hist-games: Kayles, Bowls, etc.

Ed Hopkins Ed.Hopkins at MCI.Com
Tue Oct 21 22:26:00 PDT 1997


David Kuijt / Dafydd ap Gwystl wrote:
> This discussion also points out a problem area -- I recall at least one
> example (Strutt?  I'll try to check) where two players were rolling bowls
> (balls) at a single pin.  Now with multiple pins we can be reasonably
> certain that the objective was to knock them over.  With multiple balls
> aiming at a single smaller ball it is fairly clear that the objective is
> proximity.  But when two players have one ball each and are rolling at a
> single pin it is harder to say -- the objective could equally well have
> been proximity, rather than knockdown.  Or it might even have been both: a
> reasonable game could be constructed where the winner is the one closest
> to the pin, and knocking down the pin constitutes an instant win. 

I think it would make for a more interesting game if the winner had to
bowl closest to the pin _without_ knocking it over.

BTW, I took a look a my "Children's Games" poster.  On one side of
one of the houses, some children seem to be throwing _overhand_ at
some pins or blocks or somethings lined up against the house.  On
the other side of the same house the children are bowling underhand,
but the viewer can't see their target.

-- Alfredus Scurra / Ed Hopkins

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this list, send email to majordomo at pbm.com containing
the words "unsubscribe hist-games". To contact a human about problems, send
mail to owner-hist-games at pbm.com



More information about the hist-games mailing list