upvote

points

by asibahi1 days ago |
comments
upvoteby zniturah1 days ago|
next
[-]
Good observation. Considering stacking of pieces maybe 1.5D though.
reply
upvoteby a3w1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
Chess has different pieces, which has higher entropy than a true 1d backgammon or 1d checkers with only one piece a field.

You could play with pieces that have a value of 1..N instead. Starting with 2,3, and 5 value pieces, and splitting them as needed. Making it one-dimensional again, while keeping 100% of the rules.

Final verdict, therefore: backgammon is 1D, not 1.5.

We could pretend that the second dimension was not playing a role in tactics back then, since it was very recently invented, like the brothers Wright invented the third dimension a hundred years ago. Or some hot air balloon at a world faire did it.

reply
upvoteby traderj0e1 days ago|
parent|
[-]
The "dimensions" in these board games isn't a mathematical/topology thing, is it? Normally one dimension = one real number space. Every board game ever would fit in 1D then, "2D" chess included.

I'm fine calling Backgammon 1.5-D. Physically you focus on a single dimension, and the second one matters too but it's not the same.

reply
upvoteby highphive23 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That's a good point, you could surely model full chess in a single dimension, it would just be that each pieces' movement rules would be more confusing

E.g. a pawn can move exactly 8 squares towards its opponents end (16 on its first move if no piece occupies 8 squares away), but can only capture 7 or 9 squares forward (with some extra modulo math to prevent wrapping)

reply
upvoteby traderj0e22 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Yeah and it'd be even worse if you want to flatten out the piece colors and types into the 1D array.
reply
upvoteby moffkalast1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Backgammon, the game everyone's seen and at the same time nobody knows how to play :P
reply
upvoteby dhosek1 days ago|
parent|
next
[-]
My brother and I once took a train trip from L.A. to Omaha and back for a friend’s wedding and played backgammon for most of the trip. For weeks afterwards, I saw backgammon everywhere (most notably when reading dialogue-heavy books with lots of 1-line paragraphs).
reply
upvoteby traderj0e1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Solitaire and Hearts too. Well I actually know and love Hearts, but most people seem to know it as "that game in Windows where you play random cards"
reply
upvoteby vscode-rest8 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You’d be surprised – take a Backgammon board to a table in at a cafe in a popular area and chances are someone will sit down to play with you. Can be a good way of meeting people in a new area. (or new people in an old area!)
reply
upvoteby Sharlin1 days ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
I learned to play backgammon because it was one of the three games on my Nokia phone circa 2001 :P
reply
upvoteby etskinner1 days ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Mancala is roughly 1D too!
reply
upvoteby anthk9 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Ludo/Parcheese could have been more played among Southern Europe/Latin American people.
reply
upvoteby pessimizer23 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
There are tons of 1D games. Somebody else mentioned Mancala, and I'd also mention the venerable Game of Goose, which can become anything from Candyland to sophisticated things like Kramer and Kiesling's That's Life or Parlett's Hare & Tortoise. Hell, Monopoly is also 1D if we're willing to allow circuits like Mancala.
reply
upvoteby anthk10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Goose/ Snakes and Ladders can be played with no human players at all. There is no interaction, just randomness.
reply