Talk:Snakes and ladders

message: In the book Winning Ways the authors show how to treat Snakes and Ladders as an impartial game in combinatorial game theory even though it is very far from a natural fit to this category. To this end they make a few rule changes such as allowing players to move any counter any number of spaces, and declaring the winner as the player who gets the last counter home. Unlike the original game, this version, which they call Adders-and-Ladders, involves skill.
I don't mind this anecdote, despite being a tad discursive, but the second any defies comprehension, as it seems to invite either non-termination or triviality. Any number that the chance might have allowed (e.g. 1–6)? Even under this assumption, I'm still struggling to see how this doesn't automatically lead to stalemate, as players run to some available snake rather than accept a bad outcome. (Is there a three-repetition rule?) — MaxEnt 18:58, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I should add that one reason I don't mind this discursive anecdote is that I did change the rules of many games I played as a child, if it seemed to increase the skill requirement. That was the game outside the game, for any competitive, mathematically inclined child. If you bought the game as sold (with its official rules), you got the other for free (invention of house rules). This was not a separable aspect of games from that era (with modern computer games, the rules are hard-coded in software, which is a substantially different terms of engagement—software typically offers more complex grooves, but with less flexibility to bust out, where busting out the right way is the deepest challenge of all; the Hex (board game) looks simple, but it was invented by John Nash, precisely because it's quite deep, mathematically, and even modern computers struggle to determine optimal strategy for small boards). — MaxEnt 19:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impartial game 

message: This section is a bit ambiguous.  Does "the original game" actually mean the Victorian England version?  This should probably be clarified, as reading the article as a whole, "original" would surely mean one of the Indian versions (which).
Of the hundreds of different images of snakes and ladders boards, including vintage Victorian ones, I haven't seen any that match:
"In the original game the squares of virtue are: Faith (12), Reliability (51), Generosity (57), Knowledge (76), and Asceticism (78). The squares of vice or evil are: Disobedience (41), Vanity (44), Vulgarity (49), Theft (52), Lying (58), Drunkenness (62), Debt (69), Murder (73), Rage (84), Greed (92), Pride (95), and Lust (99).[8]"
Are we sure the reference is correct?  If so, we should complete the description by saying the end points of the ladders and snakes (eg the Faith ladder starts at 12, but where does it go to?).
ReferenceHunter (talk) 07:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "In the original game..." Which original; and where do the snakes and ladders go? 

message: *Moksha Patam - The Game of Self-Inquiry
*Leela, the Game of Knowledge Hindu version
*Shatranj Irfani Indian Sufi version from the 19th century
Ok, in response to : Undid revision 1064205281 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk) Why were the 3 external and VERY relevant links removed by admin Ohnoitsjamie (who also broke page Tatvaviveka today on Wikipedia)? Reverting to place the 3 external links back.: Getting accusatory like that is sure to set things on the wrong foot. I've removed the links for now since they seem a bit narrow, promoting specific cultural and historical takes on the game. The best-presented is the first, and it very much promotes a certain religious view, while the second more directly is selling something on Amazon. I'm not sure how to feel about the third. I'm think I'm on the lenient side for allowing odd things on Wikipedia as long as someone might appreciate them, but presumably Ohnoitsjamie has a more stringent standard for inclusion, which has its merits.  – Anon423 (talk) 12:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: The paper cited for the 50.9% figure reads, "Dans notre cas, nous appliquons la règle qui veut qu’il ne soit pas nécessaire d’obtenir exactement le bon nombre pour finir la partie." Translation via Google: "In our case, we apply the rule that it is not necessary to get exactly the right number to end the game." The description in this article — "where the player must roll the exact number to reach square 100" — seems inconsistent with the methodology in the paper. The figure for the first player's expected win percentage that matches the description in this article is around 50.78%, although at present I have only original research to support that.
When time permits I'll review the paper in more detail and edit the article — I imagine it just requires correcting the last sentence of that paragraph. Just wanted to post here in case I'm missing something. — RobinFiveWords (talk) 04:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics section - incorrect description of paper's methodology