Backgammon Future: What Should Be Done?

So - some inconsistencies aside - what you are proposing, is basically a moneygame tournament. That has been tried before, and in itself it is not a bad idea. The problem is that, being moneygame play, the format lacks the whole matchplay cube (and checkerplay) decision aspect, which I personally find is the most exciting part of backgammon.

The whole "fair backgammon rules" I don't really like. It has a lot of weaknesses and inconsistencies compared to "normal" backgammon, which has been discussed with Jakob Gral - among other places - at the discussion board of the Danish Backgammon Federation. Basically the rules is a whole other game than backgammon.

I agree that we should try new things and new formats. The game itself and the scoring system is pretty solid as it is. But I think changes should revolve around new tournament formats - it could be clock rules, that speed up the game (better suited for tv and spectators), or other schemes than elimination cups (to better find the "right" winner), and so on (which is the easy way to say that I don't have any more ideas here and now ;-).

I also think, that the reason for lack of alot of new players and declining participants at the big tournaments, should be found more in the administrative side of the sport. We need more press coverage, more TV exposure, more sponsors - and most of all a non-profit well-organized world wide organisation. But that's another story.

I think there's something to be said for tightening up tournament schedules, but it's going a bit far to turn match play into money play.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "fair". If you mean "not containing an element of chance", I think you've chosen the wrong game-- luck is an essential part of backgammon, and I don't see the point in trying to get rid of it.

If I'm remembering the formula correctly, one player playing first 20 times in a 23-game match should happen about once every 2368 matches. If it's happening much more often that that to you, I suggest that you check the dice--there's probably something going on that we'd all agree was not "fair".

But so it does happen, occasionally--is this a problem? According to Snowie, moving first seems to be worth, on average, a bit more than 37 millipoints. Moving first 17 more times in a 23-game match is worth about 0.63 extra points. Let's say that this 23-game match is a match to 21 points. I think I'm willing to live with a seeing one side or the other get an "unfair" advantage of six-tenths of a point every couple of thousand matches. Keeping track of some kind of first-play alternation seems to me to be way more trouble than it's worth. Just roll the dice!

From: schmucki   

i told you alraedy my opinion: if you want to forget the "luckfaktor", there will be less players! (for me chess and bridge tournaments are always boring) dont forget the words: if i lose, i was unlucky - if i won, i played well!