Talk:Cross and circle game

Topology vs gameplay

I am surprised that all the emphasis is on the shape of the board (which is topologically irrelevant to game play), and no mention is made of the similarity of game play to backgammon. Games like pachisi are essentially a 4 player version of backgammon (or maybe, backgammon is a two player version of pachisi; but the oldest evidence for pachisi apparently dates back to 500 BC, whereas the earliest known ancestor of backgammon dates back to 3,000 BC.) Both are "race games" controlled by dice or similar randomisers, in which the object is to "bear off" all your pieces before your opponents do so. Both allow blocking and taking, and in both, strategy is applied to the superficially random game play by deciding which of the pieces in play should receive the dice throw(s).

Notably, Tâb is a close relative of backgammon in which the random number generator is extremely similar to that used in pachisi.

Certainly there are some small differences too, but the similarities between pachisi and backgammon are much greater than the similarities between pachisis and Trivial pursuit (where the board is not even topologically the same, there is no taking, no blocking, you can move backwards, and there is only one "man" per player.) -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The cross-cultural similarities of the cross-and-circles games is such a striking fact that they deserve to be recognized as a distinct sub-group within the tables group.

As for Trivial pursuit, I certainly wouldn't miss it if someone removed it from this group. On the other hand, when I noticed someone had added it, I thought it was an interesting observation that the inventor of Trivial probably was partially inspired by some cross-and-circle game.

- Did you mean Tables (board game) rather than Tâb above? Tâb is one of the much rarer running-fight games, where there is no "home" that the pieces are trying to reach.

--Noe (talk) 08:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I did mean Tâb. I realise it has no bearing off, but it is otherwise very similar to mahbusa, the Arabic version of backgammon. Both involve creating stacks of men, and while mahbusa is a bearing-off game, taking the opponent's men is tactically more important. Mahbusa was declared haraam in the eighth century, and lo and behold, the Arabs developed a game with remarkable similarities, enough of a difference to definitely be a different game, and a token religious element ... I certainly think Tâb is a first-cousin to backgammon, very probably a direct and deliberate modification of the Arabic version. I am rampantly speculating, however, when I wonder if this may suggest that mahbusa and / or nard were originally played with gaming sticks instead of dice. If that is the case, then it further strengthens the similarities to pachisi. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting! - Do you actually know more or have additional sources about tâb? I originated the article, but my sources are poor - actually, they mostly mention täb as a parallel to Daldøs.--Noe (talk) 10:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Partly inspired by the above discussion, I have completely rewritten the Race Game entry, which I hope will now provide a better context for discussion of differences, similarities, and relationships between some of these games. I will just mention that I find the hypothesis of Tab being derived from Tables fascinating and plausible, but (because I have not seen it in the literature) completely speculative. I'm not being snotty when I say I'd love to see the reference. If it is true, it would be an interesting case in which Tab is historically directly descended from the Tables family, yet taxonomically in a rather distant category (running-fight).Phil wink (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Recent changes

Phil has added the following to my talk page:

Noe, I've been editing cross and circle game and I see you had a hand in there somewhere. I wonder if you wouldn't mind checking me on my use of "topologically equivalent". I believe I'm using the term correctly (you'll see what I mean), but I'm not a mathematician (or geometer?). I realize that my pictures are not topologically equivalent (if I'm using the term correctly), but I think this is a necessary evil: I wanted to start out with a real Nyout board (not a notional board of a non-existent game), and when "collapsed" this does not give the even ends of a pachisi-like board, so I had to add 1 space to each quarter of the outside track. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Phil, I watch the page and have followed your work - I'm glad "my" article (I started it, as far as I recall) is getting some attention, and I think you've improved it a lot. I agree there's a minor issue with the topology think - and I agree it's probably a necessary evil. Yours,--Noe (talk) 19:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Metaphysics

TOPIC: the deleted, reinstated, then snidely insulted text: "The board may be seen as a mandala symbol showing Heaven and Earth, or the self and the four directions signifying the Universe. The Korean Yut game may have been used for divination." Phil wink (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Noe, thanks. As you see, I'm now getting to the point where I'm contradicting previous assertions. And, like a previous editor, I too am averse to "new age nonsense." However, in this case it is clearly notable. My inclination as I go forward will thus be to narrow these statements to limited, specific instances (no sweeping statements), but also to reference them so people like me don't just dismiss them as crap. I trust you will come to the rescue of any ideas that I bury unjustly. Phil wink (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phil. One thing is that all disputable statements should be sourced, and I admit I don't have all the sources needed if this stuff IS disputed. But I don't understand the phrase "new age nonsense" here (I know you're just quoting a previous entry). Many games have roots going back to times and cultures where magical thinking was more common than rationalism - and when randomizers (dice and such) where associated with fate and divination rather than with probability theory. Graphical representations involving a circle and a square or cross are (like the round Chinese coins with a square hole) often symbols representing a unity and four directions, be it China in the centre of the Earth in the centre of the Universe, the self connected to the cosmos, or whatever. Identifying representations of this type from various cultures (and from drawings by children in crisis) as instances of a general phenomenon, an archetype (following Jung, and yes, that DOES bring us close to new age nonsense!), as "cosmograms", may be a modern idea - but not, I think, necessarily a New Age one. Would you say that this is crap? (Don't worry whether you offend me - you won't!)--Noe (talk) 10:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Noe: sadly, I seldom worry whether I offend. I find I cannot object to your sensible position, and I won't defend the specific term "new age nonsense" because as you note, it was quoted jovially. However, I will try to explain my hair-trigger on "magical thinking."

Consider the statement: "Circular manhole covers, which are found throughout the world, may be seen as a symbol situating Tao (the unchanging) within the element of Earth (their literal and symbolic resting place)." No one should doubt the truth of this statement; indeed they may be seen as such. I was sorely tempted just now to put this into the Wikipedia "manhole cover" article, but I did not because even though it's manifestly true, it's also manifestly silly -- Wikipedians would say "not notable." But why? Manhole covers are notable; Tao, Earth, and their symbolism are notable; and there is a genuine match between the two areas in the circular shape. The match is real but meaningless; it is the match that is not notable. It is not impossible to make my "manhole" assertion notable, but if I do not show my work then yes, it is crap. An article from the London Times of 1847 entitled "Elliptical Manhole Covers Discontinued Over Religious Objections" might be a start.

It would be insane to deny the great significance of magical thinking in history, but (in my view) it is equally insane to use magical thinking in explaning history. The magical thinker says (with Jung) "As below, so above," and looks for connections, often I am afraid oblivious to the huge risk of false positives. The rational thinker might say (with Freud) "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." (No, I'm not a Freudian, I'm just appropriating this delicious quip for symmetry.) In this case, we are talking about quite simple, memorable, and symmetrical shapes, and the fact that they pop up everywhere (even amongst your students' drawings? heh heh) may not be enough to establish a further meaningful connection between them. Sometimes a circle is just a circle.

"X has a mystical connection with Y" is magical thinking, and this thinking itself may be notable. We can report it. But we cannot use this thinking to write articles. This leads in my view to 2 great problems, "past" and "future." In the "past," this kind of assertion when not properly qualified and cited either obscures the notability that actually exists, or obscures the fact that the connection is not notable. In the "future" this kind of slightly fuzzy language (I believe) strongly encourages readers to fill in the blanks on their own. So the cross and circle represents Heaven and Earth. So the cross and circle was derived from a Mandala. So the cross and circle contains remnants of ancient wisdom. No, none of these things were stated. Only that "the board may be seen...". But who can blame readers for seeing these signs in our vague crystal ball? And if we didn't mean something like that, how was our statement notable in the first place? Why indeed did we fail to mention the cross as a virtually universally-recognized symbol of Chrisitanity in this article? Surely these are, in some sense, Christian games, if we feel free to apply "modern ideas" to our historical designs?

I fully admit that I am overly sensitive to this type of transgression, but maintain that it is a transgression. Of course, these 2 poor over-analyzed sentences are not nearly as bad as my suggestions above; but the first is of the same type, and therefore (I think) deserves the same scrutiny. (The second is, as far as I know, not strictly true. The lots were used for divination; I'll look again, but I do not find the game having been so used. But I'll fix and cite this.)

Finally: Sorry I rambled a bit; it's late. I'm slightly rearranging this section to clarify this discussion for any unfortunates who might come across it; I hope you won't see this as revisionist; that's not my intent. On a tangent, you might enjoy (NOT for reference!) Nigel Pennick's Games of the Gods a beautiful (one assumes the best... er... worst?) example of magical thinking on just this topic; and also (for reference) FN David's Games, Gods and Gambling which is mostly about the history of probability (which you'll appreciate better than I), but whose first few chapters deal seriously and well with lots, divination, games, and probability in ancient cultures. Among other things, she has the best discussion of astragals I've ever read. I look forward to working with you in the future. Phil wink (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS to Noe: I confess that I have just now looked carefully at your "Leo Rogers" link, so I see now that you will already be familiar with the books I mentioned above. The pertinent section, "The Earth and the Cosmos" is taken straight from Pennick and is, in my opinion, crap. And here at last I will go so far as to say "new age nonsense." Not because of the subject matter itself, which I personally find fascinating and worthy of study (my geomancy shelf rivals my board game shelf), but because, in the alchemical crucible of Pennick's mind, nuggets of history disolve and are transmuted into a leaden eternal present, where all things equal all things. Far from Cosmos, this seems to me the very definition of intellectual Chaos.Phil wink (talk) 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've done my damage for the day. I don't know if this is better or worse. Noe, I'm relying on you to tell me if my crap is crappier than the previous crap! Phil wink (talk) 06:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludo

From my perspective (I'm Danish), it seems odd that the article doesn't mention Ludo as a typical game in this group - I'd mention it in the first paragraph. But I'm not sure how common Ludo (the game, and the name) is in English-speaking countries.--Noe (talk) 22:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I took both parcheesi and ludo out (temporarily) in a rewrite, and we both agree they need to go back in. They are both necessary; no one in the US knows ludo, and probably no one else knows parcheesi. I just hadn't yet decided where they fit best in the new landscape. First one to put them back in wins! Phil wink (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How many games?

People keep adding names in foreign languages to the various articles, saying the games are similar or the same - sometimes ignoring we have specific articles about these foreign games. I wonder if anyone really has an overview of similarities, differences and variants in the layout of the board and in gameplay. E.g., is Mensh ergere dich... more different from Ludo than the various house rules for Ludo? Would it be better with ONE article listing the games, rules, names and variants?--Nø (talk) 16:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Your post raises a host of interrelated issues; I'll muse more or less from small to large. I have a decent grasp of games history, very little of optimizing Wikipedia, so take this for what it's worth. The inciting incident appears to be [this edit]. I agree the opening paragraph is no place for a litany of international imitations. I'm not confident that they have no place in the article however, because they do provide context. However, as you rightly imply, it is not at all clear what the exact relationship between these versions is; perhaps without this exact knowledge, the "context" provided is illusory. Are there sources for these distinctions? BoardGameGeek, which I often see cited in Wikipedia has a [page] which is worse than useless, citing dozens of "alternate names" with no clue as to their actual relationships. My sources (see refs in Pachisi) are historical, therefore weak on 20th-21st century, which is our current problem. Both Finkel and Parlett cite a series of articles:

• Wayne Saunders: "The West Looks at Pachisi", "The West Takes Pachisi", "The West Plays Pachisi [1]", and "The West Plays Pachisi [2]" in Game Times 24-27 (August 1994 - August 1995). Parlett seems to refer to the same articles as "Counter Space", which may be an alternate name. Libraries probably won't have these, but they can be ordered [here].

I have not seen these articles and can't speak to their exact content, but they may well be the most reliable starting-point for sorting out these games. How should this be presented in Wikipedia? In my opinion, an article presenting full details on variant after variant would be wearisome. I would advocate dividing this large family into 2 main sets: 1) Traditional Asian Pachisi Variants and 2) Western Derivatives of Pachisi (or to be more inclusive, perhaps Proprietary Derivatives of Pachisi since non-Western publishers are perfectly capable of issuing a Pachisi knock-off too). I've made baby-steps toward the first here (still very larval and algebraic, but comments are welcome). A mere category list might be no more informative than the BoardGameGeek page (though it may be a useful addition). Ideally there'd be an article that maps out the historical and taxonomic relations between the variants, without going into full detail, an overview for context. This could list every single variant with a known context, and from there each game that had sufficiently detailed information could be linked to its own article. The category Cross and circle board games is interesting in its own right, but cannot be useful in this context. Here, Pachisi and its traditional and proprietary variants are like Birds, and the C&C category is like Things with beaks: lots of overlap, but if you want to talk about birds, you don't want a category that lets in squid and perhaps even platypuses. Phil wink (talk) 18:58, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've now ordered the Game Times issues referenced above, so at least one Wikipedian will have access to them! Phil wink (talk) 14:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: Well, that was a bust. They're good articles, but not at all germane to Nø's question. If anyone's interested, they deal primarily with the (little) known history and variants of Pachisi and Chaupur, and their relation to the earliest published American versions of Parcheesi. Not, however, with other derivatives (though of course Ludo is mentioned in passing). Phil wink (talk) 03:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Origin from a game from Sumeria

The british museum released a video about a game from Sumeria that in it's simplified form at least is very similar to games like Ludo. At least it felt very similar to me. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZskjLq040I / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHjznvH54Cw) is there any connection between the presented game and Ludo/parchesi? Does anyone have any references for such a claim?

See my response at Talk:Ludo (board game)#Origin from a game from Sumeria. Phil wink (talk) 05:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Liubo

The ancient Chinese game Liubo and its "TLV" design have similarities to the cross-and circle design, and can be dated back to around 500 BCE. Alas, the gameplay or rules of the game are not known, but one can speculate that the pieces were moving along a route similar to that of Pachisi. Without a source, this has no place in the article or category, but am I the only one to be intrigued here - are there no sources linking those, or suggesting a place for Liubo in this family?

PS. Regarding the similarity, it may not be striking at first sight, but at the least, Liubo and Pachisi share the C4 symmetry of the swastika. (Arguably, Pachisi is D4, like a square and many mandalas and cosmograms, but it is C4 if we consider the handedness imposed by the direction of play, more evident in the markings of the board itself in many other cross and circle games, e.g. Ludo.)--Nø (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2022 (UTC)