Traditional Board Games

Refining the Royal Game of Ur

Royal Game of Ur at the British Museum
Royal Game of Ur at the British Museum

Saturday, 27th June 2015

Some years ago I published a leaflet on the Royal Game or Ur as part of my Traditional Board Games series. Recently I've been re-examining my own rules in a quest to satisfy both authenticity and good game-play. While I don't intend to revisit the leaflet series itself, I might change my conclusions in future writings about the Royal Game of Ur.

In putting together the rules in the leaflet I drew on a number of sources: mainly books. I looked at some web sites and some computer implementations for inspiration, but the end product drew from the books in the hope that they'd contain the best research. You can read the rules I came up with at

The fact that the Royal Game of Ur is a race game is beyond doubt, and that in one form it used seven pieces and three binary dice (each giving values of 0 or 1) per player. But other things are assumed: borrowed from other games or based on "internal evidence": the path the pieces moved, rules for capture, and the function of the "rosette" squares.

It is generally agreed that the Royal Game of Ur is equivalent to the Game of Twenty Squares, the latter being a "straightened out" version of the former. Twenty Squares has a more obvious path. Each player takes in sixteen of the squares, the first four being safe havens for each player; in addition, the path includes a marked square once every four steps. Translated to the Ur board, an equivalent path would curl around the end block of 2x3 squares in the shape of a question mark. Many books do not follow this, but the solution seems so neat and obvious that I can't help but believe it to be true in light of the lack of contrary evidence.

The rules of capture for most race games are that a piece landed on is removed from the board, and has to begin its journey afresh. This is the rule that I adopted for Ur. An alternatives is the one often adopted for senet: that the captured piece is knocked back to the position its captor started from. I've only ever seen this one applied to senet, not to other similar games.

As for the rosettes, there are a number of different suggestions. The one that I went with was that these are "safe" squares, and that pieces resting there cannot be captured. The alternative is that the squares allow another throw.

This creates a fun game with a bit of tactical thinking. Players take advantage of their own home row, entering pieces there and advancing by choice only when it is safe to do so. Players aim to secure the middle rosette; not only is a piece safe there, but is in a position to leap out onto those that pass. If the dice do not allow landing on the rosette, then pieces sprint across the "bridge" to relative safety on the other side. They can be left there if no enemies are nearby to threaten them, allowing the player to concentrate on other priorities.

I've been happy to play this game, but one nagging thought tells me that it still needs improvement. The rosettes are protective squares, but what use are the ones on each player's home row? The whole row is protected, so the markings are redundant: but they're there on every extant board.

So a month or two ago a friend and I tried playing with the alternative interpretation of the rosettes: they're not protected squares, but instead give another throw. The rule about having another throw on a throw of 4 no longer applied.

I was concerned that this would remove too much tactical thinking from the game, and reduce it to a game of snakes and ladders with multiple pieces per player. In the game from the leaflet, one had to think about when to advance a piece from a rosette. In the revised game one should do so at the earliest opportunity; that would be as soon as landing there if no other piece was in danger. And apart from the home rows, the different parts of the board no longer have their special characteristics. There's just a gradual change as one progresses: there is more to lose further along the board if a piece there is lost, but this was still the case with the game in the leaflet.

Overall I'll still use the new rules, with the rosettes granting another throw, in the future writings on the Royal Game of Ur. Though I think this version of the game loses something, the fact that all five rosettes now have the same function makes it more likely to be authentic.


This fun game with a bit of tactical thinking is so great.Every one take advantage of their own home row and they play it easily and it is safe to do so.I am so happy playing this game and enjoying with my children.Thanks so much.

Virtual pilot - 14:03, 14/02/2016

The app I use to play the game uses that rule. If your gets to a rosette and it's ocupied by the other's player piece, you capture it and also. This makes the game more frenetic.

vilvoh - 13:58, 14/09/2017

I've been thinking about this game for a few days now. What I've noticed is:

1. Rosettes being 'safe' makes no sense for the same reason you state above.

2. The pieces are marked differently on each side from what I can tell from looking at historical boards and pieces.

3. Spacing of the rosettes is even when using the 'question mark' path.

According to some of the cuneiform translations, I'm wondering if one of the following rules would make sense but I don't have enough play-testing.

A piece follows the board to the end, then flips over to the marked side and makes a return journey. Flipping the piece reminds players which direction it is moving. This would congest the board more and maybe only flipped pieces can capture other flipped pieces. Or, maybe captures can only be made by flipped pieces in general.

The second idea is that by landing on or maybe just when passing each rosette (but that doesn't make as much sense considering the home row rosette), a piece can or will flip. Flipped pieces may have stronger abilities such as being the only pieces that can capture another, or maybe move backwards, or even flipped pieces can only be captured by other flipped pieces.

I think that by using the board, the dice (lots) and pieces with differently marked sides, we should be able to come up with the most engaging and thought-provoking game possible. After all, I believe these people were highly intelligent and would not have settled for a simplistic race game.

Rodney Peters - 01:39, 28/11/2018

New Comment

Yes No