Amit’s e-world

Given the recent financial crisis & the many lives lost in the stock market, I introspected to find out how deep-rooted the culture of luck is instilled in us. A shining example is a very popular board game "Snakes and Ladders". I read through wikipedia to understand whether the rules I once played the game with, are universal. My preliminary analysis tells me that this is the case. You roll a dice & move as many steps. There are only three (possibly 4) exceptions to this rule. That is when you land on a head of a snake, bottom of a ladder, your dice rolls to 6 (meaning you roll again), or you are on the final few blocks, & you have the get the right number (& no more) to take you to 100.

Wikipedia also adds that the simplicity and the see-sawing nature of the contest make the game popular with younger children, but the lack of any skill component in the game makes it less appealing for older players. Understandable… ain’t it. Further, it cites that the origin of this game was in India & that the moral of the game when invented was that a person can attain salvation (Moksha) through performing good deeds whereas by doing evil one takes rebirth in lower forms of life (Patamu).

I can’t see why this game had to remain as a game of luck & rather not become a game of decision. A simple addition to to the rule can change the audience of the game & make it more a victory of skill than luck. The addition to the rule set is as follows:

If a player rolls a dice & lands up on a number other than 6, or other than a number that lands on the head of a snake, the player has the option of skipping his turn without moving the token on the board.

Such a variation adds a number of playing strategies & risk-reward decisions into play. A few scenarions are presented as follows.

1. What if your competitor is far ahead from you? Do you then take this gamble in the hope of rolling a number that takes you to the bottom of a ladder?

2. What if the ladder you are eyeing takes you only 18 steps ahead? Would you rather keep playing until you reach 18 trotting on the board?

3. What if there is the potential of getting eaten by a snake (taking you down 12 steps), vs. the opportunity to go up 50 steps (through a ladder)?

There are many more scenarios, but I hope I have cited enough to suggest a case for change. The next time you play this game, try using this variation. If you do, drop in a line on my blog, just to assure me that I am being heard.