Jump to content


Photo

Official Game Rules


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
295 replies to this topic

Poll: Official Game Rules (55 member(s) have cast votes)

What should be the official game rules for Stratego.com?

  1. We should follow the ISF Rules. (38 votes [69.09%])

    Percentage of vote: 69.09%

  2. Voted We should make changes and have our own official rules. (17 votes [30.91%])

    Percentage of vote: 30.91%

What should be Stratego.com’s rule with respect to multiple chasing? (See Reply #41 for an explanation of what this is)

  1. Voted It should not be allowed. (This is the ISF interpretation) (30 votes [71.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 71.43%

  2. It should be allowed only in limited circumstance such as when it is necessary in order to defend one’s flag. (9 votes [21.43%])

    Percentage of vote: 21.43%

  3. It should always be allowed. (3 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

Vote

#241 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 31 July 2014 - 09:36 PM

Whether the rule says "empty" or not I don’t think is a big issue.  This is not likely to have much effect on a game.  I doubt that a player would ever move the scout next to a piece that it didn't want to attack it, unless they knew the chasing rules so well so as to know that the opponent would not be able to attack it.  In this sense, not allowing the chasing piece to attack it could be a little quiver in the arrow of the highly rule savvy player.  Yes.  However, this is still not likely to bring much advantage.  If this happened in your example, and the chasing piece was not allowed to take the scout, then it could move to A4 instead.  The piece on B4 would have to evade.  

 

In my little example the threatened piece stopped on A4, not B4; so a move by chaser to A4 would take him out.  The Scout (now safe on B3) could slip down to B1 next and maybe this would give a clear shot on an A1 flag in the next turn.  Of course the chaser might have other pieces involved, but a Scout flying about is a very stressful thing for the chaser, to say the least.  We should protect this possibility with no exception to your chasing rules.  

 

I do believe though that if the rule doesn't say "empty" then it may hurt the chances of Proposal A getting passed.  This would clearly be a change to the current ISF rules, and it was never one that we envisioned in the making of this proposal.  For this reason I would be opposed to taking "empty" out.  

 

The Prof, you say above, "Whether the rule says "empty" or not I don't think this is a big issue."  Can you please then explain again why  taking out "empty" is a change to the ISF's rules, and why you feel the absence of this word threatens the Proposal?

 

The consistency argument works both ways.  One could say that because all chasing moves up to that point have been to an empty square, then to be consistent the move that should cut off the chase should also be to an empty square.  It would seem that attacking a piece is doing something different than what was done before.

 

So why an “exception”  to this chasing rule and not for the Two-squares rule?    In fact, the Two Squares rule does have primacy over other rules.  It is not only an anti-chasing rule, but an anti-evading rule (depending on which player has the advantage), and it even applies to a piece when there are no other pieces around it.  It needs no particular game situation to activate it.  The current ISF rules reinforce this idea of the primacy of the Two Squares rule because of the current exception that is written in 11.2 "chasing moves back to the square from which the chasing piece came from are always allowed if the Two Squares rule is not violated"

 

I would say keep the nuance in favor of the scout.  It's going to be a nuance either way.  Either a savvy player knows he can attack that scout, or the scout player knows he can be protected by the new chasing rule.  But I would like to understand why you think the ISF would feel so strongly about this first. 

 

Gary



i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#242 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 01 August 2014 - 04:52 PM

I have heard the criticism that this is getting too complicated to follow, and so I have tried to simplify things as much as I can in the revised proposal below.  Each rule includes an easy to understand summary in parenthesis about what the rule does.  Also, there are no longer four separate proposals, but just one that is color coded.  Here is the key:

 

Blue:  Changes the definition of threatening to include when a scout is lined up with a piece and stops certain types of chasing in fewer moves than is currently the case.

 

Green:  Expands the definition of threatening in order to prevent chasing from a distance

 

Dark Red:  Disallows chasing as a tactic used to prevent the loss of a trapped piece

 

11.   Repetition of Threatening Moves  (Limits chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

 

11.1  Definitions:

 

A piece traps an opposing piece if it is in position to be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule.

 

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can attack or trap an opposing piece on the next turn if it does not make an evasive move, which is a move away from the threatened piece so that it is no longer next to, or in line with it.

 

A chasing move is a move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid attack by the piece that is threatening it, and which is immediately followed by an evasive move of the threatened piece.

 

A chase is a sequence of consecutive turns in which every move made by a player is a chasing move.

 

 A chase may involve one or more chasing pieces, which are pieces that make at least one chasing move during a chase.  A chase involving two chasing pieces is called a double chase.

 

The player making the chasing moves is said to be chasing, until he makes a move that is not a chasing move, which ends the chase  

 

11.2 (It is not allowed to endlessly chase one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

A chasing player may not move a chasing piece to an empty square it already occupied during the chase so that the chasing piece threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on the immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares Rule (10.1) is not violated.

 

11.3  (It is not allowed to chase for more than four moves in a 2 by 2 block)

A piece confined to a two by two block of squares that has made a chasing move on all four of the game’s previous four turns cannot threaten the same piece  a fifth consecutive time.

 

11.4  (It is not allowed to alternately chase and evade in order to try to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player has moved  a piece between the same two squares on three consecutive turns immediately after he was chasing, then he may not move a chasing piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that the chasing piece threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase.

 

 

@Gary, I left "empty" in 11.2 for now, although we can still continue to debate it if you wish.  I just think it makes sense that an attack should not be blocked as a common chasing move would be.  The attack does keep the chase sequence (now just called a "chase") intact and the chasing would be stopped soon enough.  I understand that the 2-squares rule can block an attack, but as I've mentioned, 2-squares is much more than just a chasing rule.  Maybe this wouldn't be a problem for ISF but currently Section 11 never prevents an attack and so I was hoping to avoid putting in something extra that might be controversial.  Rule 11.4 doesn't have "empty" since in the "counter chasing" situation a scout couldn't be moved to the empty square because the other player is busy trying to stay on top of the evading trapped piece.



#243 HardRain_Lenny

HardRain_Lenny

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 01 August 2014 - 07:28 PM

@ The Prof

 

* In 11.4 a trapped piece is called. Do I miss the defnition?

* In definition a double chase is mentioned. I don't see the use of this definition in the rules

* The rule 11.4 is too complicated for me to follow, while I do understand the sentence between brackets.



#244 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 01 August 2014 - 07:55 PM

I didn't define a "trapped" piece because it is not used in the details of the actual rule in 11.4, only in the summary (the part in parentheses) which is meant only as an explanation of what the purpose of the rule is for.  I included the definition of "double chasing" because Gary has advocated many times to include it, but you are right that it does not appear in a rule and so is not absolutely necessary.  Rule 11.2 no doubt blocks double chasing.

 

So let me try to explain 11.4.  Think about what happens when a player tries to use chasing to prevent the loss of a piece that is trapped by the Two Square rule.  When he realizes it is trapped, he will begin to chase somewhere else on the board.  After a certain number of moves he will be blocked from chasing either by the Two Squares rule or by rule 11.2, depending on the type of chase.  Now what will he do next?  He will evade with the trapped piece.  His opponent will continue threatening each time it evades.  If the player doesn't want to lose the trapped piece he will evade the maximum number of times, which is three moves.  So at this point he has "moved a piece between the same two squares on three consecutive turns immediately after he was chasing".  Thus rule 11.4 applies and it will not allow this player to resume chasing. "he may not move a chasing piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that the chasing piece threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase."  

 

Now, the only potential problem with this rule is that there could conceivably be a situation in which a player chased, then moved a different piece (that may not be trapped) three consecutive times between the same two squares, and then wanted to chase again, and this was for some legitimate purpose and not for the reason the rule was made to prevent.  I cannot think of such as situation, so for me the rule works as intended.  It's true that a player may chase, then move a piece that is legitimately pursuing an opponent's piece three times between two squares, but then the opponent's piece will have to back up or be captured.  The next move by the pursuing piece will never be blocked by rule 11.4 and so the rule won't ever prevent a legitimate capture.  That said, if you really feel that rule needs to make reference to a trapped piece I will change it and include a definition.



#245 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:54 AM

Here is my latest revision.  I think this is getting pretty close to a final draft.  I want to thank Gary so much for his extensive assistance.  If anyone else would also like to comment on any ways to improve this further I would appreciate it.  I’d like to submit a final version, complete with explanations and illustrations to HardRain_Lenny by about a week from now.

 

11.  Repetition of Threatening Moves  (Limits chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

 

11.1  Definitions:

 A piece traps an opposing piece if it is in position to be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule (10.1).  In this case, the opposing piece is said to be trapped.

 

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can attack or trap an opposing piece on the next turn if it does not make an evasive move, which is a move away from the threatened piece so that it is no longer next to, or in line with it.

 

chasing move is a move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid attack by the piece that is threatening it, and which is immediately followed by an evasive move of the threatened piece.

 

chase is a sequence of consecutive turns in which every move made by one player is a chasing move.

 

 A chase may involve one or more chasing pieces, which are pieces that make at least one chasing move during a chase.

 

The player making the chasing moves is said to be chasing, until he makes a move that is not a chasing move, which then ends the chase  

 

11.2 (It is not allowed to endlessly chase one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on the immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.

 

11.3 (It is not allowed to chase for more than four moves in a 2 by 2 block)

A piece confined to a two by two block of squares that has made a chasing move on all four of the game’s previous four turns cannot threaten the same piece a fifth consecutive time.

 

11.4  (It is not allowed to alternately chase and evade in order to try to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player has moved a trapped piece between the same two squares on his previous three consecutive turns immediately after ending a chase, then he may not resume chasing by moving a piece to an square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase.

 

Key to text above:

Blue:  Changes the definition of threatening to include when a scout is lined up with a piece and stops certain types of chasing in fewer moves than is currently the case.

 

Purple and Green:  Expands the definition of threatening in order to prevent chasing from a distance

 

Purple and Dark Red:  Disallows chasing as a tactic used to prevent the loss of a trapped piece



#246 bmende

bmende

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:07 PM

The Prof, I actually like the rule of double chasing, because it seems like a clever way of capturing a piece, and I think it adds more strategy to the game, it just needs to be coupled w/ draw after X moves rule so that patience doesn't become a strategy.

Also, I feel like eliminating it kind of gives a win to one player over another in a case where I feel it should be a stalemate. (I'm referring to a double chase at the end of a game where it used to defend the flag.)

however, as far as double chasing for in an offensive way to capture a piece, its not like the defender is forced to give up his piece, he can actually continue to fight back, it just may end up in a draw (thats where this draw after x moves comes in handy) which may or may not be beneficial for the player.

Now double chasing in this way is speculative, and perhaps it would be ideal to eliminate the possibility of this offensive kind of double chasing, but if we did eliminate this type of double chasing (ill call it offensive double chasing), that would also eliminate the defensive double chasing which happens when a player is defending his flag and this could then give a player a win when I feel it should really be a stale.

There is the option u posted in the poll to allow defensive and not offensive chasing, but to me that is quite the complication not worth it to explain.

There is also the value of going strict ISF, which seems kind of nice in that it would lessen complications, but Im not sure I personally like the isf.

Im not very familiar w isf but it seems that isf restricts a positive part of the game of stratego and that is a draw. If a player followed isf, is a game w a draw even possible if one played it all the way through? I wrote a little on the positive aspects of draws on another thread which I can copy past here if your interested.

Anyhow there's really 2 options I see, going away from isf and creating potentially a lot better game, but at the same time creating complications, or just sticking sticking to isf and have no complications. Both are tempting to me.

Here's another thought about double chasing if ur still reading.

Say you got marshall and scout on the offensive . Say scout spies unknown piece and it turns out to be a colonel. Well, ur opponent has a lieutenant adjacent sideways to his colonel, and ur marshall is in front of his lieutenant.after the scout spooks the colonel, then ur opponent defensively attacks ur marshall w the lieutenant rendering the colonel un capturable . Let's say your generals gone so cornering not an option.

well it's kind of a pity that you really didn't accomplish anything here even tho you have a lower piece cornered like this. I feel that the marshall deserves a little more compensation then a lieutenant for scouting and cornering the colonel.

Well, here's the conclusion: if double chasing was enabled then the player w the marshall could then proceed to bring out one of his own colonels and try to corner a major or captain. after that he could commence a double chase and wind up w/ a draw or a captain.

If he gets the draw and takes it good for him he probably needed it, but otherwise he gets a captain, and then may get another good piece w his colonel by maintaining his marshal and cornering another piece w his colonel.


The thing about stratego is I have to say that (to at least bronze colonel like me) it does feel that once ur opponent gets a few pieces ahead in a game, it is quite difficult to regain the advantage w out playing lotto w ur opponents pieces.

Allowing double chasing seems to add an appropriately significant amount of power to higher pieces, and also increases strategy w a game w (almost) strategy in its name.

The only thing is that draw after X moves would have to be implemented, and also I think the (you are not allowed to continously chase a player that is uncapturable) message that u get after hmmness should be altered to (you are not allowed to chase a single player that is uncapturable, however, double chasing is allowed). This message change seems necessary because at the current moment it seems that double chasing is deemed unsportsmanlike.

I personally would be interested in seeing how double chasing would influence the game.

Congrats if you or whoever read this, made it this far.

Sincere regards,

Bmende

#247 HardRain_Lenny

HardRain_Lenny

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 08 August 2014 - 04:53 PM

@ bmende

 

Double chase allowance will kill the game like it is now.

 

If you are behind in pieces, then normally you have the advantage of information.

You will improve your way of gaming by learning how to get benefit from this information.

 

If you are equal in information and behind in pieces, it's not that bad that you move nothing, but only your strongest piece or a scout.

In that case he has break open your castle, which probably cost him miners. 

 

From that position you may try to get a draw or you may try to break out in an unexpected way.

 

But I still believe that our rules are fine and tested by the best players of the world.

 

Only the anti chase rule might be improved as you know. We'll see how this will end.



#248 bmende

bmende

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 08 August 2014 - 06:25 PM

Did you read from "Here's another thought about double chasing if ur still reading." this part down?

I personally think I have a pretty good argument in favor of double chasing. Also, something I thought about which is interesting. Offensive double chasing (if the draw X rule is in play) can only be used by a losing player, it would be pointless to use by a winning player because the losing player would be fine with drawing rather than giving up his piece. I think this fact makes double chasing even more attractive.

And also, if double chasing would only be used by a losing player, I would think in most cases it would be kind of difficult for a double chase since the other player would probably be able counter your double chase attempt if he's winning. So I don't think allowing double chasing would really effect the game a whole lot.


But I respect your rank, and I am interested in what you have to think.

#249 HardRain_Lenny

HardRain_Lenny

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:09 PM

@ bmende

 

Yes I tried to follow you there as well. Of course the defender will sacrifice his Luit to save his Colonel. At that point the Marsh can't trap the Colo because of the 2 Square Rule. The defender consciously prepared his setup that he could do that.

Risky would be if a bomb was near the Colo instead of a Luit. Then the Marsh could hit the Colo, because the defender isn't able to sacrifice this bomb.

What we see here is that the defender is rewarded by a good flexible setup. 

 

As said before.....a Marshall shall not be overscreemed being just a slow Goliath.

A great player explained me once......."A Marshall will lose his real power when he is exposed.......". wow....almost true right?

 

 

What I don't understand is your additional paragraph about the double chase possibility ic when you bring up your own Colo to chase a Major or Capt. I should say.......let the Marsh leave the Colo and close in that known Major with Marshall / Colo.

I don't see your tactic or possible change of the rule regarding that issue.

 

We wrote a lot of comments of classical double chases like two miners against a Marshall and a General. Both Miners in cross position to the big guns and the big gun has got the turn to move..... As a result of this he will lose normally......

 

Two big guns !!!! who are going to lose against just two small miners.......

 

This is the beaty of our game bmende..........Big guns will lose power in the end game and little David can beat Goliath. 

The tactic of Goliath should be that he has to save enough regular soldiers and that he must be very careful in moving during the end game.

 

From my point of view, chasing is terrible and will prolongate the game deliberately. Therefore we have a rule in place, which works.

Nevertheless The Prof is busy to improve the rule. A proposal is almost finished (see before).

 

I'm sure that ISF and the whole live tournament community will not accept and are not interested in a distinction between offensive and defensive double chase.

Irrespective of how we could review the background of such a chase as an arbiter and how we could program this into software, the idea is too complicated  and I assess the contribution of chasing being negative.for the game. 

 

But of course every player may have his own thoughts about it.


  • The Prof, sirgeicoad and bmende like this

#250 bmende

bmende

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 10 August 2014 - 11:25 PM

@HRL

W that post, and after some more thought, you have me convinced. I think its best that isf rules are implemented (and double chasing be disallowed) for consistency reasons, and because any other rules (like allowing a double chase) isn't likely to make the game that much, if any, better

Cheers

#251 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 11 August 2014 - 04:51 AM

@HRL
W that post, and after some more thought, you have me convinced. I think its best that isf rules are implemented (and double chasing be disallowed) for consistency reasons, and because any other rules (like allowing a double chase) isn't likely to make the game that much, if any, better
Cheers

(
Bmende, what do you think of the counter chasing aspect of the proposed legislation?

Is it clear to you in its objective? In its wording?

Gary

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931


#252 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 11 August 2014 - 05:15 AM

Here's the proposal again, with some minor modifications.  Just so everyone is clear what counter chasing is, it occurs when a player alternates between chasing an opponent's piece on one part of the board and evading an opponent's piece that has him trapped by the Two Squares rule on another part of the board.  The intent of the player is to save his trapped piece by forcing his opponent to have to keep evading, even though the opponent's piece is not trapped and cannot be captured.  This sequence of moves can repeat without end.  Currently this is legal.  Rule 11.4 below would resolve this impasse in favor of the player who had his opponent's piece trapped.  If anyone disagrees with this modification, I hope you would still support 11.1 to 11.3 in the proposal below. 

 

Key to text:

Blue:  Changes the definition of threatening to include when a scout is lined up with a piece and stops certain types of chasing in fewer moves than is currently the case.

 

Purple and Green:  Expands the definition of threatening in order to prevent chasing from a distance

 

Purple and Dark Red:  Disallows chasing as a tactic used to prevent the loss of a trapped piece

 

 

11.   Repetition of Threatening Moves  (Limits chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

 

11.1  Definitions:

 A piece traps an opposing piece if it is in position to be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule (10.1).  In this case, the opposing piece is said to be trapped.

 

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can attack or trap an opposing piece on the next turn if it does not make an evasive move, which is a move away from the threatened piece so that it is no longer next to, or in line with it.

 

chasing move is a move that threatens a piece that can indefinitely avoid attack by the piece that is threatening it, and which is immediately followed by an evasive move of the threatened piece.

 

chase is a sequence of consecutive turns in which every move made by a player is a chasing move.

 

 A chase may involve one or more chasing pieces, which are pieces that make at least one chasing move during a chase.

 

The player making the chasing moves is said to be chasing, until he makes a move that is not a chasing move, which then ends the chase  

 

11.2 (It is not allowed to endlessly chase one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on the immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.

 

11.3 (It is not allowed to chase for more than four moves in a 2 by 2 block)

A piece confined to a two by two block of squares that has made a chasing move on all four of the game’s previous four turns cannot threaten the same piece a fifth consecutive time.

 

11.4  (It is not allowed to alternately chase and evade in order to try to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player who is chasing ends the chase by moving a trapped piece which is immediately threatened by his opponent, then he may not resume chasing by moving a piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase, unless he first makes a non-chasing move with a piece other than the trapped piece. 



#253 HardRain_Lenny

HardRain_Lenny

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 157 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Marshal

Posted 11 August 2014 - 01:38 PM

@ The Prof

 

Article 11.2. is not fully clear to me.

 

The chasing piece is not allowed to move to a square it already occupied.

How does this match with rule 10 reg. three moves on two squares?



#254 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 11 August 2014 - 04:24 PM

@ The Prof

 

Article 11.2. is not fully clear to me.

 

The chasing piece is not allowed to move to a square it already occupied.

How does this match with rule 10 reg. three moves on two squares?

 

11.2 then says "unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on the immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated"  Thus, chasing moves back to the square the piece came from on the immediate preceding turn are always allowed provided that it would not make more than three consecutive moves on the same two squares.  This "unless" part of the rule has the same function as the "Exception" stated in the current rule 11.2.  The new 11.2 combines the old 11.1 and 11.2 into one rule.


  • HardRain_Lenny likes this

#255 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,903 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 11 August 2014 - 05:44 PM

... I'm wondering if it would not be more simple to just say:

 

"In case 2 or more chasing situations forbidden by the 2 square rules would occur simultaneously on the board it is not allowed, on consecutive turns, to switch chasing from one situation to the other and repeat such sequence of chasing moves."

 

...with this sentence a sequence of chasing moves will stop automatically on the move that would be the last of a first repetition of a sequence of chasing moves. ... and the outcome of the game would correspond to the outcome that would happen if the 2 or more parallel chasing situations would be treated separately as per the 2 square rule

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#256 bmende

bmende

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 221 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Sergeant

Posted 11 August 2014 - 05:58 PM

 

 

11.4  (It is not allowed to alternately chase and evade in order to try to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player who is chasing ends the chase by moving a trapped piece which is immediately threatened by his opponent, then he may not resume chasing by moving a piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase, unless he first makes a non-chasing move with a piece other than the trapped piece. 

@ Gary 

 

Rule 11.4 is a kind of endless double chasing (well, more like endless chasing and evading), so I think if double chasing is disallowed, then this chasing and evading should also be disallowed and 11.4 be implemented, because I think its kind of a loophole in the system.



#257 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 11 August 2014 - 09:15 PM

... I'm wondering if it would not be more simple to just say:

 

"In case 2 or more chasing situations forbidden by the 2 square rules would occur simultaneously on the board it is not allowed, on consecutive turns, to switch chasing from one situation to the other and repeat such sequence of chasing moves."

 

...with this sentence a sequence of chasing moves will stop automatically on the move that would be the last of a first repetition of a sequence of chasing moves. ... and the outcome of the game would correspond to the outcome that would happen if the 2 or more parallel chasing situations would be treated separately as per the 2 square rule

 

The above language is not precise enough.  How can two or more chasing situations "occur simultaneously"?  Doesn't one allows occur before the other?  Also, what do you mean by a chasing sequence that is forbidden?  If you mean forbidden by the Two-square rule then a player who makes three consecutive moves between the same two square is NOT doing something that is forbidden, so how does the rule get triggered.  Also, keep in mind, a player could double chase by making only one or two moves with a chasing piece before alternating to the other.

 

Perhaps the biggest issue though is that there are more types of chasing than just the 2 square type.  For example, another common chase occurs when a piece is threatened straight on but has three or more squares on which to evade.  The rule must be broad enough to deal with this type of chasing as well.  Below is an example of a double chase that involves a two square chase on the left and a line of three chase on the right.

 

http://pbrd.co/1r5Lw1Z

 

I've listed out 14 moves because the current ISF rules do not block this chase until the 15th move, because that's the first time that the chasing player plays a "chasing move that leads to a position on the board that has already taken place" that is not a "move to a square that the piece came from on the direct preceding turn".  However, my Proposal will block this chase after only 8 moves, because that when a chasing piece will be "moved to a square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase" and this is not "a square that the chasing piece came from on the immediate preceding turn." 



#258 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,903 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Colonel

Posted 11 August 2014 - 10:31 PM

...maybe my english shall be reformulated better but if we could somewhat summarize in 1 only  sentence this whole story it would be much easier.

Basically the concept shall be that any sequence of chasing moves shall not allow more moves than what would be allowed if each parallel chasing situations occuring simultaneously would be treated as single cases. Knowing that the maximum number of chasing moves allowed is equal to 2*n-1 where n is the number of squares available for the chased piece to move, in the case on the left in your example the chased captain has 2 squares available and the maximum number of allowed chasing moves is 2*2-1=3. In your example on the right the colonel has 3 squares available for moving so the number of allowed chasing moves is 2*3-1=5. SO in total in your example the sequence shall end after 3+5=8 moves.

 

Napoleon 1er


If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...

#259 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,519 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 11 August 2014 - 11:14 PM

...maybe my english shall be reformulated better but if we could somewhat summarize in 1 only  sentence this whole story it would be much easier.

Basically the concept shall be that any sequence of chasing moves shall not allow more moves than what would be allowed if each parallel chasing situations occuring simultaneously would be treated as single cases. Knowing that the maximum number of chasing moves allowed is equal to 2*n-1 where n is the number of squares available for the chased piece to move, in the case on the left in your example the chased captain has 2 squares available and the maximum number of allowed chasing moves is 2*2-1=3. In your example on the right the colonel has 3 squares available for moving so the number of allowed chasing moves is 2*3-1=5. SO in total in your example the sequence shall end after 3+5=8 moves.

 

I like very much this concept of not allowing a multiple chase to last longer than the sum of the moves of the individual chases that comprise it.  I believe that the criteria in rule 11.2 does exactly this.  If a player chases in one place, and then chases in another, the return to the first chase must involve a move of a “chasing piece to a square it already occupied during the chase so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase”.  Since the move before this was with the other chasing piece, this would not be a move to a “square the chasing piece came from on the immediately preceding turn”.  Thus, my proposal would stop the chase at exactly the point where the player attempts to resume chasing a second time with one piece after chasing with another.

 

Now, why can’t it be simpler?  Why do I have to say the player may not move a chasing piece 1) “to a square it already occupied during the chase” and 2) “so that it threatens a piece that evaded it during the chase.”?  Well, if it only said 2) “so that it threatens a piece that evaded it”, then this could block a different move than was used earlier by the chaser.  But the chaser should be allowed to threaten a piece from a different position than before.  Perhaps the chaser has some other plan in mind than just to repeat the same pointless moves.  We never want the rule to block a possibly purposeful move.  If the chaser is using a different square just to keep the chase going longer, he can get away with it for a short time.  But soon he will use up his available squares on which to chase and will be blocked.

 

So, what if the rule only said 1) “to a square it already occupied during the chase” and not 2)?  The problem with this “simpler” version of the rule is that it could block a move that doesn’t even threaten anything.  For example, say a player moves left to threaten a piece, and this piece evades up (this makes the first chasing move of a chase).  Now the player makes one or more chasing moves with another piece.  Next, he move the first chasing piece to the right.  This is a square it occupied earlier during the chase (i.e. it was the square it started on).  However, it is not threatening the original piece that evaded, and therefore it should be a legal move.  But if we didn’t include 2) in the rule then the move would be blocked. 

 

So, including both 1) and 2) in the formulation of 11.2 will be sure to protect what should remain legal moves from being blocked, and will give us a chasing rule that does not allow a chase to be extended any more than necessary once the chasers intentions have been made clear by his actions.



#260 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,737 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Sergeant

Posted 20 September 2014 - 02:16 PM

[I have copied the following post over to this discussion from the Double Chasing and Counter Chasing thread. gls]

Programming double chasing by 1 player of his 2 pieces on the opps other 2 pieces IS PROGRAMMABLE. Talk to Spion at the gravon, the best stratego site money can buy (its free) and I would pay for it if I had to, thats how good it is.


Thanks for the tip. I know The Prof is very interested in making any rule that he and I are proposing to ultimately be programmable into this website. Right now, however, the main thrust for our new rule proposal will be to change the language of Section 11 in the current ISF rules. Later, this new approach to the official ISF rules can hopefully find its way to stratego.com.

The new rule will cover, in addition to the counter chasing ban, threatening by scouts at a distance and chasing at a distance. Plus, it will define trapping and include it under the "threatening" umbrella.

Hopefully, our final version of the new proposition will be published in the forum in the "Official Rules" thread soon.

Gary

i77rs4m.jpg

The complete GS&F Rules can be found here: http://forum.strateg...rum-rules-2016/

Draw Refusal Rules, specifically, can be read here: http://forum.strateg...931#entry468931





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users