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

#281 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,063 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 03 October 2014 - 01:14 AM

Whatever, I'm fed up with reacting on it.
It's pathetic bs and there is absolutely no common sense that two miners can win against two sergs with both sealed flag.
You can talk what you want, it's just a tie and that's that.
I'll chase till I die :)


trickz, your two sergeants can and will win, if, and only if, they have the "Odd Number Positioning Advantage" on the two miners, AND they can corner both of the miners against an edge. So, the two miners will not always beat the two sergeants, even under ISF rules. They will only do so if they have the odd number positioning advantage on the two sergeants. Without it, they may tie, yes, but they cannot win. In simple terms if both pieces end up in diagonal position to one another, the one whose turn it is will be at the disadvantage since this is an EVEN number of spaces apart. The person whose turn it is wants an ODD number of moves between himself and his opponent. Or, with two pieces left per player as in your example, the person whose turn it is wants the distance between each of his pieces and their individual object pieces to be an ODD number of moves. The "Odd Number Positioning Advantage" is what I am calling this natural rule of the game. It is being an ODD number of spaces away from your opponent when it is your turn to move. If you have this positioning advantage (your opponent's square is an EVEN number of spaces away from you and it is his turn to move), you can definitely win, but you WILL DO NO WORSE than DRAW against the miners with your two sergeants, trickz. This worst case of the DRAW will only happen if your opponent can run one of his miners around a bomb our lake and therefore draw the game. But if you can corner off both of the two miners along an edge, you will WIN with the two sergeants.


I don't know if this strategic advantage can, in all practicality be played for, because it is so changeable by the many movements of any scout by either player throughout the course of the game. But if you see you have it at the end, you're in like Flynn. At least you won't lose, so this is something.

Perhaps someone would know of an exception to this, but I think I'm right here.

Gary

Edited by GaryLShelton, 08 October 2014 - 05:01 AM.

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...604#entry339604

#282 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 October 2014 - 06:15 PM

astros

Advanced Member

  • Origscout.png?_r=1404286144
  • Members
  • bullet_black.pngbullet_black.pngbullet_black.png
  • 53 posts
  • Decal002.png
  • rank14.png

Sent 58 minutes ago

I know chasing is annoying but I did not want to allow you to try something so I used chasing to force a draw. It is stupid that I can do but the sure rules allow me to and I am going to use them to my advantage.

Good game.

If we can hit the bullseye the rest of the dominoes will fall like a house of cards. Checkmate!

Reply
  •  


#283 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 15 October 2014 - 06:48 PM

Blame the rules not the player.
3 - 0

#284 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 October 2014 - 07:29 PM

use chase for advantage is stupid 

i dont blame you,i know the rules



#285 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,063 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:13 PM

Blame the rules not the player.

 

 

Astros, I agree that we should blame the rules and not the player if it is someone who doesn't know any better and happens onto a rules loophole and presses an advantage.  The rules are the rules, yes.  But when both players know that double chasing is bad, and both agree that it is so, and one of the players still double chases merely because the rules allow it on this website...this is not sportsmanlike.   If the two players don't agree on the issue of chasing--and there could be an honest difference of opinion--then okay.  Is that the case here?

 

One thing good about this is that it does illustrate why double chasing is so bad.  It is easy enough to accomplish against the best of players and use to delay the game needlessly or even force a draw.  

 

Gary


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...604#entry339604

#286 Hielco

Hielco

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 601 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:16 PM

no he was just chasing 2 pieces



#287 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:34 PM

he was chasing two pieces

earlier i played plopplop who was stalling exactly 15s / move

a few days ago i played a 3 hours game against a chaser.....

 

 

:wacko:



#288 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 15 October 2014 - 08:59 PM

Astros, I agree that we should blame the rules and not the player if it is someone who doesn't know any better and happens onto a rules loophole and presses an advantage. The rules are the rules, yes. But when both players know that double chasing is bad, and both agree that it is so, and one of the players still double chases merely because the rules allow it on this website...this is not sportsmanlike. If the two players don't agree on the issue of chasing--and there could be an honest difference of opinion--then okay. Is that the case here?

One thing good about this is that it does illustrate why double chasing is so bad. It is easy enough to accomplish against the best of players and use to delay the game needlessly or even force a draw.

Gary

The rule is dumb but using it to my advantage is not unsportsmanlike. Just because Satan and many others dislike the rule does not require me to give up my position to appease them, especially when doing so may have resulted in a loss. I did not chase to delay the game merely to force the outcome I wanted. I chased both of Satan's pieces for two cycles then requested that he give one up or take a draw. This lasted about two minutes, he took a draw and we both moved on to our next game. I do not consider my behavior to be unsportsmanlike.
3 - 0

#289 Desert Oasis

Desert Oasis

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 160 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Colonel

Posted 15 October 2014 - 09:27 PM

I agree with Gary. Double Chasing is an unfair Stratego.com loophole. I would never do it and consider it unsportsmanlike.

#290 cflag

cflag

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 687 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 15 October 2014 - 09:34 PM

The main reason of playing this game must be fun.

When you upset your opponent with double chasing,and your opponent's post upset you there is not fun at all.......


member of ΣΕΡΡΕΣ STRATEGO team


#291 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,063 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 15 October 2014 - 09:50 PM

 

The rule is dumb but using it to my advantage is not unsportsmanlike. Just because Satan and many others dislike the rule does not require me to give up my position to appease them, especially when doing so may have resulted in a loss. I did not chase to delay the game merely to force the outcome I wanted. I chased both of Satan's pieces for two cycles then requested that he give one up or take a draw. This lasted about two minutes, he took a draw and we both moved on to our next game. I do not consider my behavior to be unsportsmanlike.

 

My mistake.  It was one piece versus two, then.  Was it a flag defense situation?  I made the assumption that chasing meant double chasing, as is usually the case.  Single chasing is governed at stratego.com by the Two-Squares rule and HmmNess currently, and mostly pretty well.  But because there is no RBP (repeated board position) rule or "square moved to" as in the Proposal by The Prof and myself to limit it, then yes it could go on forever on the site if the situation were correct, just the same as double chasing.  However, such a thing does invite the question whether you believe the activity was wrong.  You have said the rule was "dumb", which implies that you feel the activity should not be allowed.  If you truly agree with this, then I maintain that doing this was unsportsmanlike on your part.   In this instance, and on this day.  I don't paint permanently here.  

 

Whether one piece chasing two should or should not be allowed is another question entirely. 

 

Gary


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...604#entry339604

#292 astros

astros

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,224 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 15 October 2014 - 10:42 PM

My mistake. It was one piece versus two, then. Was it a flag defense situation? I made the assumption that chasing meant double chasing, as is usually the case. Single chasing is governed at stratego.com by the Two-Squares rule and HmmNess currently, and mostly pretty well. But because there is no RBP (repeated board position) rule or "square moved to" as in the Proposal by The Prof and myself to limit it, then yes it could go on forever on the site if the situation were correct, just the same as double chasing. However, such a thing does invite the question whether you believe the activity was wrong. You have said the rule was "dumb", which implies that you feel the activity should not be allowed. If you truly agree with this, then I maintain that doing this was unsportsmanlike on your part. In this instance, and on this day. I don't paint permanently here.

Whether one piece chasing two should or should not be allowed is another question entirely.

Gary

It was not directly to defend my flag (we both had around 5 pieces left) but another move would have hurt my ability to defend my flag. The rule is dumb but going along with it is not unsportsmanlike. I am all for changing the rule but until then I will double chase if it helps me. I am playing within the restrictions of the site and I consider that to be fair.
3 - 0

#293 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,418 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 08 November 2014 - 12:32 AM

Here's an update on the progress of the rule modification proposal:

It has been officially submitted and is now under review by the ISF Court of Appeal. Below is a link to the text of the document. The red type deals with the issue of counter chasing. If this portion is not agreed to, it can be removed without affecting the other aspects of the proposal.

https://www.dropbox....-10-14.doc?dl=0


This next link is another document we sent to the ISF which provides a justification for the changes and gives explanation, illustrations, and examples.

https://www.dropbox....Oct. 8.pdf?dl=0


I want to thank GaryLShelton for the countless hours of his time he gave in helping to craft and edit these two documents. This was truly a team effort. Also, thank you to Forum writers for your comments which helped us to make improvements throughout the process.

Sincerely,

The Prof
  • GaryLShelton and Napoleon 1er like this

#294 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,063 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 18 February 2017 - 04:51 PM

The Dropbox links no longer work above.
The actual text of the document is below. Note that the text in red concerns a special provision against counter chasing when a piece is trapped. If this red language is removed, no harm is done to the rest of the language.

The Proposal for Rules Changes by David Nusbaum and Gary Shelton. 10 October 2014.

11. Repetition of Threatening Moves

11.1 Definitions:


For one piece to trap another it must be able to attack the opposing piece as a result of the Two Squares rule (10.1). In this case the opponent's piece is said to be trapped.

To threaten is to move a piece so that it can, on that player's next turn, attack or trap an opposing piece if that piece does not move.

To evade is to immediately move a piece away from an opposing one that threatens 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 a move of the threatened piece to evade a potential attack or to avoid becoming trapped.

A chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be chasing.

A counter chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is either a move of a trapped piece that is immediately threatened by his opponent, or is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be counter chasing.

A chasing piece is a piece that makes at least one chasing move during a chase sequence
, or during a counter chase sequence. These sequences may involve one or more chasing pieces.

11.2 (Limits the chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)

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


11.3 (Blocks a return to chasing that is done to prevent the loss of a trapped piece)

If a player who is counter chasing moves a piece that is trapped, and that piece is immediately threatened by the opponent, then on his or her next turn the player may not move a chasing piece to a square that it already moved to during the sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence.



Some thoughts on why we think SMT (Square Moved To, suggested in 11.2 above) is better than RBP (Repeated Board Position, currently used by the ISF)

1. It’s easier for an arbiter at a live event to enforce. An arbiter can easily assess whether a piece makes a second chasing move to the same square, because he will see it immediately when it happens, rather than having to try to remember all previous board positions and spot when every piece is in the exact spot that it was in previously.

2. It reduces the number of permitted chasing moves. Take a typical double chase for example, where a player wants to alternate between making three chasing moves with piece A, and three with piece B. RBP blocks this after 12 moves whereas SMT blocks after 6.


__________

The current ISF Language for Article 11 is as follows:

11. Repetition of Threatening Moves: More- Squares Rule
11.1
It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly. The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place.
11.2
Exception: chasing moves back to the square where the chasing piece came from in the directly preceding turn are always allowed as long as this does not violate the Two-Squares Rule (Three-Moves-on-Two-Squares).
11.3 Definitions: continuous chase: the same player is non-stop threatening one or more pieces of his opponent that is/are evading the threatening moves.
chasing move: a move in a continuous chase that threatens an opponent‟s piece that was evading during the continuous chase.
Hereby:
a/to move: a/to move plus attacking or a/to move to an empty square.
to threaten: to move a piece next (before, behind or besides) a piece of the opponent. to evade: to move a piece away in the direct following move after it has been threatened.


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...604#entry339604

#295 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,063 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 18 February 2017 - 06:07 PM

Further suggested changes in the rules by David Nusbaum and Gary Shelton concern Article 10 and the Two-Squares Rule. We feel the current language for the present ISF Article 10 is awkward and difficult to understand, particularly as it applies to covering scouts in 10.2.

The current language of the ISF follows in black print at the bottom.

Suggested New Language:

Three Moves on Two Squares: Two-Squares Rule
10.1
A player may not move a piece between the same two squares on more than three consecutive turns, regardless of whether these turns involve an attack or simply moving to an empty square.


10.2
A player may not move a scout such that it crosses the line dividing the same two squares on more than three consecutive turns.



Current ISF language:

10. Three Moves on Two Squares: Two-Squares Rule
10.1
It is not allowed to move a piece more than 3 times non-stop between the same two squares, regardless of what the opponent is doing. It does not matter whether a piece is moving and thereby attacking an opponent‟s piece, or just moving to an empty square.
10.2
When a scout is involved in the Two-Squares Rule, a scout is considered to start on the starting position of his move plus all the squares he steps over, and he ends on the final position of his move plus all the squares he steps over.
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...604#entry339604

#296 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,063 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 18 February 2017 - 10:41 PM

An even further offering on Article 11 is the latest that takes out pretty much everything except the key SMT blocking feature.

That latest version is below. Note that due to an expected insertion of a new Article before it in the ISF Rules, we have changed our suggestions name from Article 11 to Article 12. It refers to the same thing.

12. Repetition of Threatening Moves

12.1 Definitions:

To threaten is to move a piece to a square adjoining a square of an opposing piece.

To evade is to move a piece away from an opposing piece that has threatened it.

A chasing move is a move that threatens a piece which then evades it on the immediate next turn.

A chase sequence is a series of consecutive turns in which every move made by one of the players is a chasing move. The player making these moves is said to be chasing.

A chasing piece is a piece that has made at least one chasing move during a chase sequence. A chase sequence may involve one or more chasing pieces.


12.2 (Limits the chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured) (RBP Version)

A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square that creates a position on the board which has already taken place during the chase sequence, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on that player's immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.

12.2 (Limits the chasing of one or more pieces that cannot be captured)
(SMT Version)

A player who is chasing may not move a chasing piece to a square it already moved to during the chase sequence so that it threatens a piece that already evaded it during the sequence, unless it is to a square the chasing piece came from on that player's immediately preceding turn and the Two Squares rule is not violated.
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...604#entry339604




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users