I've played chess seriously since I was a teenager, but when I
rediscovered backgammon a few years back, I realized that it is the
superior game at present, at least for me. The "luck" factor is
meaningless in the long term, and that is what matters. One does not
need to know all kinds of "technical" information, as one does for high
level chess. Duncan Suttles talked about this in an interviews, saying
that he had explored chess creativity to his satisfaction, and that the
technical superiority of the best players in the world kept him from
going further (if I remember it correctly).

Today, one can play backgammon for small or high stakes on the
internet. There is no reason to go to a chess tournament and play in a
"class" that is dominated by players who are obviously rated much
higher than they should be for that class, in order to try and win more
money that the various expenses add up to when all is tallied.

Backgammon software is also better, in that a "pro" level program is
available for free, and you can get a good idea of what the best move
is (and why) within a few seconds most of the time.

It is also a more intellectually stimulating game, because the
"obvious" moves can be made quickly, just as in chess, but one does not
need that much time to make a decision on the more difficult moves.
You may be wrong, of course, but more time very rarely helps - you
either understand the position or you do not. And if you do not, the
software shows you when you review the game later. Again, this can be
done very quickly, unlike in chess. Moreover, backgammon often forces
you to change you evaluation criteria quickly, and also to deal with
terrible swings in equity. Thus, the psychologically strong have an
advantage, whereas in chess, those who had the better "technical"
training as youths have a big advantage, in general.

It is also a game that one can come close to "mastering," whereas in
chess there are several variables in play: the skill level of your
opponent, the style of your opponent, the time limit being used, how
many games you must play in a given day, etc. Few humans will ever
come close to being able to hold their own against the strongest
software in a long match. I have also noticed that my understanding of
chess occurred in stages, which could be separated by long periods of
time. In backgammon, it's more like learning a little something here
and there, on a daily basis, which makes it much more of a "positive"
learning experience.

I advise those of you who feel that you are "stuck in a rut" with chess
to take some time and explore backgammon. You can get the free,
high-quality backgammon programs over the internet. Just go to
www.jellyfish-backgammon.com/download/ or www.gnubg.org/

You can then go to sites like bgroom.com and play money games with some
free money they give you. There are also cash freerolls at
Xitinggames.com - no initial cash deposits are required. Note that I
have no affiliation with any backgammon sites, except that I may be a
member of one.

snip

Well gee............I guess that's just your opinion...





.....isn't it.

EZoto

It is partly opinion, but would you doubt that more "technical"
understanding is required for chess in order to play on the highest
levels? Is it not fact that one can review a game of backgammon much
quicker and for free? And what about how easy it is to play for money
against players who are clearly not particularly good?

You may not enjoy backgammon - that is certainly in the realm of
personal preference, but ask yourself a simple question: what is it
that I enjoy about chess? Perhaps you will find that and more in
backgammon, as I did. And what about: do I have a chance of becoming a
world class chess player?

To be honest, when I was younger, I was taking lessons from an
International Chess Master, and he told me he was going to be playing
in a backgammon tournament. I couldn't understand why he was
interested in backgammon. I thought of backgammon as simplistic and
unworthy of serious study. Now my thought is that backgammon is a
human game, whereas chess is for those who think that they are capable
of going beyond what is humanly possible. When you are young, you
think that you are up to this challenege. Now, I agree with Duncan
Suttles. I explored chess and it was fun, to some degree, but now I
want a game that is more fun, but also allows you to come close to
mastery, and also allows you to make some money at it over the
internet, at the very least.

I advise those of you who feel that you are "stuck in a rut" with chess
to take some time and explore backgammon. You can get the free,
high-quality backgammon programs over the internet. Just go to
www.jellyfish-backgammon.com/download/ or www.gnubg.org/

I tried it and detested it. I really hate games based on luck (its why
i also detest playing cards). The 'luck factor' is why i started
playing
chess. Nothing to blame except yourself if you lose a game... in
luck games there is always an excuse.

"Inconnux" wrote in message
ups.com...

I advise those of you who feel that you are "stuck in a rut" with chess
to take some time and explore backgammon. You can get the free,
high-quality backgammon programs over the internet. Just go to
www.jellyfish-backgammon.com/download/ or www.gnubg.org/

I tried it and detested it. I really hate games based on luck (its why
i also detest playing cards). The 'luck factor' is why i started
playing
chess. Nothing to blame except yourself if you lose a game... in
luck games there is always an excuse.
]

'Luck' evens out over a period of time.

This is true for contract bridge, poker, backgammon etc.

The better player will always finish ahead over a period of time.

Regards

"Terry" wrote
I advise those of you who feel that you are "stuck in a rut" with chess
to take some time and explore backgammon. You can get the free,
high-quality backgammon programs over the internet. Just go to
www.jellyfish-backgammon.com/download/ or www.gnubg.org/

I tried it and detested it. I really hate games based on luck (its why
i also detest playing cards). The 'luck factor' is why i started
playing
chess. Nothing to blame except yourself if you lose a game... in
luck games there is always an excuse.
]

'Luck' evens out over a period of time.

This is true for contract bridge, poker, backgammon etc.

The better player will always finish ahead over a period of time.

Regards

Tournament bridge is played in duplicate form so there is no luck, really.
The hands are pre-dealt, stored in holders, and passed from table to table.
Everyone sitting North-South sees the same cards and, for the most part,
plays the same deals. Same for E-W pairs. Your scores at the end of the
event are not the sum of absolute points you received for each deal, but a
ranking against everyone else who played the hand.

Team tournaments work similarly. Of the four team members, two sit N-S and
two sit, at the other table, E-W. Hands are duplicated. Your score for head
to head matches is the DIFFERENCE in points you made for each hand.

The only luck at this form of bridge is that sometimes you play a given hand
against a pair who is expert at some particular point of technique relevant
to that hand. The luck equivalent in chess is getting a black against a
chess player who plays 300 points higher with White, or stumbling into an
opening line that your opponent studied for 4 hours the day before.

"Ange1o DePa1ma" wrote in message
...

"Terry" wrote
I advise those of you who feel that you are "stuck in a rut" with chess
to take some time and explore backgammon. You can get the free,
high-quality backgammon programs over the internet. Just go to
www.jellyfish-backgammon.com/download/ or www.gnubg.org/

I tried it and detested it. I really hate games based on luck (its why
i also detest playing cards). The 'luck factor' is why i started
playing
chess. Nothing to blame except yourself if you lose a game... in
luck games there is always an excuse.
]

'Luck' evens out over a period of time.

This is true for contract bridge, poker, backgammon etc.

The better player will always finish ahead over a period of time.

Regards

Tournament bridge is played in duplicate form so there is no luck, really.
The hands are pre-dealt, stored in holders, and passed from table to
table. Everyone sitting North-South sees the same cards and, for the most
part, plays the same deals. Same for E-W pairs. Your scores at the end of
the event are not the sum of absolute points you received for each deal,
but a ranking against everyone else who played the hand.

Team tournaments work similarly. Of the four team members, two sit N-S and
two sit, at the other table, E-W. Hands are duplicated. Your score for
head to head matches is the DIFFERENCE in points you made for each hand.

The only luck at this form of bridge is that sometimes you play a given
hand against a pair who is expert at some particular point of technique
relevant to that hand. The luck equivalent in chess is getting a black
against a chess player who plays 300 points higher with White, or
stumbling into an opening line that your opponent studied for 4 hours the
day before.


Agreed with duplicate bridge , that is why I specifically mentioned contracr
bridge.

Regards

On 12 Dec 2006 16:26:05 -0800, wrote:

I've played chess seriously since I was a teenager, but when I
rediscovered backgammon a few years back, I realized that it is the
superior game at present, at least for me.

Thank you for letting us know.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

On Wed, 13 Dec 2006 09:02:24 -0500, "Ange1o DePa1ma"
wrote:

The only luck at this form of bridge is that sometimes you play a given hand
against a pair who is expert at some particular point of technique relevant
to that hand.

Well, it works the other way too. Many times there is a choice
between to choices, with one having a better chance of success. Quite
often players happen to pick the objectively less likely route, but
this time it happens to be the winning choice.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

One thing I think is hardly ever mentioned in chess is the "luck
factor," especially at high levels. For example, a clearly superior
will play a move that he thinks will make things difficult for his
opponent. He would not, however, play this move against the strongest
chess computer programs, because he knows that he would be crushed.
Then there are speculative Tal-type attacks, and so forth. Whether you
want to call it "luck" or something else, the point is that there is
not enough time for most serious players, and they must decide when to
play a move that looks best in order to save some time. Some players,
on the other hand, like to use up a lot of time, then deal with "time
pressure" problems. At some point, I realized that the luck factor in
backgammon was actually less irritating that the "luckish" qualities
involved in playing serious chess. Add to this the other factors, such
as ease of analysis, plenty of lousy players willing to play you for
money, etc., and the choice is clear. Also, it's not as boring as
poker, and because of how quickly it is played, one faces more
interesting situations than in chess for a given period of time.