Talk:Tables game

In the Middle East and Central Asia

I think this section needs to be better organized, with clearer descriptions of some of the rules. Without a familiarity with how the games are played in these regions, there's only so much I can do. If you have anything to add to this section, by all means, please do :-) —ptk✰fgs 01:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Brädspel

From sv:Brädspel: "Brädspel är också det svenska namnet på ett gammalt spel som spelas på samma spelplan som Backgammon, men med andra regler."

Now, I can't read Swedish, but the article looks to me like brädspel is the general name for what we call "board games". The sentence quoted above, however, looks like it is saying something along the lines of "brädspel is also the Swedish name for a game (played? something similar to?) backgammon (in the middle ages?)"?

Then there's this, at the Vasa Museum website.

Is it a generic term, or a word for backgammon, or both? —ptk✰fgs 13:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I poked around some more and found this. It looks like the name of the game is "svensk brädspel". —ptk✰fgs 13:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel like I'm just talking to myself here! —ptk✰fgs 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late on the uptake here, but the passage above in Swedish says, "Brädspel (Tables, lit. board game) is also the Swedish name for an old game which was played on the same gameboard as Backgammon, but with different rules." As for the term "Brädspel", it means "board game" in Swedish, and this game is called "Bräde". Wilhelm meis (talk) 00:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be quite common that the generic term "tables" in English and its equivalent in other languages (Swedish brädspel, Spanish tablas, German zabel, etc.) is used totum pro parte to refer to specific otherwise unnamed games, a bit like saying "they're playing cards" when they're actually playing a specific game called, say, [[Cribbage) and not a game called "Cards". Certainly in English sources we often read that people were "playing at tables" which just means they were playing a game on a tables board. Bermicourt (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Narde

I don't know what the source is for information on Georgia, but in my experience the version of backgammon they play there is equivalent to the western one. They just do not use the doubling cube, or (obviously) Jacoby rule or Crawford rule. Also, long nardi is played there by plenty of people. I am changing the article to reflect this. Brw12 02:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Mancala?

why no mention of Mancala here? Mancala games seem to me to be pretty darn similar to Backgammon games. Pieces go round a board, the aim is to get them all off the board off to one side, and capturing involves catching your opponent when they have a certain amount of pieces on a bar/in a pit. The only big differences are the use of seeding instead of dice and the distinguishing pieces based on position rather than color. I can't be the only person to notice this, surely? --81.129.137.170 02:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Unusual suggestion. The consensus from Bell, Murray and other authors of game-books would be -i- Mancala is not dice-driven; -ii- Mancala has a circuit where both players go ever onwards in the same direction but Backgammon has a horseshoe track where they go in opposite directions; -iii- There are very few mancala-type games with as many as 24 pits etc -iv- Mancala games require the capture of opponent's pieces rather than the bearing off of one's own; -v- otherwise there may be some simlarities Salisbury-99 (talk) 12:20, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it is a different family. I've added a 'see also'. David Spector 23:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Trictrac

I'm not sure what the English equivalent is to (French) Trictrac (Italian) Trich-trach, but this is apparently a Tables game dating to medieval Europe. Machiavelli mentioned it in his 1513 letter to Francesco Vettori. Wilhelm meis (talk) 07:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC) Here's an interesting page: Rules - Home page. Wilhelm meis (talk) 07:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Trictrac is now a stand-alone article and with up-to-date links to David Levy's excellent website. Bermicourt (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Map

It would be potentially quite informative to have a map of the middle-east / east mediterranean area showing the names for the game and the key variations. I do not have the skills to do this.

I will look at Murray to see if there are other games (eg Cows & Leopard variations for one example) where this would be interesting.Salisbury-99 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

This page needs to be merged with Backgammon

This is the same game as Backgammon. The two pages need to be merged and one of them turned into a redirect. Jobava-ro (talk page) 13:00, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No. As used by Murray and Parlett (and others) "Tables" designates a family of dozens of similar games, whereas "Backgammon" designates 1 of these games (currently the most popular one). We may well debate whether certain bits of information (especially the "History" section of Backgammon) might better be moved from one article to another, and whether certain statements ("Backgammon is one of the oldest board games known" -- no, Tables is) might be confusing the issue, but the territory implied by these 2 articles is distinct. It would be better for us to clarify, than to erase, that distinction. Phil wink (talk) 20:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Tabula vs. Backgammon?

The article currently says that "the only differences with modern backgammon" and Tabula is that Tabula has an extra die and the pieces start off the side of the board. I have a hard time imagining that Tabula included a doubling cube, though. If it didn't, then that should probably be mentioned as well (even if not everyone plays with it. It's a commonly used difference, and that's the point.) If it did... well then that seems worth mentioning, too, since the connection between the two games would be all the more certified. Jmgariepy (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done I also doubt whether Tabula had a "roll again on doublets (or triplets?)" rule, but the rules are imperfectly known, and sources generally don't list the rules a game doesn't have. I seem to recall Tabula being reconstructed with pieces moving in parallel, which would be yet another difference from modern Backgammon. More work here is probably necessary. Phil wink (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Tables (board game). 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/20060518141653/http://www.vasamuseet.se/Vasamuseet/Om/Vasamuseets%20vanner/Bradspelsvanner.aspx?lang=en to http://www.vasamuseet.se/Vasamuseet/Om/Vasamuseets%20vanner/Bradspelsvanner.aspx?lang=en

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Technical hatnote addressed and some restructuring

I've made a number of edits with the aim of being able to remove the hatnote about technical language. Essentially the article assumes a knowledge of backgammon rules and terminology, so I've made some simplifications, explanations and changes to address that.

I've also restructured the article by continent/region at the top level. The next level down is by country in the case of Europe or by game for other regions. That largely follows the original section headings because it makes sense to group under 'country' if that country has several games or by 'game' if it is the only game in a country or the game is played in several countries. Meanwhile Backgammon continues to have a section of its own, presumably because it's so widespread. I don't think this is too much of a problem, but we can always restructure again as the article expands. Bermicourt (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Move from Tables games to Tables game

Hi, I know Wikipedia usually prefers the singular form and I get that, but in this case we've gone around in a circle to when this was entitled "Tables (game)" which caused confusion because it looked like an article on the game of "Tables" (which was a real game) when in fact the article is about an entire family of games. Surely the title should be about the subject? If an article on the individual game of "Tables" were to be created, readers would become even more confused. My proposal is that we make an exception in this case and match the title to the article topic. Bermicourt (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

There is support for Bermicourt's position at WP:Naming conventions (plurals) which reads: "In general, Wikipedia articles have singular titles... There are two main types of exceptions to this rule: [the first being] Articles on groups or classes of specific things." Plainly "Tables games" is a class of specific things. Now, there is some limit to this, as this convention still prefers "Dog" and "Car" over "Dogs" and "Cars" -- and I suppose the borderline is fuzzy. A good analog, though, might be the fourth example currently given, which recommends "Articles on particular language groups, as opposed to individual languages, are pluralized, such as Romance languages, Afroasiatic languages, Indigenous languages of the Americas, Sino-Tibetan languages." Phil wink (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Restructuring of sections and insertion of non-English or specialist material

I've just restored this article to an earlier version under WP:BRD, reverting significant (AGF) changes by Onceinawhile to the article in order to open a discussion. Essentially the changes meant that the section on "Tables games by region", which began with Europe, before moving on to the Far East and Middle East/Central Asia was radically restructured to start with Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East and included Greece as well as parts of Eastern Europe; Europe was renamed Western Europe and shunted into second place. The already extensive Middle Eastern section had been further expanded by information about the language used for dice rolls and a large table comparing the words used in Turkish, Arabic and Bulgarian for such rolls.

I have a number of concerns with this. Firstly, the restructuring and expansion seems to give WP:UNDUE weight to one particular part of the world. While the Middle East is the cradle of tables games, that is historical information that is already well covered. Secondly, Eastern Mediterranean and Middle East is not a standard region and not the correct name for the content it covers, based on which it should be "Eastern Mediterranean, Southeastern Europe and Middle East", but that is far too unwieldy. Clearly there are gaming and language linkages between tables games in the Middle East and those other places, but if we're going to lump them together, why not pull in the rest of Europe, since there are clear links with that area too. And then it's too large. Also the language information is far too detailed and specialist for this generic article. If we include that, we should logically cover other languages too and then the article will become too long and too focussed on one technical and quite academic area. I'm not sure English Wikipedia is even the right place for a table on Turkish, Arabic and Bulgarian names of dice throws.

My proposal is that we group the section by the standard, recognisable regions (continent/country), accepting that it makes sense for the Middle East, albeit not a continent, to be a region in its own right due to the history, diversity and current prevalence of tables games there. I acknowledge, too, that the whole section needs further work in order to give more balanced coverage. I also propose that the detail on non-English language terms is spun off onto a different article. Bermicourt (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Bermicourt: thanks for the clear thoughtful post. You make a number of important points. Putting aside the merits of my proposed restructuring for a moment I would like to raise a couple of bigger issues in the old text (now reverted to):

• The Middle East section is almost entirely unsourced, and includes a number of incorrect statements
• The Middle East section includes text in the wrong places in an illogical fashion
• The section refers to Central Asia in the title without mentioning any Central Asian countries in the text
• The names, rules and language of the game throughout the former Ottoman countries is exactly the same. To split them between sections creates duplication and confusion.
• The common modern game of Tawlah/Tavla/Tabli in the Levant/Turkey/Greece and other ex-Ottoman countries is simply Backgammon. The rules and play have converged and there is no discernible difference. And even if there are extremely small regional differences, it is always translated into English as “Backgammon”.

Onceinawhile (talk) 17:38, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for a constructive reply. Let me respond to those specific points:

• Agree and very happy for sources to be added and errors corrected.
• Agree. My sense is that there could be a short overview paragraph and then a section on each country or game depending on which is most logical. Obviously games can spill over into surrounding countries, but if there is a clear country of origin in each case, then country divisions could work. Alternatively if many of the games cross more than one country; it may be more logical to group them by game/game family.
• Agree. Central Asia should be deleted. I can see a separate "Asia" section in due course containing maybe China, Japan and India.
• Which game are you referring to? And which countries does it span?
• Tawlah/Tavla/Tabli.
  • Tavli. According to Parlett (1999), this Cypriot game is in the same family as Backgammon, but has a different starting layout. However, "the key difference" is that a player hitting a blot doesn't knock it off the board, but pins it down so it is unable to move. He implies it is the same as Greek Plakoto.
  • Tawlah. Murray (1952) records an Egyptian and Turkish game called Tawulah. Players start with 2 men on the far right-hand corner point and cannot move them until the rest are entered into the same quadrant. They then race anticlockwise. Both the starting layout and the direction of movement differ from Backgammon. In fact, it falls into a different family: games of parallel movement. Bell (1975) confirms the rules under the same name.

One of the problems I've encountered is that the name for the local tables game, whatever it is, is almost always translated by dictionaries and translators into "Backgammon". I assume that's because almost no-one in the English speaking world knows of any other game played on a tables board. Even if they do know the difference, there is pressure on writers and dictionary compilers to translate "nard", "nardy", "tablas" etc as "Backgammon", sacrificing reader understanding for the sake of succinctness. After all it's easier to say "Olaf and Natasha were playing backgammon" than "Olaf and Natasha were playing Nardy, a Russian tables game in the same board game family as backgammon and, like the latter, played on a tables board." Or "Archaeologists Discover 5,000 Year Old Backgammon Game" is a neater headline than "Archaeologists Discover 5,000 Year Old Gaming Pieces For a Game Believed to Be of the Tables Family, the Same Family to Which Backgammon Belongs Even Though It Was Invented 4,600 Years Later". This use of the word "Backgammon" has become a totum pro parte for any game played on a board with 24 positions and I find I have to check the game rules rigorously to identify what game is actually meant.

So I think we can move forward on points 1-3, but I'd be interested in your thoughts on the last two. Bermicourt (talk) 18:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I'll just second Bermicourt's point that translations of game names are notoriously awful. Falkener calls Pachisi "Indian Backgammon" and categorizes Go as a type of Draughts. There's a logic to this... any war game with differentiated powers is a type of chess; without, it's a type of draughts. Race games with multiple men per side are types of Backgammon. (Presumably, by this logic, Monopoly is just a type of Goose.) I own a 20th-century translation of a play by Ludvig Holberg which translates Forkoering (e.g. Verquere) as "checkers"! Uff-da! Phil wink (talk) 19:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks both for your replies.

I have played backgammon (Tawlah/Tavla/Tabli) in cafes in Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Israel-Palestine, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan (maybe others that I can't think of), and every time it was standard backgammon 2-5-3-5 setup. I have never seen anyone play or propose to play another way.

The best hard evidence I can think of at this point is other versions of Wikipedia:

• Greek: el:Τάβλι (transliteration "Tabli") shows only 2-5-3-5 setup. It then explains Greek: Τρία βασικά παιχνίδια υπάρχουν: οι Πόρτες (που αντιστοιχεί στο δυτικό τάβλι), το Πλακωτό και το Φεύγα (ή Μουλτεζίμ)., lit. 'There are three main games: Portes [doors] (which corresponds to the western backgammon), Plakoto and Feuga (or Multezim).'
• Arabic: ar: لعبة الطاولة (transliteration "Luebat [means game] al-Tawlah") shows only 2-5-3-5 setup
• Bulgarian: bg: Табла (игра) (transliteration "Tabla (igra [means game])") says Bulgarian: В България са познати четири вида игри в зависимост от правилата: „обикновена“ или „права“ табла, „челеби“, „гюлбара“ и „тапа“., lit. 'Four types of games are known in Bulgaria, depending on the rules: "ordinary" or "straight" tabla, "chelebi", "gulbara" and "tapa".' The "ordinary" or "straight" tabla is the 2-5-3-5 setup
• Turkish: tr: Tavla shows only 2-5-3-5 setup

Even a non-Ottoman country with its own history:

• Iranian: fa:تخته_نرد (transliteration "Takhte Nard") shows a picture of the 2-5-3-5 setup and states: Persian: نحوه چیدن مهره‌ها در ابتدای بازی, lit. 'How to pick the pieces at the beginning of the game'

My guess is that the Bulgarian Wikipedia article explains our challenge here. "Tabla" [or equivalent] is the generic name for all games on this board in the former Ottoman countries. Variations must exist throughout, like your Cypriot example. But basic Tabla is simply the game described at Backgammon.

Onceinawhile (talk) 20:35, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

I have been reading as much as I can on this, and thinking more about Bermicourt's statement ...there is pressure on writers and dictionary compilers to translate "nard", "nardy", "tablas" etc as "Backgammon". I think we would cause a great deal less confusion if we to rename this article Backgammon variants. All the games we list in this article are primarily referred to in the literature as a "type of backgammon". Onceinawhile (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

If we rename this article "Backgammon variants" we will simply perpetuate the myth of lazy or uninformed writers that effectively backgammon was invented 5,000 years ago and anything else played on a board with 30 counters and 24 spaces is simply a variant. We don't know what anyone played 5,000 years ago, but we do have quite a detailed picture of when Backgammon emerged and it's very much a "Johnny come lately". The Middle East and Europe have a far older and richer heritage of tables games (which most of them still call by that name) than the British Isles and we would do them a disservice by imposing an English game name on the variety of games played around the world. A bit like calling all card games "bridge". Importantly, though, all the WP:RS refer to the group as tables games and not as backgammon variants. Bermicourt (talk) 08:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. I really like your "back game" / "front game" distinction on the other page. So in theory one could argue that backgammon is any tables game which starts with a pre-defined setup. I think that is not close enough personally. On the other hand, I think requiring 100% orthodoxy to the modern World Backgammon Federation rules to qualify as backgammon is too strict. We can keep this simple by drawing the line of "backgammon" as the variant of "tables games" which starts with a 2-5-3-5 setup. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:57, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

The back game/front game subject is one that merits further research to confirm how the terms (and their alternatives, latter game etc.) were in practice used.

The definition of modern backgammon certainly starts with the classic layout which, borrowing from Murray's notation is player C: 2a 3r 5m 5t and player D: 2z 3h 5n 5f. But its definition needs a bit more. We also need to specify the number of dice used, direction of play, entry and bearing tables, as well as the rules on movement, hits/blots, re-entry, doublets and the scoring scheme. All of those factors affect the character and tactics of a tables game to a greater or lesser degree. So I agree MB may not necessarily be defined by a strict WBF interpretation of the rules, but a tables game is more than its starting layout. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

I have made some edits at Backgammon to try to reflect our conversation. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Regional backgammon and regional tables games

Hi @Bermicourt: I would be interested in your thoughts on my post above at 20:35, 1 May 2022.

Having reflected on it in light of the other conversation we have been having, I suggest the following two fixes:

• Backgammon gets a "Backgammon by region" section. We describe only MB there, but also explain that other tables games variants exist in some of these countries, and direct readers to this article. Within this regional section at Backgammon we have a subsection covering the game in former Ottoman territories, where we can put a focused explanation of its enormous cultural relevance in the region. Ideally we would be able to explain the circular route the game has taken (a little like the way much of the pizza served in Italy today is actually an invention of Italian Americans – there is a name for this phenomenon but it currently escapes me), but we would need a source. I do have some excellent sources explaining that backgammon is the national game of Greece, Turkey and the Arab Levant
• The regional section here gets recut into groups of the different subfamilies of the key variants. It would be much more informative that way, and would avoid the confusion which the regional section has currently found itself in. A good example of this is how Nard in modern Iran primarily means MB nowadays, whereas Nard to scholars means the medieval game with many variants. The same is true of Tawlah/Tavla/Tabli. So we need to focus on the variants themselves rather than the name.

Onceinawhile (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

• You clearly have some useful material that could contribute to a "Backgammon by region" section and I agree it's a good idea to create one. However, I think it would make real sense to locate that at the Backgammon article where the focus is on Backgammon itself and would help to bring balance to what is inevitably quite a US-centric article. I did the same thing with the history of Backgammon, putting the detail at the Backgammon article and just an outline here. The focus of this article is tables games in general - it should cover all tables games, their history, development, culture and variety - and not be dominated by one game that has its article.
• I also agree that the current regional section doesn't work that well and could be replaced by one based on the subfamilies.

If you could forge ahead with the regional section at the Backgammon article and I'll look at reorganising the regional section here. I'm back to work this week, so it may not happen immediately.Bermicourt (talk) 08:16, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Bermicourt, ok that makes sense to me. I will do that. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I think the lead should indicate how "tables" is pronounced in English. Is it (like) the plural of "table" (as a dining table), or is it different, due to the latin derivation of the word? Nø (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

It's pronounced like the plural of table because it refers to the four quadrants of the board, each of which is a table. The word table in Old English meant "board", like the German word Tafel.

I'm afraid I don't know how to insert the pronunciation in the lede; that needs to be done by someone familiar with the IPA system. Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

India and China

Cazaux, J.L.; Knowlton, R. (2017). A World of Chess: Its Development and Variations through Centuries and Civilizations. McFarland, Incorporated, Publishers. ISBN 978-0-7864-9427-9. Footnote 45. The game of tables was derived either from the old Roman race game, duodecim scripta, or from nard. Through Byzantine influence, the games of tables exploded in Europe in several dozens of variants. Among them, the todas tablas depicted and detailed in the 1283 codex of the king of Castile Alphonse X was strikingly similar to a description dated 1129 and included in the Manasollasa of the Indian prince Someshvara III. A Chinese engraving of a game of shuanglu from the Yuan time (1279-1367) also shows the same array of the 30 playing pieces. Surprisingly, this array is precisely the same as that of modern backgammon, a name that first appeared in 17th century England. The invention of the doubling cube, in New York City in the 1920s, changed the game radically and brought it to a new (and well deserved) level of popularity.

Per above, it would be interesting to get hold of the description from the Manasollasa and the Chinese engraving. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

That's very interesting. Of course, the "array" is simply a starting position; only if we know the rules of play can we determine the game. Interestingly Todas Tablas comes with a layout that doesn't match that of Backgammon and a less than clear description. This has led scholars to adopt different views: a) it is Backgammon and the picture is wrong, b) it is Backgammon's predecessor, Irish, but the picture is wrong, c) it is a different game and the picture is right or d) it is a different game and the picture is also wrong. In my own view, a) and b) are simply examples of eisegesis i.e. "we so want this to be the game we are familiar with that we will ignore the picture and interpret the text in Backgammon's favour." c) has more credibility since Alfonso took personal interest in the book and is likely to have spotted such a basic error; the text can be construed to support it. d) is a recent Spanish interpretation which cannot be ignored as they are working in their native language. The last sentence should have added "in the Western world" since tables games have long been highly popular in other parts of the world as you have highlighted elsewhere. Bermicourt (talk) 10:07, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I am strongly of the (a) or (b) view, following scholars who consider it to be two much of a coincidence that the 2-5-3-5 arrays and two-dice-setup of modern backgammon were pictured in El Juegos, albeit with the counter coloring not matching. With the 15 quintillion possible board positions, we talking high levels of improbability. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The most detailed examination of the text was published as a 1400-page PhD thesis by Sonja Musser Golladay.[1] Pages 470-473: "there is once again a problem with the miniature because white is restricted to tables III and IV and black to I and II in the opening array. In this instance, the diagram does not match the textual description in such as a way as to leave me to wonder if the miniaturist became confused by the terms used to describe the four tables or the numbering of the points, or perhaps he was unfamiliar with the game or did not have a model. Canettieri also notes this discrepancy. After a close examination of the text, I agree with Canettieri and believe the initial arrangement for todas tablas should be identical to the modern initial arrangement... Murray ignores the miniature and describes the game correctly, with the opening arrangement as in “our backgammon” (1941: 66-69). Calvo describes the game accurately but only vaguely notes the problem with the miniature by saying that “[e]n el juego actual, la posición inicial es distinta levemente” (1987: 140). Canettieri’s correction agrees with mine and notes Murray’s lack of comment about the incorrect miniature. Parlett describes todas tablas, along with quinze tablas, as one of several LJ games that are direct ancestors for modern backgammon. Murray says that this game “was known in England from 1500 on as Irish, and is the parent of our backgammon” (1941: 60). He like Murray states that todas tablas has the same opening position as modern backgammon..."

So Musser Golladay is saying that a number of the other miniatures had problems too, and that numerous scholars agree with her conclusion that the text of Alfonso's work was describing the modern opening position. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:56, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have a copy of Golladay, but it's clear she's speculating. To accept her conclusion you have to believe two things: the picture is wrong and the text is wrong. That seems pretty unlikely. There is a natural human tendency to equate the unknown with what we already know instead of seeing it as something new and different. That why we have so many Backgammon myths.

There is at least one even more detailed description of the text - by four Spanish researchers. They disagree with Golladay and plump for option d) aiming for the most accurate interpretation of the text, but dismissing the image.

The odds are not that great because players don't choose the starting layout at random. There is a purpose to it. I suspect that Todas Tablas is very close to an early version of Irish i.e. the one with a different starting layout from Backgammon and depicted as variant 1 at that article. The variant 1 layout described by Cotton is identical to that in the much maligned image of Todas Tablas. Now that is rather a coincidence.

Coming back to your opening point - I do think it's worth following up on those sources. Bermicourt (talk) 12:51, 26 September 2022 (UTC)