Holland). I think it is widespread enough to merit a mention, especially since many seem to think it is part of the official rules (as I did initially). However, I'm not sure if the note about why it is called the 'Egyptian rule' in GNUBG is appropriate here, although it is interesting. EasyTarget 15:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's definitely a common variant, but I think we need better sources than the IRC log and probably than the GNUbg documentation. —BurnDownBabylon 18:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

text: This setting is no longer in GNUBG (as it was never properly implemented).  I've removed that sentence.--Superfly Jon (talk) 10:09, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it astonishing to read in this article that outside the civilised confines of Great Britain, there are primative 'cultures' out there where people even now still believe that it's ok to put more than 5 men on one peg.  We have a name for that 'rule' here.  We call it cheating. :)  Traveller palm (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Five checker rule 

message: Note on History section for later editing:
1. The first section on "Persia" should probably be re-named "Egypt and Mesopotamia" seeing as the Persian Empire was not established until the sixth century BC (see Article on Persia) and everything mentioned there is rather older.
2. The section on "India" should probably be titled "India and Persia", since it deals with both of these countries and not just India.
--Wolfhawke (talk) 23:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy in "History" Section 

message: What does this mean?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Superfly Jon (talk • contribs) 08:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tim Holland 

message: I would like to say that backgammon is a sport , or can be considered as one ! 
Backgammon necessite training , concentration , activity , like sports in general ! 
This is a MENTAL sports , or psychical ! You can write a message on my Eremia (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand you underlying point.  However, it appears English isn't your first language, so you may not be aware how odd it sounds in English to call Backgammon, Chess, Card Games, etc. a "sport".  Even highly competitive, televised events like Poker games are never really called "sports".  Even if these things have a lot in common with physical-oriented sports, it just doesn't sound right to say it.  Because of that, you'll have a hard time finding a reliable source that calls it a sport, and that would really be needed in order to use that word. --barneca (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know it's a couple years later, but the International Olympic Committee recognizes chess as a sport... and there is talk of it being included in the 2012 Olympics or some other future event.  I see this as valid criteria for calling something a sport, but certainly not the only valid criteria.  Backgammon is a game similar to Chess in many, many ways.  It seems like there would need to be a very solid argument for it not to be a sport before you could claim so.  I think almost anything that has international competitions and judging panels, etc, can be considered a sport at least to some degree.  See the commonly used term of e-sport to see other "non-physical" sports.  I understand that the word "sport" has a physical element to its definition, but I believe that definition may be loosening or changing in the current atmosphere.  JudgeX (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you point to somewhere that has the Olympic committee specifically calling chess a "sport"?  Possibly including it in the Olympics can just as easily be them expanding what is allowed in the Olympics and does not automatically confer the name "sport".  And given how the word "sport" is used everywhere else I look, I do really think the burden is on you to come up with some really good reliable sources that support the "backgammon is a sport" theory. SQGibbon (talk) 05:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  I've heard that checkers was an event at the 1900 Paris games; backgammon might also have been. 24.217.232.200 (talk) 01:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgammon is a sport , or can be considered as a sport !  

message: I have added relevant history for World Series of Backgammon including the emergence of PlayWSOB.com the new online bg site from WSOB that provides tourneys and qualiifiers for World Championships. I see there has been a needless deletion of new content. Please explain why as what was added was relevant and truthful and indeed important for players looking to play online on a secure site not dominated by pros and bots or cheats.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.226.106 (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia where people come to gain a general knowledge about various subjects.  It is not intended to be a resource for people looking for good sites to play backgammon on.  Further, your edit (based on your comment here) looked like Original research meaning it was based on specific knowledge that you have, which if you follow the link is something that's not appropriate for Wikipedia.  Finally since it has very little directly to do with backgammon as an encyclopedic subject it came across as an advertisement for that company which is definitely not allowed on Wikipedia. SQGibbon (talk) 22:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: WSOB

message: Let me clarify that I absolutely agree that in backgammon, when played in a tournament or other multi-game format, particularly with the doubling cube, skill dominates over luck.  I also know that such is not the experience of the average player.  As such, that is an easily challenged statement.  Per Wikipedia's policy on verifiability, we must provide reliable sources for any statement that is easily challenged.  The simpler statement of "luck and skill play an important role" is not easily challenged, thus doesn't need a reference.  If someone could just pull up a copy of Backgammon for Blood or something similar (I don't have any or access to any where I live), and find a relevant page number that asserted the dominance of skill, then the statement can go back into the article.  Qwyrxian (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I decided to self-revert--since I think any skilled bg player would agree with this statement, I think it can stand, but we do need a source, so I added a  tag. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree that we should find a citation, but bear in mind that the statement was equally POV and equally uncited before I modified it. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

text: Oh, and, by the way, the original Backgammon for Blood, written back in the '70s was a terrible book full of bad advice. There's a new book by the same title that's actually an American reprint of a book originally published under another title in the UK that's just fine. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, BfB was just the first that came to mind; I'd expect any intermediate to advanced bg book to assert the same thing.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategy vs. Luck 

message: The Movement section does a good job of describing how the checkers can be moved. However, it seems to reference images that do not exist in the article - in fact, I suspect the whole section may be a copyvio. I'm hoping a regular editor will fix this, rather than letting a newcomer (to the game and the article) botch it up. Metao (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, Metao; I'd never noticed that before.  The indication is subtle, but we can see it here: "For example, in the case of a 6-3 roll, no moves of 3 are possible by any checker. However there are 2 moves of a 6, with checker A or checker B. If checker A is moved 6, the 3 still cannot be played. If checker B is moved 6, a 3 now may be played. The rules state that the player is forced into moving checker B 6 points, and then 3. In short, the rules compel a player to exhaust every option available to complete both die moves where possible."  The reference to "Checker A" and "Checker B" clearly imply a diagram, with two checkers labeled A and B.  I don't have either of the books referenced in this section, and there's no previews in Google Books, but my guess is that it comes from one of those.  I'm going to remove that paragraph, since it doesn't even make sense without the implied picture, and it's just an example. However, if anyone has those books, could you check the rest of the section to see if this is copied?   Qwyrxian (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Excellent, for some reason I had thought the example/s were more pervasive than that. Thanks for the second opinion and fix! Metao (talk) 01:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Movement section 

message: This below doesn't sound like the same thing as Tric Trac:
:Tric-trac is a French variant of Backgammon. There are two main forms of the game, le Grand Tric-trac and le Petit Tric-trac. In Tric-trac, the starting point is called a talon, the points, or flèches, are numbered to 12 on both sides of the board, with the 12th point on either side called the coin de repos, or, simply, coin. The 11th point (on either side) is often called la case d'écolier, or "schoolboy's point" (case literally meaning "box") after the tendency of inexperienced players to rush to this point too soon in the game. Statistically, the most difficult points in the game to reach aside from the coins are the 8th points, and they are named les flèches du diable ("the Devil's points") for this reason. The home boards are referred to as the jan de retour by either player. Doubles are treated as two identical numbers, unlike backgammon proper.
Snori (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not. Just two different games with similar names. —BurnDownBabylon 03:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: TricTrac?

message: How can all traces of "random chance" be fairly removed from Infobox when there are dice-rolls? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it because I thought that putting "Random Chance - Moderate" is a subjective and questionable assessment. We could put "Random Chance - dice rolls" but the info box already says that the game involves dice rolling. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 09:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be in favour of having a simple "yes/no" response to the "Random chance" parameter - either it's a perfect abstract strategy game or it isn't - but I do think it belongs in the infobox; Backgammon does have an element of chance, albeit a lesser one than, say, Snakes and ladders. (I'm also not sure that "probability" counts as a "skill", as the infobox claims). Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, something along the lines of "Yes/Some/Variable" would be good. NotFromUtrecht (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random chance removal  

message: the beaver disambig page refers to this page but there is no mention of beaver at all. someone must have removed it at some point.
Wikikob 14:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  beaver missing 

message: According to Backgammon for winners Bill Robertie, Gambling Research Institute, page 29 "Play from your 24-point to your midpoint...your midpoint(the 13-point)." If for some reason that midpoint is not considered the appropriate spelling for backgammon then mark the text as  or  else the spelling will be detected by AutoWikiBrowser as a typo. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  midpoint spelling 

message: precision dice can be loaded.  loaded dice are not the most common form of cheating.  dice cups and boxes do not affect loaded dice which will still fall more on their designed numbers due to false shaping and weighting.  today's bots are not capable of good enough play such that their use by others will be detected.  dice can be thrown to produce some numbers more often, even when the dice are not loaded.
whoever wrote the section had some authority, but obviously zero knowledge of dice control.  i suspect backgammon players here are trying to make the public think that cheating is not a real factor, when it absolutely is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.122.94 (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The section, however, was sourced, and WP always goes with what sources say, not just editor's opinions. If you have alternative sources that refute those claims, we can consider rephrasing or adding 2 different perspectives, but we can't just remove it based on your say-so. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:39, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  deleted cheating section due to grossly mistaken 

message: some states ban money play due to the use of dice, although there is no doubt that the game requires skill.
http://www.bkgm.com/articles/BackgammonTimes/LuckVsSkill-TrialOfTedBarr/index.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.84.95.229 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  legality of money play in USA 

message: Perhaps someone could create a computer backgammon page? Since there exist pages for individual backgammon-playing programs. I still don't understand how the programs work: when a computer makes a move, does it really simulate thousands of games to their completion and check what comes out best? And how does it do the rest of the simulation, bearing in mind that just dice rolls alone aren't enough, it has to work out the best move for every subsequent move by both players in each simulated game?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.13.2 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section in this article for backgammon software; I don't know that a stand-alone article would be justified, but the current section could be expanded.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Backgammon and computers 

message: Some threads on this page are eight years old.  Anyone have any objection to auto-archiving this discussion page? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the section headers, I don't see anything that is still an open issue. I agree with archiving. But if it's easy to leave the last section out of the archive (Backgammon and computers), you might consider it for two reasons which I haven't the time to go into right now. Willondon (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The auto archive bots accept settings to specify how to archive.  For this talk page I'd suggest a 180 day retention period, i.e. any topic with no activity for 180 days goes to the archive.  Recent and active discussions remain until they age out. The process is ongoing and automatic once configured. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good to me.Willondon (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Auto archive has been implemented; 180 day age-out with a minimum of four threads remaining each time it runs.  Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Auto-archive? 

message: Seems like a well-done and well-sourced page, so will put these here until they're being used to verify content in the article
* .
* .
but, given that this is Wikipedia, it seems unlikely this article doesn't have any passages lifted wholesale from the EB11. If there are, we should go ahead and source it appropriately. — LlywelynII 07:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources for future article expansion

message: I'd like to suggest adding http://ocastudios.com/classics/backgammon/ to the external links. It is a print and play backgammon set released under public domain (and thus, free). Other board game articles have links to the site, which I think can be helpful for newcomers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isacvale (talk • contribs) 20:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This site does not appear to be a good source for further information, so I do not think we should link to it.--Nø (talk) 14:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Backgammon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081009231826/http://home.flash.net:80/~markthom/html/nackgammon.html to http://home.flash.net/~markthom/html/nackgammon.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: /Archive 1
hi Sami1975 (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Archives

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Backgammon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110314131358/http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammonluckskill to http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammonluckskill
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://home.flash.net/~markthom/html/nackgammon.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060907014829/http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/classic/bg/tournaments/world00report.html to http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/classic/bg/tournaments/world00report.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091010184227/http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammon-proposition-week/ to http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammon-proposition-week/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114231823/http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/history03.htm to http://www.nihonkiin.or.jp/lesson/knowledge-e/history03.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A sentence in this section claims that in the modern Levant, backgammon is known as tawle and/or as shesh besh.  The cited reference, which is a children's book, mentions the first name, but does not mention the second.  The Backgammon Galore website lists "shesh besh" as one of many variants of backgammon.
I doubt that a children's book is an appropriate WP:RS; we should either have a better reference, or we should not cite anything at all (is this a claim that would likely be challenged?).  If a citation is considered necessary, the bizarre style of citation, which is just a link to the results of a Google Books search, should not be used; a more conventional citation, giving name, title, author, page number, etc., would be better.  I am not going to try to fix this myself because I am not familiar enough with Backgammon culture to be confident about the right thing to do.  Bruce leverett (talk) 00:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  History -- Iraq (Mesopotamia) 

message: I have changed the following statement from the introductory section:
Although luck is involved and factors into the outcome, strategy plays a more important role in the long run.
Besides the fact that I was personally certain this was not correct, I went to the actual source provided for this statement, an article from Backgammon.org entitled, "Backgammon Luck Vs. Backgammon Skill"  In the first paragraph, it answers the question: The answer is simple: the closer the players are in ability, the more luck there is. In fact, if you take two players of identical skill level, it’s all luck!
I've changed the wording to reflect this, taking into consideration that it takes only a very short time for a player to learn the moves. Unschool 16:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I let the edit stand, but I'm not convinced, especially after the quote "If you take two players of identical skill level, it’s all luck." That's a tautology isn't it? Saying that skill is an important factor means if skill levels are different, the outcome is likely to be affected. In any contest, if skill levels are identical, luck is going to be the remaining factor. Willondon (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luck vs. Strategy 

message: No. In backgammon the pieces are called "men." Wastrel Way (talk) Eric  —Preceding undated comment added 00:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Checkers is purely an American term. It should certainly be changed to a non-regional term; I've seen men, pieces, stones or counters used. Bermicourt (talk) 09:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkers? 

message: I feel it's worth pointing out that the first two images in the body of the article (not the title picture) contradict each other, as both claim to show the board in the starting position, but they have the black and white/red inverted. Someone looking up this article to learn the starting position would find this highly frustrating and confusing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.168.85.200 (talk) 11:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a backgammon expert, but I don't think the colours of the points matter. Even if you turn the boards around, you end up with the same colour sequence, so it's the boards that are different not the layout. Bermicourt (talk) 09:54, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

text: I agree it would be helpful if the same colours and orientation were used, not just in this article, but throughout all the tables games on Wikipedia. I will look at how feasible that is in the New Year. Cheers. Bermicourt (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  First two images contradict... 

message: I'm confused. Isn't "tables game" the only term that should be used in the article? I've even encountered a case where both terms were used in the same paragraph (I've changed one of the pair to "table game", and I'm probably wrong).--Adûnâi (talk) 05:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but in the "See also" section there is a link to "Table games" (piped to Tabletop games, defined in that article to include board games, card games, dice games, miniatures wargames and tile-based games. It's not clear to me if one or more instances reference this concept, rather than the tables family of board games. If this is the case, perhaps they could safely be replaced by "board game" (or "tabletop game") to avoid confusion.--Nø (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

text: The term is usually "tables game" since the board has four tables. However, some authors confusingly call them "table games" which, however, seems to refer to a class of casino game. Best to stick to "tables game" to lessen the confusion. Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shouldn't all the "table game" cases be changed to "tables game"?