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

#21 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 27 February 2014 - 04:42 AM

I definitely agree the ISF rules are poorly written.  I mean what’s up with this part in 11.3?

 

 “Hereby:  a/to move: a/to move plus attacking or a/to move to an empty square.”

 

That statement should be taken out back and shot!  If anything the ISF rules need to be re-written in clear and concise English.

 

"...shot!"   lol.

 

The Prof, you've had me on a research mission to find where this came up before.  I know I posted this very line myself out of the ISF rules in the dim and distant past.  But I have given up, can't find it.  Suffice it to say this sentence has not made sense  to me for a long time and I'm glad to see you agree.  

 

My point would be why would we want to tie ourselves to such ambiguousness for the sake of centralizing rule making in our game?  We need to be the second party here.  At least for now.  

 

Enigma, look, we've already accepted a lot of changes to align us with the ISF.  Take for instance the 2 square rule and the fact the scout can move and attack in the same turn.  These are ISF rules and they are now rules here.  But the fact we have incorporated those rules does not mean it would be wise for us to accept anything and everything that is handed down from the ISF.  I prefer the freedom we have making our own Stratego gospel....when and where we can come up with a superior rule.   I will only say that at some distant future I could see us in complete alignment, perhaps.  But, you know, the American League still has the god-awful DH rule and that hasn't changed for some five decades now.  So, I'm not holding my breath.

 

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

#22 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:36 AM

Gary : ISF = International Stratego Facists, true :)

 

And they earn that title completely by one issue only,....the "continuous chasing" part which is NOT, I repeat Sohal, it's NOT a matter of not understanding,...........I understand it perfectly but the ISF just doesn't want to understand STRONG VALID arguments about WHY chasing one piece continuously is NOT the same as chasing MORE pieces continuously.

I'm not gonna do that explanation all over again but if you look good in the forum, you'll find TONS of valid arguments why the ISF is COMPLETELY WRONG with their definition of continuous chasing.

It's exactly this stupid rule that prevents me from playing live tournaments cuz' it really irritates me as hell :)

 

Trickz, I still cannot p.m. you.  Your box must be full.

 

If you didn't see it, go to my post here:  http://forum.strateg...ge-3#entry12446  for my discussion with Enigma about the continuous chasing argument.  

 

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

#23 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 27 February 2014 - 04:57 PM

The Prof, one last thing on the argument continued here from the Draw Refusal thread found at http://forum.strateg...ge-3#entry12446.  

 

If the ISF has based their rules on a version of Jumbo's rules, then why would Jumbo, or this Jumbo site, want to kowtow to them about rules?

 

Gary

 

ISF rules at 1.2 say:

 
The ISF Game Rules are based on the Jumbo 
Stratego Original Game Rules (see article 5). 
The ISF Game Rules focus on potential conflict 
situations during tournaments, which are not 
described in detail in the Jumbo Stratego 

Original Game Rules. 



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

#24 Where Is Ya Flag

Where Is Ya Flag

    Sergeant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 279 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:32 PM

The problem with the poll is that, the way I see it, it is either one way (ISF) OR the other way (Turned over Stratego.com rules) in the most extreme way..

I do think others read this aswell, so that's why they stick on the official ISF rules..

 

 

Basicly there are only a very little points which needs to be adjusted.

Simply because in a virtual game, we got no option to call a referee.

In a virtual game, people in general do the best/worse they can to get a win, if it ain't with skills, it will be by taunting the opponent.

Doing 15 seconds each turn, glitch, leave and return, continuesly chase or whatever they will try in the future..

 

In the end, it has very little to do with "changing the ISF rules" or making new rules in a hardcore way..

 

Since the ISF rules got no solution for virtual gameplay problems , we have to adjust the rules, just the way, ISF adjusted their rules for tournament/rank games on the regualr rules which came with the Stratego boxes.


What you lookin' at? You all a bunch of *bleeping* A holes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your *bleeping* fingers and say, "That's the bad guy." So...what that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide--how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth. Even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy!

2zjf5h4.jpg


#25 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:15 PM

Gary, I complement you on your argument, which read like that of a skilled defense attorney.  I think you presented this side of the case as strong as can be done.  However, what you are essentially arguing is that the ISF doesn’t correctly understand its own rule, and that section Section 11 is incorrectly interpreted and applied at ISF sponsored tournaments.   But when the rule was written its authors must have intended it to mean something, and it doesn’t make sense to say that those who wrote the rule think that it means something different than they themselves originally intended it to mean.

 

So no matter how poorly written the rule is, there is no doubt as to its official interpretation and application by the ISF, which can be verified by anyone who has competed in a national or international ISF event.  Now, in order to make some progress on this issue, I hope we can stop debating the language used to describe the rule and rather try to reach a consensus (in the other thread) on whether we agree with or don't agree with the ISF interpretation of the rule, and that we will either adopt the ISF interpretation or adopt a different interpretation that would govern online games at Stratego.com.  In either case, I would be happy to help write an official version of the rules for this site that would spell things out precisely using much clearer language.     

 

The Prof, you are the new HmmNess and I would be behind you 1,000% writing the rules down for this site.  

 

As far as what they should be, I will state that wherever there can be made a superior rule we should make that rule here.  Yes, there are differences between being online and not online, but they are trivial in comparison with...for example...this whole double chasing thing.  This situation with that could be identical for both venues (ISF tournaments and stratego.com) if we only copied their rule, that's true.

 

But I say there are reasons of VIRTUE to NOT do that in this case.  If Enigma wanted to win his game with ABSH due to a continuous chasing rule, then that rule would plainly be a crutch to him when he clearly couldn't win the game without it. Now the other fellow had nothing to gain by not accepting the tie, and his actions were not admirable or worthy, but if we give in to the ISF pressure group here to have this continuous chasing rule programmed the way they want, then we are allowing Enigma--and others who will benefit by this rule here--to sink down to the very level of behavior they complain that ABSH exhibited.  For it is not worthy of even the jackal to eat the meal of the lion that is shackled down.  

 

So a rule should not allow this.  It should not show favoritism toward either the weak or the strong.  A rule should be invisible to all, and supportive of good and worthy goals.  One goal I would like to hold up in the rules making is active play.  Although I do not want to thwart a player's good and steady progressive strategy, I do tend to want to have the Auto Draw to kill the game that proves out not to have this factor.  In other words, if nothing is going on, then how can we reasonably and equitably end the game?  I say the "X number of moves" approach is good.  It would be a rule that did not show favoritism to either player and would also have the benefit of solving the "continuous chasing" problem I have discussed.  See thread:  http://forum.strateg...ge-3#entry12446

 

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

#26 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,467 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:35 PM

One of the most important functions of game rules is to advance the game toward a resolution by breaking any stalemated situations that occur between players.  Also, I think it is generally agreed that it is better (and more fun) to have fewer games end in a draw than more games.   Thus, it is necessary and indeed virtuous that rules show “favoritism” to one player’s position over another.  This is what makes a game meaningful and challenging, trying figure out how to be the one who is in the “favored position”.

 

Let me give an example something that already is programmed into the game software pertaining to the case of one power piece trying hold off lower ranked pieces at the end of the game.  Currently a miner and any other moveable piece can defeat a marshal (assume both flags are sealed).  If it is only miner vs. marshal then it can be any of three outcomes (miner wins, marshal wins, or draw) depending on their locations.  I think this nuance is one of the beauties of our game.  Now suppose we changed the rules to “not show favoritism” and allow the marshal to continuously threaten the miner until auto draw kicks in.   Then both cases I described above would end up being draws.  To me, this would take away something from the game.  Having that extra piece with the miner should make a difference in the end.  Maneuvering strategy and planning ahead should make a difference too.

 

Now, If you agree with this, then why shouldn’t the same principle should apply when it comes to the case two power pieces trying to hold off lower ranked pieces at the end of the game?  Without the ISF interpretation there are more draws and a bit less skill in the game.  In Enigma's case, I think it would be fitting for the rules to reward his foresight in sacrificing higher pieces earlier in the game in order to end up with more lower pieces, knowing that those lowly pieces could turn out to be the heroes of the end game.



#27 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:01 PM

One of the most important functions of game rules is to advance the game toward a resolution by breaking any stalemated situations that occur between players.  Also, I think it is generally agreed that it is better (and more fun) to have fewer games end in a draw than more games.   Thus, it is necessary and indeed virtuous that rules show “favoritism” to one player’s position over another.  This is what makes a game meaningful and challenging, trying figure out how to be the one who is in the “favored position”.

 

Let me give an example something that already is programmed into the game software pertaining to the case of one power piece trying hold off lower ranked pieces at the end of the game.  Currently a miner and any other moveable piece can defeat a marshal (assume both flags are sealed).  If it is only miner vs. marshal then it can be any of three outcomes (miner wins, marshal wins, or draw) depending on their locations.  I think this nuance is one of the beauties of our game.  Now suppose we changed the rules to “not show favoritism” and allow the marshal to continuously threaten the miner until auto draw kicks in.   Then both cases I described above would end up being draws.  To me, this would take away something from the game.  Having that extra piece with the miner should make a difference in the end.  Maneuvering strategy and planning ahead should make a difference too.

 

Now, If you agree with this, then why shouldn’t the same principle should apply when it comes to the case two power pieces trying to hold off lower ranked pieces at the end of the game?  Without the ISF interpretation there are more draws and a bit less skill in the game.  In Enigma's case, I think it would be fitting for the rules to reward his foresight in sacrificing higher pieces earlier in the game in order to end up with more lower pieces, knowing that those lowly pieces could turn out to be the heroes of the end game.

 

 

This is exactly why this continuously chaserule needs to go.

 

The goal is to catch the flag or kill all pieces so there should NOT be any difference or privilege given (in this case the flag)

Both playing for the win and both are in position to do so!

The miner wants the flag, the marsh wants the miner (both are one square away of the target) and both can have it in theory and both can't practically so this is equal.

But it's true, in this case, there is ONE chase and you can't continuously chase one piece so the ISF is perfectly right on this one.

The miner will win this if he's in position and it's justified as well.

 

But if we go further, then there's a huge problem  :)

 

Now apply this rule with TWO 2s-situations on the board thus two miners vs two sergeants and the sealed flags.

Chain is broken after each attack cuz' you switch it after every turn which means there is an interruption and the dictionnary clearly says that continuously means UNINTERRUPTED in time.

The meaning of the word suddenly changes with more situations on the board but it stays the original meaning with only ONE chase on the board.

Is that logical? I think it's not.  It's not because the ISF adopted this as a so called truth which is only known for about twenty percent of all the Strategoplayers worldwide (no, I don't exaggerate, most players just don't know), that it's therefore automatically THE truth.

No, it's just a subjective interpretation of THE truth which is in the dictionnary : UNINTERRUPTED IN TIME.

 

 

ISF needs to adapt their rule section regarding continuously chasing section 11.3 and then Jumbo should imply the renewed rules in the software and after an x-amount of double or triple chases without any progress in the game, there should come an autodraw.

Problems solved.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#28 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:48 PM

One of the most important functions of game rules is to advance the game toward a resolution by breaking any stalemated situations that occur between players.  Also, I think it is generally agreed that it is better (and more fun) to have fewer games end in a draw than more games.   Thus, it is necessary and indeed virtuous that rules show “favoritism” to one player’s position over another.  This is what makes a game meaningful and challenging, trying figure out how to be the one who is in the “favored position”.

 

Let me give an example something that already is programmed into the game software pertaining to the case of one power piece trying hold off lower ranked pieces at the end of the game.  Currently a miner and any other moveable piece can defeat a marshal (assume both flags are sealed).  If it is only miner vs. marshal then it can be any of three outcomes (miner wins, marshal wins, or draw) depending on their locations.  I think this nuance is one of the beauties of our game.  Now suppose we changed the rules to “not show favoritism” and allow the marshal to continuously threaten the miner until auto draw kicks in.   Then both cases I described above would end up being draws.  To me, this would take away something from the game.  Having that extra piece with the miner should make a difference in the end.  Maneuvering strategy and planning ahead should make a difference too.

 

Now, If you agree with this, then why shouldn’t the same principle should apply when it comes to the case two power pieces trying to hold off lower ranked pieces at the end of the game?  Without the ISF interpretation there are more draws and a bit less skill in the game.  In Enigma's case, I think it would be fitting for the rules to reward his foresight in sacrificing higher pieces earlier in the game in order to end up with more lower pieces, knowing that those lowly pieces could turn out to be the heroes of the end game.

 

The Prof, I can scarcely believe my eyes here!   Did you seriously just say this?

 

 

 

Thus, it is necessary and indeed virtuous that rules show “favoritism” to one player’s position over another.

 

Yes, if you know the ins and outs of the ISF rule that shows favoritism you can intelligently work yourself into the better position per the existing rules.  This is shown in Enigma's performance against ABSH.  But this is always the European argument:  Learn the rules to use them better for yourself.  Well, the problem with that is that not all their rules are good rules.  

 

First of all, on this site a miner and another piece can now beat a Marshal with a sealed flag in only three ways:

  1. The two pieces are unknown to the Marshal and he guesses wrong, or
  2. The Marshal is terribly out of position to defend his flag to begin with, or
  3. The Marshal just makes a dumb mistake at a critical time when the draw situation is evident

Secondly, a miner alone can possibly beat the Marshal, yes, but it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY given two decently skilled players.  The only real way is if the Marshal is terribly out of position to begin with.  So it is hardly an accurate portrayal to say that there are three possibilities with the Miner and Marshal alone.  There's a chance the sky may fall today, or I may win the lottery, but it ain't likely. This "nuance" has about as much chance of happening as that. 

 

So it is NOT true there is "favoritism" shown in this example on our site here.  The vast majority of times will be a draw or the Marshal will win.  It is possible for the Miner to beat the Marshal, but it is only due to the principle of zugzwang and the positioning of bombs that make it so.  There is no "favoritism" in the programming here.  What makes the game at stratego.com pure and truly "meaningful" is that one person honestly, and without the aid of rule crutches, has to figure out how to out-move the other.  Figuring out how to be in the "favored" position per the ISF rules is NOT meaningful.  It's like a rat learning how to get through a maze.  It's possible, but the maze wall could be here today and there tomorrow.  Why put ourselves at stratego.com through such ARTIFICIAL torture?  

 

Maneuvering and planning ahead SHOULD make a difference in the game.  But these things SHOULD NOT BE IN THE SERVICE OF THE ISF RULE BOOK.  THEY SHOULD BE IN THE SERVICE OF THE PURE AND HONEST GAME OF STRATEGO THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE HERE AT STRATEGO.COM.

 

Thank you,

 

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

#29 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,467 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 28 February 2014 - 01:01 AM

Gary, did you forget the whole discussion about the miner / marshal case that you, LTG and I had in your 2-squares rule thread?  Please see Reply #56 that you wrote here:  http://forum.strateg...ggestion/page-3

 

In it you yourself said the following about the miner vs. marshal situation:

 

"LTG, it is a 50/50 proposition as to who will enter into diagonal positioning.  Of course the piece that enters into it, wins in this example.  The Miner may very well march right up to the Marshal as you state, but he might just as easily march right up and find the Marshal one square off of what he, the Miner, needs.  Then the Marshal would win.  

 

It all depends on whose turn it is.  Who enters into the diagonal positioning and therefore who has to move out of it first are the questions.  No one would want to move out of diagonal positioning first, but one has to in this game." 

 

Now, if the miner has a companion, say a sergeant, on one side of the lakes and the marshal is on the other, then the miner has a clear path to victory since he can guarantee that he gets into a beneficial diagonal position that will force the marshal to either chase (which will be eventually stopped by the software) or retreat, thus giving the miner the win.



#30 Manning2Cruz

Manning2Cruz

    Miner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 197 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 February 2014 - 02:15 AM

just go to gravon.net figure out their programming for the ISF rules and it will take care of everything and copy it here easy and it works



#31 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 28 February 2014 - 08:48 AM

Gary, did you forget the whole discussion about the miner / marshal case that you, LTG and I had in your 2-squares rule thread?  Please see Reply #56 that you wrote here:  http://forum.strateg...ggestion/page-3

 

In it you yourself said the following about the miner vs. marshal situation:

 

"LTG, it is a 50/50 proposition as to who will enter into diagonal positioning.  Of course the piece that enters into it, wins in this example.  The Miner may very well march right up to the Marshal as you state, but he might just as easily march right up and find the Marshal one square off of what he, the Miner, needs.  Then the Marshal would win.  

 

It all depends on whose turn it is.  Who enters into the diagonal positioning and therefore who has to move out of it first are the questions.  No one would want to move out of diagonal positioning first, but one has to in this game." 

 

Now, if the miner has a companion, say a sergeant, on one side of the lakes and the marshal is on the other, then the miner has a clear path to victory since he can guarantee that he gets into a beneficial diagonal position that will force the marshal to either chase (which will be eventually stopped by the software) or retreat, thus giving the miner the win.

 

David, my hat is already ceremoniously off somewhere over your math abilities.  Now the one I put on to replace it is also doffed over your research skills.  Wow, how did you find that?  I am impressed.  That was good.

 

Let me just comment--I've made a slight mistake.  You've got me here a bit.  It's not quite as impossible for a Miner to win as I first argued, but close.  I now think the far biggest probability is for a tie in this situation.  The big factor that cannot be overlooked is the 2 square positioning.  

 

Using the example of a corner bomb,

 

What really matters in a Marshal vs. Miner situation is the following:

  1. Is the Marshal too far away to protect his flag at the outset?
  2. Is the Marshal on a row where he can get blocked by his own bombs?
  3. Which piece moves into, and maintains, the superior 2 square diagonal positioning?

Now assuming a clear fourth row for the Marshal, and that he is close enough to protect his flag, just about all he has to do is plant on his fourth row and pay attention to the 2 Square situation and he cannot lose, though he may only get the tie.  If the Miner gets the 2 Square on him, then yes the Miner wins, but if the Marshal is already on his fourth row, the Miner cannot easily gain this 2 square advantage.  The Marshal primarily has to watch out for, and guard against, the Miner slipping back around the lake and moving into the second file in an attempt to gain back the 2 square advantage.

 

What really matters in a Marshal vs. Miner and Sergeant situation is the following:

  1. Are Miner and Sergeant identified? 
  2. Is the Marshal too far away to protect his flag at the outset?
  3. Is the Marshal on a row where he can get blocked by his own bombs? 
  4. Which piece moves into, and maintains, the superior 2 square diagonal positioning?

Now with the Miner and Sergeant threat the Marshal has to keep an even closer eye on the 2 square positioning.  But as long as he knows which piece is which of his opponent, then it should be no problem to keep on top of this.  The main thing would always be, again, for the Marshal to be in his fourth row and to make sure that the Miner doesn't sneak around the lake and into the 2nd file unguarded, because this is where he can regain the 2 square advantage for himself.   

 

Having conceded you made a good point initially in this post, David, I must say that it is still HIGHLY UNLIKELY the Miner (or even the Miner and the Sergeant) will win the corner flag if it is a battle between two skilled players.  The skilled Marshal will guard the proper row and file and the skilled Miner will likewise not get trapped by the Marshal, making the most likely outcome a tie. And the Sergeant won't matter if the proper row or file is correctly guarded by the Marshal.  But either player could make a mistake, this is true, and that would always be a factor.  

 

Concerning the following quote from you.  (This is copied a second time below from your quoted post at the top of this one.)

 

What I want to comment is simply ditto to what I just said. The situation you describe here cannot occur if the skilled Marshal is guarding his 4th row or second file (whichever the Miner is attacking).   If he doesn't and the Miner gets the 2 square on him, then yes the Miner wins as you describe below.

 

 

 

Now, if the miner has a companion, say a sergeant, on one side of the lakes and the marshal is on the other, then the miner has a clear path to victory since he can guarantee that he gets into a beneficial diagonal position that will force the marshal to either chase (which will be eventually stopped by the software) or retreat, thus giving the miner the win.

 

What do you think?

 

Gary

 

P.S.: The situation is a bit different if the flag is a tri-bomb in the center, but i think the outcomes are the same and with the strongest likelihood of a tie again.



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

#32 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 28 February 2014 - 09:02 AM

I'm sorry, David, but you know that I said to you already that persistence is a fault of mine.  But hey, I like the fencing and parrying back and forth.  Lamentably, I'm not a lawyer, but that's another story.  I would say to all 20-somethings out there to be thoughtful of your choices; you'll have to live with them for a long time.

 

But, David, c'mon.  You are ignoring the fundamental right (in California do they have those any more?) of a man to protect his castle.  When the situation is as the Enigma vs. ABSH one was, then what ABSH was doing was merely protecting his castle.  He was in no way or sense chasing Enigma.  If anything, Enigma was chasing him.  

 

It all gets down to what you personally believe is right.  Your statement that showing "favoritism is virtuous" has me deeply bothered.  It is one thing to say here in the USA that the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) is "virtuous", as it doesn't affect me severely to have my bathrooms handicap-accessible.  But it is quite another to say ABSH should DIE because that would be "virtuous"!  It is quite a different order of magnitude.

 

David, Jefferson said my philosophy very concisely:

 

"That government is best which governs least, because its people discipline themselves. If we are directed from Washington (heads of an organization) when to sow and when to reap, we will soon want for bread.”

 

We may not have the world of Jefferson any longer, but we certainly don't want to fall down the slippery slope of "1984".  Purge this idea that "favoritism" is virtuous!  We players do not want to be as rats in an artificial maze.  We want to be given a FAIR and HONEST playing field that is governed by rules that don't stick their heads out to show an arbitrary preference for one side or the other.  

 

At the link below you wrote what follows: 

 

http://forum.strateg...age-3#entry8480

 

So as things are right now, continuous chasing with one piece is limited, but continuous chasing with two or more pieces is not blocked by the site's software.  I can’t understand why if you think something is bad if it's done with one piece why you wouldn’t think it’s bad when it is alternately occurring in two places on the game board.  

 

 

Now admittedly, David, this is an old post of yours (I found it in the thread you researched of mine in your previous post), but it brings up our very topical issue of continuous chasing, so to recap the counter to this statement:

 

The continuous chasing rule of the ISF is wrong because:

  1. Two pieces "alternating" is not "continuous"
  2. The rule is a crutch that helps the lower ranked pieces defeat higher ranked ones.  It therefore shows favoritism, not a thing we should generally desire in our rules.

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

#33 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,467 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 28 February 2014 - 05:10 PM

Gary, let's Skype tonight.  I'll show you on my game board how the miner / serg always beats the marsh (with each starting on their own side of the lakes) and why you were right when you told LTG it's 50/50 in the miner vs. marsh case.  You can play the part of the Marshal :)

 

  On the favoritism thing, perhaps you are misunderstanding my meaning.  All I was saying is that in general, for Stratego or any game as well, that it's good to have rules that lead to a resolution of the game in favor or one player or the other instead of rules that lead to games that get stuck with no progress and end up with more draws. 



#34 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,045 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 28 February 2014 - 06:29 PM

This case of 1 miner vs 1 strong piece is exactly the one illustrated in my quizz N°2. I'll give all answers and explanations in a few hours. In a situation of 1 miner against 1 stronger piece and no other pièces left the miner always has a win unless he is in the same column than the stronger piece or already in direct diagonal, little exception to it in case the player with the stronger piece has a bomb on the second row!!! all this is mysterious? ...then read my answer to the quizz.

 

Napoleon 1er


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


#35 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 470 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Marshal

Posted 01 March 2014 - 08:16 AM

double chasing by red. will not leave buried colonel alone at left. will not let blue's left side colonel down to buried major, blue should not have to swap at the left and of course wont sacrifice a colonel right side either.

REd moves 1 piece 3 times back and forth, than the other piece 3 times back and forth.

Red must do something else, move a 3rd piece

 

https://imageshack.com/i/5sq88bp

 



#36 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 01 March 2014 - 09:27 AM

Gary, let's Skype tonight. I'll show you on my game board how the miner / serg always beats the marsh (with each starting on their own side of the lakes) and why you were right when you told LTG it's 50/50 in the miner vs. marsh case. You can play the part of the Marshal :)

On the favoritism thing, perhaps you are misunderstanding my meaning. All I was saying is that in general, for Stratego or any game as well, that it's good to have rules that lead to a resolution of the game in favor or one player or the other instead of rules that lead to games that get stuck with no progress and end up with more draws.


David, you ask for favoritism to end the games conclusively. The difference I have with that is that I wish for favoritism to end games fairly. A draw is often the only fair outcome, and a rule is bad that favors an unfair or artificial goal merely to avoid the natural situation of a draw.

As far as what I said way back in the day when I wrote those words to LTG, I ask for consideration. If sometimes a computer can be obsolete in 4 months, then I claim the right of my words to also sometimes be obsolete.

What I meant by 50/50 then is that with the vagaries of the game no one is going to be able to plan to have a 2 square advantage by the late stage of the game. What I say to you today is that it absolutely will not matter who has the initial good fortune of the 2 square advantage. The only thing that will matter is if the Marshal adequately guards his own 4th row and 2nd file. In fact, the Marshal's own bomb setup can be a greater enemy to himself than his opponent if they obstruct his ability to protect these two lines.

The ONLY WAY you will be successful with your Miner situation is if you initially give him the 2 square advantage. With that advantage he will win. I totally agree. Without it we have a draw. There's no way the Miner can win unless he does not agree to my tie request and I take an escape loss to end the game like Enigma did.

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

#37 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,045 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 01 March 2014 - 11:34 AM

This topic of neverending games and draw recognition is, I believe, the one who has seen the highest number of posts since existence of this forum. I remember in tennis long time ago they had same kind of situation that a game never ended. Then somebody invented the tie-break rule and now game duration is better under control. Maybe we should invent the same thing for stratego?

 

Napoleon 1er


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


#38 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 02 March 2014 - 05:53 PM

Gary, let's Skype tonight. I'll show you on my game board how the miner / serg always beats the marsh (with each starting on their own side of the lakes) and why you were right when you told LTG it's 50/50 in the miner vs. marsh case. You can play the part of the Marshal :)

I must confess here publicly that They Prof is correct about one thing, and I am wrong. The Miner CAN beat the Marshal, IF the Miner has the odd spacing on the Marshal at the end of the game. If the Miner has a Sergeant also it doesn't matter what spacing he has because he can always move the Sergeant to get the odd spacing. If the Marshal has a second piece, though, it will be a draw.

If anyone cares to play this out for themselves, they will see that it is true. By odd spacing I mean that it must be the Miner's turn to move and the Miner must have two clear spaces between himself and the Marsh so that it would take an odd number of moves for a strike.

The Miner will win because he can get the 2 square on the Marsh or the Marsh will be stopped by the HmmNess chasing-in-a-line rule.

Gary

Edit: I forgot to add that this seems to work for either a triangle bomb or a corner bomb setup. An unmovable piece in the 2nd row devastates the Marsh, though he can gain the draw if he has no 2nd row bombs AND the Miner has no second piece on his side.

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

#39 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,457 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 02 March 2014 - 06:03 PM

Of course, The Prof is still very wrong when it comes to his bleeding heart liberal stuff about favoritism!

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

#40 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,467 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 04 March 2014 - 03:32 AM

I’m glad Gary and Trickz have made peace with the two-squares rule.  Also, I see nobody has objected to the way this is applied to scouts in Rule 10.2.  So the main bone of contention is whether to allow multiple chasing (by this I mean double chasing, triple chasing, etc).  Multiple chasing occurs when a player’s every move in a consecutive sequence of turns threatens some opposing piece that can indefinitely avoid capture by the piece that is threatening it.  Multiple chasing is sometimes a player’s only option to prevent his opponent from capturing the flag, but when it is used in the early or middle game it stalls the game with no progress until either the chaser backs down, or the player being chased gives up one of the pieces being chased, or both players agree to a draw.

 

So, please vote in the new question I have added to the poll, and feel free to make your case as to which option is best. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users