Talk:Snakes and ladders

Unclassified

The article explains the rules using a 10x10 grid, but the example image has a 8x8 board. This is confusing and should be edited, probably with a note that there is also no standard arrangement for the game board size. Rob <cap AT capsi DOT com>

Done as requested. Mandel 11:04, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Is it ever advantageous not to climb a ladder when you have the opportunity to do so? If so, there is a small skill component. --Jesse Ruderman

In principle it certainly could be, depending on the board layout. However, I always assumed that use of the ladders was obligatory. —Blotwell 06:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Rule clarification, what happens when one player land upon the square of another player? - Tim

Arthurvasey (talk) 11:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people just knock that player off the board and they have to start again - a bit cruel if they are on square 99 out of 100 - normally, I just allow as many players to occupy that square as you want - can get a bit crowded if there are about 20 players!

Normally, a snakes and ladders set comes with four pieces - usually coloured red, yellow, green and blue - but, if you want to play with loads of players, you can get hold of things like coins (small enough to fit on the board - preferably different denominations) or pieces from a chess set or something.

The Original game, by the name of Snakes and Ladders, was deemed immoral and satanic by puritanical Americans. Therefore, the name was changed to Chutes and Ladders for release in the United States by Milton Bradley.

In answer to Tim's question, I think nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.232.128 (talk • contribs) 04:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

What historians?

The Western form of this game was invented in Chrisilorian England, possibly by John Jaques of Jaques of London [1], and apparently adapted from the ancient Indian game "dasapada", dating back to the 2nd century B.C. It should be noted that some game historians dispute this claim.

What is the claim in dispute? Because I think all historians agree snakes and ladders is an adaptation of dasapada.

--83.34.178.181 20:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oca game

It seems to be a variant of the oca game

Original name

The original name (setting the Indian origins aside) is Snakes and Ladders, and not Chutes and Ladders.

Early 1800's John Jaques II invented [...] Snakes and Ladders [1]

MILTON BRADLEY produces, sells and markets [...] CHUTES AND LADDERS (1943) [2]

89.1.194.32 23:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Gyan Chaupar / Jnana Bagi

Image L0035004 at http://images.wellcome.ac.uk/ of an old Indian snakes and ladders board carries this caption:

Game of Heaven and Hell (Jnana Bagi). This old Indian game, known to us as 'Snakes and Ladders', was originally a vehicle for teaching ethics. Each square has not only a number but a legend which comprises the names of various virtues and vices. The longest ladder reaches from square 17 'Compassionate Love' to 69 'The World of the Absolute'

I haven't edited the page as I don't have time right now to check this out properly, but this is information that looks like it should be included. I don't know how jnana bagi is connected to dasapada - is jnana bagi derived from dasapada or is the info currently on the page about dasapada in error? Slightly more searching suggests that a more common name than Jnana Bagi is Gyan Chaupar.

129.94.6.28 10:12, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture reference?

Should we mention that the villain in "Lair of the White Worm" (1988), Sylvia Marsh, played Snakes and Ladders? --98.198.12.5 17:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

No. That's beyond trivial. DreamGuy (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Specific Editions

The Stokes "Shot Glass" edition seems perfectly valid to me. It's more unique (notable) than most of the other versions listed. Either the whole section should be deleted, or new additions should be left alone as long as they don't violate Wiki content policies. smnc (talk) 05:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not notable, it's just bizarre trivia and does violate policies by giving it encyclopedic attention it doesn't deserve, probably as outright spam. The idea the whole section should be deleted because you don't get your way is especially bizarre. It's like throwing a tantrum and demanding that something tht's not equal be treated as equal. DreamGuy (talk) 15:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

With respect I disagree. I'm not "throwing a tantrum" and I find your insult inappropriate and inflammatory. I'm making a perfectly valid point, and if you want to refute it, please use facts, not insults.

There are many different editions of the game mentioned section in question, made by several different companies, and the differences of the various editions are discussed, allowing the reader to learn about the wide variety of different editions that are, or have been, available.

I would submit that most of the editions mentioned are fairly similar, other that having different graphics and manufacturers and that the "Shot Glass" edition is unique among the other editions, which I believe makes it notable. Please explain what makes it "bizarre trivia" and "spam", but makes the South African or U.K. editions "encyclopedic". I for one, cannot discern a significant difference between one and the other. By extension, I can't help but come to the conclusion that if the "Shot Glass" edition should be removed, than the rest of the section (except possibly the Milton Bradly section) should be removed as well. I'm not trying to have the other contributions removed. I'm just suggesting that the other contributions are not more significant than the "Shot Glass" edition.

I realize that I am fairly inexperienced by Wikipedia standards, so if I am in error, please discuss it in a factual manner so that I may learn. smnc (talk) 05:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Saying the whole section needs to be deleted if one thing doesn't get to be in it is tantrum-like behavior, and the "left alone" comment seems to suggest peevishness at the concept that other people would be allowed to edit your work as well. If you can't see the difference between a minor marketing strategy by some unknown company and all other versions of the game, then you really just aren't going to get it. DreamGuy (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

You're suggesting that a game released by a major Canadian retailer is a minor marketing strategy unworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but that "During the early 1990s in South Africa, Chutes and Ladders games made from cardboard were distributed on the back of egg boxes as part of a promotion" is of significant importance? That particular part of the article SPECIFICALLY mentions that it's part of a marketing strategy. And there's NO WAY you can tell me that the Dora and Spongebob versions mentioned are anything but a "marketing strategy" by Hasbro.

I've personally never heard of "Spear's Games". Does that make the British manufacturer an "unknown company"?

You've stilled failed to tell me what makes the Stokes edition "advertising" and the other companies mentioned worthy of inclusion.

Perhaps my language in my original post wasn't phrased in the best way, but I would suggest that you did nothing to help the situation, and only attempted to antagonize me further. And yes, I was peeved that my contribution was deleted with almost no explanation, and almost no thought. I don't believe that you are viewing this section objectively and evaluating all entries with the same critical eye. If you can't provide me with a better explanation than "you really just aren't going to get it", then I think maybe we need to involve someone else who CAN explain it to me. smnc (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Mathematics

I found this in the Mathematics section. It appeared to be intended for the talk page. "It only takes five rolls. Below is incorrect. Kendra and Tim" I thought I'd move it over here to be sorted out. Ingridjames (talk) 03:29, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

History of the Rules

Apart from board configurations (which would also be interesting to see a history of), has there been any change of the rules since the original Indian versions of the game? 63.87.189.17 (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)