Hanna Shunnarah
GAM 206
November 12, 2016
Backgammon Research paper
When it comes to creation it seems, the name of the game is iteration. All things
become great over time, being sculpted and shaped meticulously by their craftsman. Same goes
for games, most great games of the past century or so, have lineage in significant games of the
past. Backgammon does not seem to be the exception to this rule. When it comes to the royal
family, few games have a more prominent lineage of games that they derive from. It took some
time for Backgammon to be understood as it is today. Before certain discoveries, most experts
would infer a missing link existed between Backgammon and its Roman ancestor, Tables.
Centuries before any of those games existed, games like Senet and Ur were created. They are
what experts believe to be the original start point for Backgammon. This is unique in the world
of ancient games. Few games have the pleasure of knowing their origin. Far fewer games can
look back so easily at their family tree, and make the distinctions that Backgammon can. Its
unique nature is exemplified by the very people that played it, and the societal effects it had.
From pharaohs of Egypt, to Emperors of the Roman empire, and Kings of the modern Era,
Backgammon in one way or another has seen the likes of many grace its board.
To properly depict Backgammon, its origins must first be explained. A rich part of
Backgammon’s history remains in the small iterative steps that can be traced back to other
games. The first of which is Senet, often referred to as the game of the Pharaohs (Law 1). Senet
was creating in the same era and country as the Pharaohs, Egypt (Milmore 1). Board games
were one of Egypt’s few pastimes, with Senet being the most popular among them (Soubeyrand
1). The goal of Senet was to get all of your pieces off the board. It was played with two people
that had seven pieces each taking up the first 14 squares, set up in an interlaced fashion
(Soubeyrand 1). While games of the current century use two dice to decide random factors of
the game, Senet used four pieces of wood. The wood pieces two sides made distinct by marked
or natural wood color (Soubeyrand 1). All four are tossed at once, and the player is awarded the
same amount of spaces as there is non-marked sides up. If all four marked sides were up, then
the player was awarded 5 moves. Both players would progress till they reached the twentysixth square. From twenty-six to thirty are specially marked squares that require a certain roll of
the sticks to progress (Soubeyrand 1). If the player runs out of available moves and is forced to
move a piece already on one of the special squares with an inadequate roll then the pawn is
punished, and sent back to the fifteenth square (Soubeyrand 1). Some squares have different
rules which allow for some leeway before being sent to the fifteenth square. Possibly the most
interesting fact of Senet is that a rule book was never found, and its rules were reconstructed
thousands of years later by experts and scientists. This has allowed for multiple interpretations
of the rules. The two most prominent are Kendall’s rules and Bell’s rules (Soubeyrand 1). The
only deviation between the rule sets is that Bell’s rules calls for more pawns up to ten, and The
sticks are painted and curved on one side. Both rules see the special squares in a similar
fashion, and relieve confusion in that sense. From Senet the Royal Game of Ur is entered in into
Backgammons blood line.
One example of iteration pertaining to Backgammon seen in the changes made between
Senet and Ur was the addition of a competitive nature. When playing Senet, the player gets the
impression they have less influence on the movement of the other player’s pawns than one has
in Ur. Ur is played on an oddly shaped board, but has a very simple goal, get all of your pieces
off the end of the board before your opponent does. The player tosses rocks with notches on
one side to determine how many spaces to move (Master Games 1). Zero notches up result in
zero spaces progressed, and the turn is handed to the opponent. How ever many notches are
facing up at the end of the toss is the resulting number of spaces a player can move. Each
player has four squares on their side of the board that can not be entered by the opponent. The
fifth square is the beginning of a common channel. In the common area, landing on a square
that is occupied by your opponent will force your opponent’s piece off the board and back to
the beginning. Through out the board there are safe spaces that are signified by a rosette
(Master Games 1). If a player lands on a safe space, they can role again. As long as they stay in
the safe square they can not be sent back to the beginning, and the opponent can not land on
the square. I personally feel a stronger correlation exists between Ur and Backgammon. But if
Backgammon came from anywhere in the sense its known today, that distinction is given to the
Romans, and their version of the game often referred to as Tables.
Table’s real name is "Duodecum Scripta et Tabulae", and is the game credited with
giving Backgammon its board. The symbolic twenty-four spear board was developed during the
high time of the Roman empire. In fact, most of what we know of about Tables comes from
records kept by Emperor Zeno from as early as 480 C.E (Bray 1). Though there would be several
other emperors to play Tables, as history has it, “Emperor Claudius was a Keen player” (Bray 1).
But none more than Emperor Nero, who was famous for his gambling sweet tooth. Some
records document Nero staking the modern equivalent of 10,000 on games of tables (Bray 1). If
history did not preserve the kind of Emperor, Nero was, then Chris Bray put it best, “History
does not record what happened to his opponents if they lost!” (Bray 1).
In terms of game play, Tables is a few rules away from Backgammon as we know it
today. Both player start off the board, and the goal is to get all fifteen checker off the other side
in a counter clockwise fashion (Tabula 1). Instead of two dice like in backgammon, players have
three dice (Tabula 1). The player is allowed to move three checkers to the corresponding
positions that were rolled. If that position is occupied by more than one checker from the
opponent, then your checker can not be moved to that point (Tabula 1). If an opposing player
lands on a point that is occupied by a single checker that checker is removed form the board
and put in the middle (Tabula 1). If you start a turn with a checker in the middle the first thing
that must be done, is return it to the board. The player uses one of their roles, and places the
checker on the corresponding point. What perplexed experts for so long was the gap between
Tables and Backgammon. It seemed a part of the family tree had gone missing. The missing link
was found in the Middle Eastern variant of Backgammon called Nard.
Nard had several variants one belonging closely to the Backgammon family and one that
had familiarity with chess (Narde 1). The one with the most concern here is the variant of Nard
that bridges the gap between tables and Backgammon’s modern interpretation. Nard
establishes the flow that Tables was missing. Instead of having a common starting point like in
Tables, in Nard each player starts diagonal of each other. White in the top right, and red in the
bottom left, both player rotating counter clockwise (Narde 1). This allowed for an
implementation of strategy that Tables could not have. Everyone started at the same spot in
Tables making it more of a race than a battle. The goal remains the same as with its ancestor,
bare all chips off the board at the designated end points (Narde 1). Furthermore, Nard retains
Tables’ board, and the twenty-four points. Which allow for a more fluent lineage in the eyes of
experts. In Nard, blocking strategy to slow down your opponent could be implemented, which
increases the skill gap. A good player now has to interpret the current board, and make
decisions based on how they may believe the future may play out. This element is missing in
Tables, where there is a significant amount more emphasis on luck of the draw. When everyone
has the same starting point neither person starts out in a defensive position. In my experience
games with high skill gaps, and hidden strategic layers that are not easily revealed to the novice
players are games built with longevity. The proof to my observation is in the linage of the
games we are discussing. Few concepts can claim to have a starting point several millennia ago,
let alone a game. Which speaks volume about human nature, and willingness for competition in
all facets of life.
The most information about gaming and the human condition, can be pulled from the
modern interpretations of these great games. Backgammon is the result of thousands of years
of refining. It proves the worth of evolution over revolution. It knows where its come from, and
pays homage every step of the way. It embodies the mind of its creators. Its ancestors tell a
story of the people it entertained. Senet emphasized the after life, making it the one true goal
of all its players. Presenting obstacles along the way as life would. Nothing had more
importance than the afterlife for ancient Egyptians. All their great accomplishments were in the
name of prosperity in another dimension, and Senet allowed its players to peer behind that
vail.
Ur established the want for conquest, and foreshadows the great empires that would
rise and fall long after its inception. It embodies the true nature of competition. Everyone starts
somewhere different in real competition like in Ur. Though, everyone meets in a similar path,
and it a tooth and nail fight, digging in for every inch. Scraping for any advantage over your
opponent, and sending them back to square one when they slip. Sometimes you land in a safe
zone, but complacency is the enemy of competition, and slowing down, or missing your
opportunity in Ur like in other forms of competition can lead to a loss. In the few times I played
Ur what stood out to me was how prevalent the ability to come back and beat your opponent
was. Most of the games that precede Ur are mathematical, and when the numbers end up
against you, a comeback is far and few between.
Tables almost comically represent the Roman Empire. Some sources state that the rules
in Tables were dependent on your social status (Bray 1). How convenient that rules like that
exist, and Emperors were known players of Tables. Additionally, its hard to ignore that Tables is
in the minority when it comes to game flow, having everyone start in the same position off the
board, and only allowing one road to travel down. I guess all road do lead to Rome. Then again
where there is smoke there is fire, of course the greatest empire the ancient world ever knew
had a game like Tables. If you are not first, you are last when it comes to Tables. I believe this
strongly because the sense of strategy is not introduced until Nard. This makes Tables heavily
dependent on the luck of the dice.
There are few things the Middle East has contributed to western culture, but
mathematics is one of them. The influence of strategy and calculated probability is sprinkled all
over Nard. The missing link between Tables and Backgammon was the part of the family tree
that established strategy, and proper competitive game flow back into the game board. Nard
was a significant iteration for Backgammon. Surely, it would not be as it is today without this
integral step. True games strip away all bias, and challenge skill sets one on one. When two
competitors go head to head only their skills should win them the match. The oddly
proportioned rules of tables needed to thrown out the door, and a new name need to be
found. Once bias was out the door Backgammon could obtain its true form. But the name
Backgammon would not be found in text until the middle of the Seventeenth century (Bray 1).
Most experts are not sure of the origin of the name, but there is a general consensus that it
comes form Middle English. Chris Bray breaks the name down into two parts consisting of “The
Middle English baec = back and gamen = game” (Bray 1). Once the name was established it took
its penultimate form.
Backgammon checkers start out properly distributed along the board. So that each
player can start their offensive maneuvers, or maintain the defensive structures they are given
from the outset of the match (247games 1). The board is directly inherited from the great
games in Backgammons illustrious family tree (Backgammon Rules 1). The twenty-four points
have thirty chips set up in mirror fashion across all four sectors of the board. Each player has
fifteen chips, with seven on right side and eight on the left side. The checkers are slit on the top
and bottom half of either side, taking a five and two or five and three distributions (247games
1). The opponents chip amount mirrors the players chip in each respective position on the
other side of the board. Unlike in Tables there are only two dice (Backgammon Rules 1). In
similar fashion to Tables, what ever the player roles with the two dice, are respectively the
position the player is able to move their checkers to. The first turn is decided by a single role
and who ever comes up with the higher number is first up (Backgammon Rules 1). If the player
land on a spot occupied by the opponent, and they only have one chip, the player takes that
point, and the opponents chip is moved to the middle of the board (Backgammon Rules 1). If a
player starts his round, and one of his chips is in the middle of the board they must use they
first move after their role on that chip. If there are no available positions in respect to the roles,
then that player’s turn is over. These intricacies allow for strategy not found in the other games
in the same sense. Smart players can set up traps, and position their chips in a way to take away
moves.
After dedicating some time to Backgammon, the importance of the rules it uses now are
apparent. Anyone of the new rules, and set up of the boards can be located in the lineage of
Backgammon, but not all together. Together they create coherence, and this allows for a novel
experience every time. From my experience if a game can remain as novel to a master as it is a
novice it will withstand the test of time. Though few things in this world will remain unchanged
despite perceived competitive perfection. In the twenties, gambling on sport or games was a
fad that would define a national hobby. From illegal backdoor pubs to conglomerate held
casinos. Backgammon was touched by gambling’s dark hand. Experts do not know who
implemented doubling, but it was added around the second or third decade of the twentieth
century (Bray 1). Starting out as a dial, doubling was something that allowed the players to
increase the stakes if they believe they were winning (Bray 1). Both player would have to agree,
refusing to agree would cause a forfeit, but the player only has to pay the value of one stake. If
the opposing player accepts the double, he receives a cube depicting what the current stakes
are. Additionally, the player that has the doubling cube has the power to raise the stakes if they
see fit (Bray 1). In this case the roles would be reversed, and the opposing player would receive
the cube. This rule of doubling and redoubling worked wonders to increase the intensity and
perceived pace of the game. This new rule also created a multitude of ending that could occur.
In Backgammon Galore they explain the different contingencies based on the stakes.
Depending on if a double has been agreed to or not, if a player has gotten at least one chip off
the board, and loses they have to pay the original stake, or what ever is the current value of the
doubling cube (Backgammon Rules 1). On the contrary, if they lose, and did not get at least one
chip off the board they lose twice the value of the doubling cube, or double the original stakes
(Backgammon Rules 1). This is referred to as being gammoned. The final, and worse
contingency is if a player loses, and was not able to get any chips off the board, additionally
having a chip on the bar in the middle. That player loses three times the current value of the
doubling cube, or three times the original stakes (Backgammon Rules 1). This is referred to as
being backgammoned.
Considering, Backgammon was a highly competitive game without the advent of
doubling, the nature of western culture is revealed in the minute changes that came about in
the earlier twentieth century. People loved to risk money, in hopes of making more money.
With little consideration for true probability, people based their behavior on luck and gut
instinct. When I play Backgammon today it elicits a different feeling in me. I find it quite
calculated. I think through my moves like I would in Chess. Trying to consider the
consequences, and what moves are denied or allotted to my opponent in each case. It becomes
a game of pure strategy, and my ability to out maneuver the situation I am presented with by
my opponent.
Though there is understandable glory in everything that backgammon is. Through out
history it has been different things to different people. Carrying different names, and serving a
magnitude of different people. From supposed Gods of Egypt to Gods amongst men in the
Roman empire. From the common Middle Eastern folk to common Western folk. Though its
name changed, the competitive nature it brought out in people tapped into the human
condition. It is part of us, and I believe in one way or another Backgammon would have always
been. As long as we existed, one of the games from that royal family tree would still persist
among men.