Talk:Backgammon opening theory

A fact from Backgammon opening theory appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 August 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the opening theory of backgammon underwent profound changes after self-teaching robots were analyzed playing the game?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2006/August.

Wikipedia

Board and table games Low‑importance

	Games portal This article is part of WikiProject Board and table games, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to board games and tabletop games. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.Board and table gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Board and table gamesTemplate:WikiProject Board and table gamesboard and table game articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Doubles[edit]

What about the doubles openings?

I believe the game cannot begin with a double. The first move is according to the one-cube roll that determines which player plays first. This roll is repeated till decided. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backgammon Idan Yelin

A game cannot open with a double. When a double in encountered on the opening roll (by each player using 1 die), then the doubling cube in incremented 1 notch. asheets

I guess that's true, but sometimes there are "house rules" which are different from the official rules. Some house rules allow for openings with a double...which always leaves me clueless ;-), so it would be nice to know what to with a 6-6 throw. If one ever bothered to bother a computer program with unoffical rules. --Klaws 20:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you allow opening doubles then I'd say a 6-6 opener is a no-brainer: 24/18 (x2) + 13/7 (x2). -- Hux 19:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I rolled them out a few months ago, but as far as I know there is no reliable source for us to cite for the article. 6-6: 24/18(2) 13/7(2). 5-5: 13/3(2). 4-4: 13/5(2), or 24/20(2) 13/9(2) at gammon-go. 3-3: 8/5(2) 6/3(2), or 24/21(2) 13/10(2) at gammon-save. 2-2: 13/11(2) 6/4(2) or 24/22(2) 6/4(2) at gammon-save. 1-1: 8/7(2) 6/5(2) or 24/22 6/5(2) at gammon-save. Cheers. —ptk✰fgs 23:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changed from what?[edit]

If an important point of this article is that computer simulation led to changes, I for one would like to see what they changed *from*. What was the "opening book" as of 1970? --Jonrock 18:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally like to know exactly "why" a computer program has decided that going to the running game on the opening move (by breaking up the 24 point) is preferred over being flexible or opening with a back game approach. This is counter to what I was taught, is counter to what many experts of the game have always taught, and is counter to the spirit of the game. -- asheets 7 August 2006

The self-teaching computer programs simply learned by playing an extremely huge number of games against itself. In other words, they found the "winning moves" simply by trying out. The resulting strategy is therefore based on statistics gatheredduring the learning process. Patience, endurance and speed is one of the major advantages of computers over humans. Artificial neural networks are typicaly used for such programs. --Klaws 20:34, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deterministic games and game tree[edit]

I edited the third line as it was misleading, implying that all deterministic games have slower growing game trees than a game that has an element of chance like backgammon. e.g. look at the deterministic games such as Arimaa. --Rajah 18:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take offense to the proposition that the opening game for backgammon is not studied. Bruce Becker devoted three entire chapters to the concept in his "Backgammon for Blood" (1974, 176pp, Avon Books, ISBN:0-380-00384-8) asheets 7 August 2006

No need to be offended. I think it is accurate to say that three chapters on the opening game (which is quite a bit, as backgammon books go) does not really compare to the sheer volume of text written about chess openings (i.e., several whole encyclopedias). Perhaps there is a better way of wording it, but I think what it's getting at is accurate. —ptk✰fgs 20:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Backgammon opening theory. 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/20060824094629/http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammon-opening-rolls/ to http://www.backgammon.org/articles/backgammon-opening-rolls/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]