I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.

I heard about a week-long backgammon game at the 1995 Nationals
though, for $10,000 a point. The story I heard was that N beat R for
96 points. I have no verification that it happened though.

Keep in mind that bridge is also played for stakes, sometimes
substantial. Again however, I have not seem much money bridge played
in the years I've been in bridge. I played in a 3-cent-a-point game
for a while a few years back. This may be because the top pros can
make a nice living playing professionally in tournaments. I think
that was rarer prior to about the late 70's.

There was a chouette in the DC area for quite a few years, and at
least three of the regulars (Kit Woolsey, Kent Goulding, and Les Bart)
were also serious bridge players.




On Jul 6, 1:06 pm, Will in New Haven
wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 wrote:





On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:

HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games?

Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
chess and almost as good backgammon ...

When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
high level against high level competition ...

I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
analysis ...
Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...

Backgammon came into the bridge scene and killed between-sessions
poker games at major tournaments. Killed them stone-dead as they had
been fairly hard to organize and had led to hotels getting all antsy
and once, in Akron, to an arrest. Then backgammon pretty much died a
few years ago. I stopped playing when people I could actually beat
wouldn't play for money anymore but I haven't seen more than one or
two games going on between sessions in years. Used to be there would
be tons of games, many of them chouettes.

Will in New Haven

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, Hank Youngerman wrote:
I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.


I had stopped playing tournament bridge by then ... One of the best
bridge players then Barry Crane ... was also a world class backgammon
player ... I played one backgammon game with him between sessions at a
regional tournament ... We played at adjacent tables ... and I
outperformed him significantly in the morning session ... we won the
section and he was 3rd ... Very personable ... saw him sitting with
the backgammon game laid out ... He congratulated me on our
performance ... one word led to another ... and we played ... I held
my own for a bit ... then he hit a magical roll and it went downhill
fast ...
he knew how to gamble with the opponent on the ropes ...
Omar Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...

I know this is a backgammon newsgroup, but there are so many Barry
Crane stories. For about 30 years, it was "against the rules" to win
the McKenny Trophy (for most masterpoints won in a year) without
Barry's permission. He won it himself 7 times, and in other years,
you basically had to ask Barry's OK. One of his partners, Hermine
Baron, decided to try for it in 1963 (maybe it was 1964) without
Barry's permission; he never spoke to her again. In 1980 or 81 a rich
amateur named Mel Skolnik decided to go for it. Mel not only hired
top pros to play with him, but he hired other pros to go to
tournaments where Barry was playing to keep Barry from winning. Barry
mostly played on weekends, as he was a TV writer/director/producer
during the week. Barry ultimately resorted to sending his regular
partners to tournaments so that Skolnik would send his hired guns
there, then Barry would go somewhere else to play.

After Barry died (he was murdered in 1985, the killer was never found)
the McKenney Trophy was renamed the Barry Crane trophy. His real name
was Barry Cohen, but he changed it due to anti-semitism in the film
industry.

Barry Crane's Eleven Commandments:

Never pull partner's penalty doubles.
Always take a sure profit.
Watch out for the three level.
The more you bid, the more you got.
Sevens are singletons.
Don't bid grand slams in Swiss Teams.
Don't put cards in partner's hand.
Jesus saves, we defend.
Don't eat between sessions.
Never ask "How's your game."
Never gloat.





On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, number6 wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, Hank Youngerman wrote:

I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.

I had stopped playing tournament bridge by then ... One of the best
bridge players then Barry Crane ... was also a world class backgammon
player ... I played one backgammon game with him between sessions at a
regional tournament ... We played at adjacent tables ... and I
outperformed him significantly in the morning session ... we won the
section and he was 3rd ... Very personable ... saw him sitting with
the backgammon game laid out ... He congratulated me on our
performance ... one word led to another ... and we played ... I held
my own for a bit ... then he hit a magical roll and it went downhill
fast ...
he knew how to gamble with the opponent on the ropes ...
Omar Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker.

You noticed some people who are good at two or more. Chess needs one to be
an extroverted intuitive thinker while poker doesn't. The best poker players
are all extroverted intuitive feelers, either dominantly or secondarily. If
it's between poker and backgammon, then you may be right; one does not need
to be good at chess to be a top player at those games (and there are top
cases who are good at both of them).

On Jul 6, 1:26 pm, Hank Youngerman wrote:
I started playing bridge tournaments in 1983, and I remember very few
between-sessions backgammon games. Pretty much none.

Where were you playing? It seems to me that there were still games in
the NYC area at most tournaments. One guy, the guy who had the book
concession, was always hustling a game.


I heard about a week-long backgammon game at the 1995 Nationals
though, for $10,000 a point. The story I heard was that N beat R for
96 points. I have no verification that it happened though.

Keep in mind that bridge is also played for stakes, sometimes
substantial. Again however, I have not seem much money bridge played
in the years I've been in bridge. I played in a 3-cent-a-point game
for a while a few years back. This may be because the top pros can
make a nice living playing professionally in tournaments. I think
that was rarer prior to about the late 70's.

I made something approximating a living in the NYC bridge clubs in the
middle Seventies. It is a horrible gambling game, compared to poker.
You can't fold your weak hands. You have to play with everyone else in
the foursome and one player is usually so bad that winning with him or
her is very tough.


There was a chouette in the DC area for quite a few years, and at
least three of the regulars (Kit Woolsey, Kent Goulding, and Les Bart)
were also serious bridge players.


I knew that Woolsey played backgammon. He's a great bridge player and
I bet he's very good at backgammon also.

Will in New Haven

--



On Jul 6, 1:06 pm, Will in New Haven
wrote:



On Jul 5, 11:50 am, number6 wrote:

On Jul 5, 10:50 am, Zero wrote:

HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games?

Let me throw bridge in the mix also ... and note ... that computers
play rather crappy bridge ... rather crappy poker ... but excellent
chess and almost as good backgammon ...

When I was playing a lot of tournament bridge ... I was amazed at all
the Backgammon games going on in lounges between sessions ... mostly
high level against high level competition ...

I think the greatest correlation is that the people who play all ...
like to analyze situations .... and make decisions based on that
analysis ...
Game play in itself for the various games is very different ...

Backgammon came into the bridge scene and killed between-sessions
poker games at major tournaments. Killed them stone-dead as they had
been fairly hard to organize and had led to hotels getting all antsy
and once, in Akron, to an arrest. Then backgammon pretty much died a
few years ago. I stopped playing when people I could actually beat
wouldn't play for money anymore but I haven't seen more than one or
two games going on between sessions in years. Used to be there would
be tons of games, many of them chouettes.

Will in New Haven

--- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, number6 wrote:

Omar Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...

Are you sure about him being WC at backgammon? He had a column but
that could well be due
to his celebrity rather than expertise. Did he have tournamnet
success?

Bob Koca

On Jul 6, 1:13 pm, Will in New Haven
wrote:
On Jul 5, 9:32 pm, " wrote:

The three games have little resemblance to each other. Backgammon has
only one kind of "piece" - of no inherent power or value - and all
"pieces" of one color move in one direction; backgammon has dice - and
the outcome never is clear early on the way it often is in chess
games. Chess has many kinds of pieces with different moves - and
power and value - with all but pawns moving both forward and backward,
and no element of luck. Backgammon has a doubling cube that chess
doesn't - and that doubling cube can be used to (at high risk) try to
force the opponent to resign.

Never played chess with a doubling cube? I played a guy a nine-game
match once for twenty dollars a point. I never bet that much on chess
but he gave me a pawn and I started with the cube. He settled up after
four games because he hadn't realized that starting with the cube gave
me so much of an edge.


Chess games rarely have the advantage shifting back and forth the way
backgammon games do, however, so I wouldn't think possession of the
cube would be nearly as important in chess as it is in backgammon.

On Jul 5, 3:46 pm, Jason Pawloski wrote:
On Jul 5, 12:42 pm, wrote:

I'd throw Hearts in there.

I've never played hearts with anyone who wasn't terrible. I have no
idea what the "deep" strategy for it looks like, if there is any. As
far as I can tell it mostly consists of counting down the deck and a
bit of fairly obvious a priori suit split reasoning.

Is there more going on?

It depends on if you play with the Jack of Diamonds as a -10 or not.
If you don't, you are right that play tends to be rather academic. But
if you do, its no longer an issue of getting rid of your high cards if
you're not trying to shoot the moon.


Three-handed hearts, with the jack of diamonds counting as -10, and
passing cards every hand, is a very skillful game.

Four-handed hearts, with no points for the jack of diamonds, and no
passing, is a very mechanical game.

On Jul 6, 4:40 pm, bob wrote:
On Jul 6, 1:41 pm, number6 wrote:

Omar Sharif was also a world class bridge and backgammon player ...
I forget others ... but from say 68-75 ... it was prevalent ...

Are you sure about him being WC at backgammon? He had a column but
that could well be due
to his celebrity rather than expertise. Did he have tournamnet
success?

Bob Koca

Only know what I read ... Back then he was mentioned as a bridge/
backgammon expert ... I played and followed high level tournament
bridge ... so I knew him there ... Didn't play any high level
backgammon tourneys so only had word of mouth ...

On Thu, 05 Jul 2007 07:50:00 -0700, Zero wrote:

HI,

I noticed that people who are good at chess are also good at
backgammon and poker. And people that are generally good at one of
the three games and also good at another as well.

Is there a correlation between the games? For example, Dan Harrington
and Howard Lederer are both good poker players. But they are also
high rated chess players. Harrington has a 2300+ USCF chess rating
and Lederer also has a 1951 USCF chess rating (though both players are
inactive).

Also a lot of poker players are also good at backgammon.

Is there a correlation? Chess is all skill and no luck. I guess
backgammon is in the middle with skill and some luck (from dice) and
poker has more luck than skill.

I think there's different kinds of thinking for all three. Chess I
think is a game where if you're willing to put in the time, you'll be
decent. It requires study (and that probably explains how poker
players can play chess, and vice-versa).

Poker IMHO doesn't require as much study. But it does require more
nerve. Poker I think is more situational than chess, more tactical.
Chess is much more strategic (it's not worth looking more than 2-3
moves ahead in poker, and the options are much narrower).

Backgammon has a strategy, but there are tactical elements to it
(the doubling cube, offense v. defense).

Luck is definitely an element in poker. But probability will even
out the luck. If you set up a situation where a player is given a set
series of hands (and all the opponents get the same hands, all things
being equal), chances are different people will have different
results. Dan Harrington said it well, the best strategy for poker is
the opposite of the other players strategy. But, players will change
their strategy from loose to tight, and you must adjust accordingly.