Talk:Trictrac

its very successful rules.

What does successful rules mean?

And well done on getting on did you knowWakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Good question. I've posed it at the French Wikipedia article. I imagine it means that its rules worked well and were therefore popular. But I'll see what they say. Bermicourt (talk) 18:46, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

As the main author of the French Wikipedia article, I can answer you what I mean by "ses règles très abouties". You could probably translate by something like "thorough rules" as they are very well documented in the different treatises since the early 16th century and with a great stability. Ph.lalanne (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, that's great. I've amended the text accordingly. Bermicourt (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I can just see that I made a mistake in writing "early 16th century". In fact it was "17th century" since the first treatise on the game was written by Euverte Jollivet in 1634: L'Excellent Jeu du tricque-trac, Guillemot, Paris, 1634. Since that date the rules have remained the same. Ph.lalanne (talk) 06:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

I've changed that too. Thanks. Bermicourt (talk) 08:29, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank-you both for your work. I enjoyed the article. Ph.lalanne suggests a translation of '"throrough rules, but also indicates that the rules were stabilized. So, the phrase seems to mean both comprehensive and finalised/formalised. I looked (because I found it fun!_ at other historic games to see what wording has been used. Hope it helps

• Chess has "culminating, several major changes later, in the emergence of modern chess practically as it is known today." or standardized
• Laws_of_Cricket has formally agreed/modern/"fundamentally, they are largely the same"
• Backgammon "By no later than 1850, the rules of play had changed to those used today"
• [The IDF official site)] HAS "Invention of “modern” Draughts in the 12th century CE, when someone, somewhere (probably in the south of France)" Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 10:10, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Having studied some of the Trictrac treatises myself, my sense is that Philippe is conveying a) that there is a high level of detail, much more than we often get in older sources, and b) that the rules vary little over time, perhaps no more than minor variations. Hence why I used the terms "comprehensive" (more or less the same as "thorough") and "stable" (not fixed, but not changing significantly). Bermicourt (talk) 11:29, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

History, Trictrac vs Laquet

In the section "History", it is specified: "Murray asserts that trictrac which has a certain resemblance to the Spanish laquet"

I don't know where did Murray found a resemblance since the two games don't share anything but the material as any other tables game.

The laquet is much more akin to the jacquet. Or maybe there are other rules of the laquet? Ph.lalanne (talk) 16:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

That does seem weird, especially in view of Murray's comment on the next page: "There is naturally a general likeness between all the major games of tables, the French trictrac and its derivative games excepted." I suspect the key is to be found in his 1951 History, where he notes under the Trictrac entry (6.2.29): "No captures can be made (cf. 6.2.21)." That referenced entry is Laquet. But what to do? In my opinion, Murray's own statement about resemblance seems to strongly overstate his own actual position, so we should probably not use it here. We could note instead the much more specific 1951 reference pertaining to resemblance in absence of capture. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all of the foregoing. The two games are nothing like except in regard to that particular ludeme. Bermicourt (talk) 21:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done Phil wink (talk) 23:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)