Which is the most difficult game, snooker...   or chess?

I remember having this debate with a friend many years ago, he was a very good chess player who played just below county standard. We argued back and forth, both giving good reasons why "our" game was the most difficult, and we had almost reached a stalemate before I realised just why snooker was the most difficult.

I suggested a game of chess played by two county champions, each having their hands tied behind their backs, and each having a child allocated to move their chess pieces into positions that the chess players chose. Now that game of chess would progress in exactly the same way as if the chess players themselves had moved the pieces.

You see in chess there is no skill in actually moving the pieces, the only skill is in deciding where to move a particular piece. But a game of snooker played in the same way would be a disaster.

Checkmate!

I just potted the last red and the white went in-off. My opponent places the white in the D in several places and claims a free ball as the yellow is down the table near the blue which is on it's spot.
I claim it's an optical illusion to look in the whites path to the yellow because the white is close to your eye, then the blue is 3 feet away and looks smaller, the yellow is 1 foot away again and looks smaller still.
So I place a red either side of the blue which reveals clear paths for the white to hit the yellow. Who is right? How is a free ball decided when long distances are involved?

It's generally considered more accurate to place another ball next to the object-ball, not the intervening ball, as shown in the diagrams below.

At the table you would obviously bend down to look from red to white, as shown on the right. Providing the blue does not come between the edges of the cue-ball or the red, then in my example, a free-ball would not be awarded. You may also find the replies to Rami S. Darwish and Oliver Golding of interest.

I wonder if you could shed some light on this, whilst browsing e-bay I noticed a set of billiards balls that contained 4 reds, 4 whites and 1 black. I've tried google, etc, and the lads in my snooker team but to no avail and I wondered what game they were used for?

They were used for bagatelle - a form of billiards played on a special table, square at one end and rounded at the other.

The rules of various forms of the game can be found at Masters Traditional Games, and these rules confirm that, in at least a few variations, four whites, four reds, and a black were used.

These bagatelle tables appear from time to time on ebay, and it may be this game that bar billiards evolved from.

Are there any rules on legal breaks. Do any balls have to hit a rail for a legal break? Also can you tell me where I can get a template for the curve in the pocket openings.

There are no restrictions on the opening break, providing a foul is not made then the stroke is perfectly legal.

So providing the cue-ball is played from within the "D", and you hit a red ball before any other ball, you do not go in-off, do not make any ball leave the table, pot a coloured ball, or make any other foul, - then anything goes.

So you could play off two cushions to roll very gently into the pack (a bit pointless but perfectly legal), or you could smash the pack with as much force as you can (also rather pointless - but you might pot a red).

There is another form of the game though, known as American Snooker, where the rules have been structured to resemble many of the American games of pool. In this version it would be a foul if no reds hit a cushion or fell into a pocket, and the cue-ball needs to hit at least one cushion after striking the pack. Another curiosity of American Snooker is that any foul carries a penalty of seven points. (The rules of American Snooker can be found on the website of Brunswick Billiards.)

There are no templates for the pocket openings that are readily available. The few that exist are three dimensional objects owned by the manufacturers and the governing body.

You could try asking a manufacturer if they could trace the curve from the template and send you that via email, whether they would respond I cannot say, but it will do no harm to ask.

What is the height to the top of the cushion from the slate bed playing surface on a full size snooker table? I think it's about 37mm or 1 7/16 inch.

The article does not state if this measurement is taken from the slate bed before the cloth is laid - as you asked, or taken after the cloth has been laid down. I should imagine it's the latter.

I have a question that came up the other day while chatting with snooker mates (purely theoretical - it didn't all actually happen):

It's about commiting a fault by touching a ball with something else than the cue (usually the hand or arm, or the player's clothes). Would it be considered as a fault to touch a ball extremely slightly, for instance with one's hair or with a little wire coming out of the player's shirt? (so not with the actual skin or cloth itself).

Also - and that one already happened to one of my mates (well, he said): what if the ball is touched by some fluid (not to mention: blood - or anything else coming out of the player's nose, sometimes at great pace)?

I know this sounds funny but quite interesting I guess...

This is not clearly defined within the rules so common sense has to be applied. Probably the best method of determining whether a foul should be called or not, is to base this decision on how much control the player could reasonably be expected to have over such an incident.

An example of this is how the rules were changed a few years ago so that if the rest head fell off and hit a ball while the player was placing it in position, then a foul would not be called. The reasoning being that the player would have no control over the quality of the equipment at the table.

So if a player's long hair touched a ball it would be a foul shot, as it would be if a piece of wire from a player's shirt, or a loose thread holding a button on to the cuff of their shirt sleeve touched a ball. These would all be considered to be part of their dress, and they would be considered to be responsible for this.

But if a player had a sudden nose bleed while stretching over the table then I believe a foul should not be called, as this would be something they had no control over.

More seriously, as to anything else falling out of a player's nose; well, I can assure you that like the Queen, snooker players never have bogeys. They never have and they never will. So apart from the odd player keeping his chalk up his nostril (and we've all met one of those), there just wouldn't be anything else to fall out!

During our club's recent doubles tournament a disagreement arose over the interpretation of what constitutes conferring under Section 3 Rule 17 (e).

The partner from one team encouraged his own partner (who was at the table) by referring to the quality of his partner's shot making, e.g. "good shot" or "well done", etc. The referee construed this as conferring and imposed a penalty under Section 3 Rule 12 (x), "conferring with a partner contrary to Section 3 Rule 17 (e)". The offending partners felt a penalty was unfair as the one partner was only complimenting the other partner. The other team felt the referee was perfectly correct as conferring could take the form of advice, compliments (which could be advice disguised as compliments) etc., and the best way to resolve the matter would be for a partner to remain silent while his partner is at the table.

Would you please give me your comments on this matter and in particular what does the word "confer" imply within Section 3 Rule 17(e)?

The word "confer" is not defined in the rules, but the dictionary gives the definition as - "to discuss together." Both players don't have to speak for this to happen so, in snooker, especially when one player is at the table, it is best thought of as offering advice.

Now if a player encourages his partner by saying "Good Shot" surely he would say that when the ball went into the pocket, not a few moments later when the striker was deciding which shot to play next.

To call out any comment as your partner looked at a particular shot (to try and encourage him to play that shot), would be blatantly obvious to everyone present, and you would deserve to be penalised.

Providing any comments are spoken before or as the balls stop rolling, I really cannot see how anyone could object. Remaining silent does solve the problem though, and may even help the striker's concentration.

But advice can be disguised in many ways, simple mannerisms for example.

So if you took this to the extreme you could argue that the non-striker of each side should leave the room while his partner was at the table. That would clearly be nonsense, and thankfully, the rules do not yet demand that the non-striker sits or stands perfectly still.

The related query by Graham Cresswell might also be of interest.

Suppose I have 70 points and my opponent has 20. I have just potted a red but have snookered myself on all colours with 51 points (3 reds + blacks, etc.) possible remaining. That means my opponent could win with 71 or more should I lose control of the cue ball.

Knowing that illegally potted reds are not returned to the table, what would keep me from fouling, illegally potting a red, giving my opponent 4 points whilst leaving only 43 points (2 reds + blacks, etc.) possible? Now my opponent's maximum would be 67 and would need a snooker to win.   Is this possible?