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

#41 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 04 March 2014 - 08:05 PM

Prof with your new secondary question given, I changed my vote on the first one where I first said I would support the ISF rules IF ALL were applied.  If the majority of our players agree to partial changes to the rules, then I will voice my disagreement with defending the flag as chasing.  I just don't still see the logic where a player worked hard to build a lead in material has to give in to a lesser rank piece(s) and is willing to take a draw to defend their flag.  



#42 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 05 March 2014 - 02:21 AM

Here’s an example that I think gives a good reason to vote for Option 1).   Assume both flags are sealed, each player’s pieces are on their own side of the lakes there is a column in which only the player with the higher ranked pieces has a bomb in the 2nd row from the back.  Also assume that neither player makes an unforced mistake.  Then, if multiple chasing is not allowed we have the following results:

 

2 sergeants and a scout vs. 2 miners is a draw

 

2 sergeants vs. 2 miners is a draw 50% of the time, and is a win for the miners 50% of the time. (It depends on the spacing between the pieces)

 

2 sergeants vs. 2 miners and a scout is a win for the miners.

 

If multiple chasing to defend the flag is allowed then all three of these cases will be a draw.  There would be no difference which player managed to have the extra scout at the end, and no interesting end game to speak of.  I think it’s a beautiful aspect of our game that something that appears insignificant earlier in the game can make all the difference in the end.

 

With multiple chasing, however, sometimes even a big difference in pieces doesn’t matter, as in the case of Enigma vs. ABSH.  Enigma had two captains, one lieutenant, one sergeant, one miner, two scouts, and a spy against ABSH’s major and colonel.   Still, because of his opponent's multiple chasing, all he could achieve was a draw.  Imagine, it would have been a draw even if Enigma had just one scout and nothing else!  Shouldn’t having those extra pieces mean something?



#43 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 March 2014 - 05:54 AM

Here’s an example that I think gives a good reason to vote for Option 1).   Assume both flags are sealed, each player’s pieces are on their own side of the lakes there is a column in which only the player with the higher ranked pieces has a bomb in the 2nd row from the back.  Also assume that neither player makes an unforced mistake.  Then, if multiple chasing is not allowed we have the following results:

 

2 sergeants and a scout vs. 2 miners is a draw

 

2 sergeants vs. 2 miners is a draw 50% of the time, and is a win for the miners 50% of the time. (It depends on the spacing between the pieces)

 

2 sergeants vs. 2 miners and a scout is a win for the miners.

 

If multiple chasing to defend the flag is allowed then all three of these cases will be a draw.  There would be no difference which player managed to have the extra scout at the end, and no interesting end game to speak of.  I think it’s a beautiful aspect of our game that something that appears insignificant earlier in the game can make all the difference in the end.

 

With multiple chasing, however, sometimes even a big difference in pieces doesn’t matter, as in the case of Enigma vs. ABSH.  Enigma had two captains, one lieutenant, one sergeant, one miner, two scouts, and a spy against ABSH’s major and colonel.   Still, because of his opponent's multiple chasing, all he could achieve was a draw.  Imagine, it would have been a draw even if Enigma had just one scout and nothing else!  Shouldn’t having those extra pieces mean something?

 

The Prof, you are from the left coast and think in a left coast manner!  'Shouldn't having those extra pieces mean something?  NO! 

 

You sound like Super Drew of old when he always pushed for material to make a difference.  Instead of an Auto Draw based on the X number of moves of nothing happening, he always wanted an Auto Win at the same point of inactivity (200 moves) based on the relative material strengths of each side.  As it was very hard then (and still is) to categorically state the value of any or multiple pieces on the board at ALL times in a game, his ideas never got traction.  The simple thing in the current case is that Enigma's material was insufficient to capture ABSH's flag and vice-versa.  Thus, the game should've been a DRAW.  The fact that ABSH refused a draw is bad on him, and it's good that the M.T. fixed the points with Enigma on this.  But it would've been just as bad to have Enigma win that game due to some wrong-headed ISF interpretation of chasing.  The ONLY MORAL and WORTHY OUTCOME for EACH PLAYER in that game was a DRAW. 

 

The Prof, you have said that if we do not want single chasing, why do we allow double chasing?  I have a solid response for you.  If you look at single chasing, the HmmNess rule does not typically cost the chaser or chasee the game.  It might have such an effect, I agree, in the extreme case of the Marshal vs. Miner (or Miner + Sergeant) example we recently discussed.  But this is by far a miniscule percentage of the times the HmmNess rule will come into play.  Most of the time it will not decide the game.  (We're talking 3-4 SD's here of non-game-deciding use.)  Likewise with the 2 Square, it will be used mostly (vastly mostly) in instances that do not decide the game.  Both these rules have utilitarian benefit (did I actually say that about 2 Square?...better mark your calendar!) that all of us experience in our games.  

 

This onerous "double chasing" is different.  If enforced à la the ISF in the not-uncommon situation of the Enigma/ABSH game, it would definitely decide the game.  Contrarily, the number of times this rule would be used more or less harmlessly in the middle of games is not nearly as many as either the HmmNess or 2 Square rules.   

 

Now what I'm about to say will possibly surprise you.  If "double chasing" were enforced here in the middle of games, its enactment here would not bother me terribly. (Hold on, I'll get back to normal soon.)   Yes, it is a untenable stretch to say that "continuous" can be equated with "broken on each turn".  For most instances I wouldn't mind this slaughtering of English.  However, in the aforementioned Enigma/ABSH game, I would ONLY want the "double chasing" rule where the flag wasn't involved.  We shouldn't morally want a guy to be forced out of defending his castle, or his flag.  Enigma himself said that he had the stronger pieces although he didn't have the higher ranked ones.  That he admitted this only goes to show who was attacking whom and how an apparent glance can sometimes be misleading.  In no way was ABSH "attacking" Enigma; he was merely defending his flag.  Enigma's own words bear this out.  (Note here, once more, that nowhere in Section 11 does the ISF define "attacker" and "defender".  This alone is problematic.)

 

So for me to peacefully accept the ISF rule here there would have to be an exception where the flag was involved.  But this then presents a huge problem:  Since the very enforcement of an exception such as I propose would possibly give away previously unknown information to a player (ie., the opponent's flag location), then we can't have that kind of exception to the rule.  

 

As I have said before, the "double chasing" enforced on the flag defender is taking sides by the rule, and we should not allow any favoritism like that on this site.  We need to maintain our independence from the ISF until the day comes when they can write fair rules in correct English.  

 

One last point, The Prof.   You can certainly put 'resolving games' up on a pedestal of goals for rules to accomplish, but you should put FAIRNESS a MILE HIGHER.  Hang your 'beautiful aspects'.  We do not need a slanted ISF rule here:  we have our own better answer to this and many other problems in the Auto Draw.  That would be a FAIR and EQUABLE (no favoritism) rule.

 

Gary

 

EDIT:  I have another line of reasoning to add here, The Prof.   You say the double chase warrants the same treatment by the rules as the single chase.  Well, if the 2 Square allows the skilled player to kill a weaker piece without assistance in the single chase, why would the "double chase" (two instances of 2 Square simultaneously) not be deserving of the same result?   In other words, ABSH wins! 


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

#44 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,752 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Colonel

Posted 05 March 2014 - 06:45 AM

With multiple chasing, however, sometimes even a big difference in pieces doesn’t matter, as in the case of Enigma vs. ABSH.  Enigma had two captains, one lieutenant, one sergeant, one miner, two scouts, and a spy against ABSH’s major and colonel.   Still, because of his opponent's multiple chasing, all he could achieve was a draw.  Imagine, it would have been a draw even if Enigma had just one scout and nothing else!  Shouldn’t having those extra pieces mean something?

 

I agree with Gary on the example you presented Prof that your example of Colonel and Major vs a Scout is a "Too bad so sad you been had" case.  There is no way the two pieces can capture that scout whether the flag is sealed or not.  If we say that because ABSH has a Colonel and Major he has those two pieces should win, then we are going down the road to agreeing to what SuperDrew2k said "Point value" determines a win.  I would never support a point value to determine a win over a game that is a draw.  



#45 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:06 AM

The Prof, you are from the left coast and think in a left coast manner!  'Shouldn't having those extra pieces mean something?  NO! 

No need to bring politics into this discussion. 

 

You sound like Super Drew of old when he always pushed for material to make a difference.  Instead of an Auto Draw based on the X number of moves of nothing happening, he always wanted an Auto Win at the same point of inactivity (200 moves) based on the relative material strengths of each side.

 

The comparison between agreeing with the ISF Rules and supporting Auto Win based on material strength is absurd.  The ONLY ways to win the game are capture the flag or all your opponents pieces.

 

As it was very hard then (and still is) to categorically state the value of any or multiple pieces on the board at ALL times in a game, his ideas never got traction.

 

Because they were ridiculous and anathema to the game.  

 

 The simple thing in the current case is that Enigma's material was insufficient to capture ABSH's flag and vice-versa.

 

That is an opinion.  If this were a live ISF tournament game then Enigma’s material would have been sufficient to capture the flag.

 

The Prof, you have said that if we do not want single chasing, why do we allow double chasing?  I have a solid response for you.  If you look at single chasing, the HmmNess rule does not typically cost the chaser or chasee the game.  It might have such an effect, I agree, in the extreme case of the Marshal vs. Miner (or Miner + Sergeant) example we recently discussed.  But this is by far a miniscule percentage of the times the HmmNess rule will come into play.  Most of the time it will not decide the game.  

 I would think one miner against a higher piece is just as likely an endgame scenario as two miners against two high pieces.  

 

 Likewise with the 2 Square, it will be used mostly (vastly mostly) in instances that do not decide the game. Both these rules have utilitarian benefit (did I actually say that about 2 Square?...better mark your calendar!) that all of us experience in our games.  

 

This onerous "double chasing" is different.  If enforced à la the ISF in the not-uncommon situation of the Enigma/ABSH game, it would definitely decide the game.  Contrarily, the number of times this rule would be used more or less harmlessly in the middle of games is not nearly as many as either the HmmNess or 2 Square rules.   

This is a good point.  However, though double chasing is not as common, I think the game would still be better without it.

 

Now what I'm about to say will possibly surprise you.  If "double chasing" were enforced here in the middle of games, its enactment here would not bother me terribly. (Hold on, I'll get back to normal soon.)   Yes, it is a untenable stretch to say that "continuous" can be equated with "broken on each turn".  For most instances I wouldn't mind this slaughtering of English.

 

Let not go back to debating semantics but keep debating substance.  Above I wrote a precise definition of multiple chasing without using the much maligned word “continuous”.

 

 However, in the aforementioned Enigma/ABSH game, I would ONLY want the "double chasing" rule where the flag wasn't involved.  We shouldn't morally want a guy to be forced out of defending his castle, or his flag.  Enigma himself said that he had the stronger pieces although he didn't have the higher ranked ones.  That he admitted this only goes to show who was attacking whom and how an apparent glance can sometimes be misleading.  In no way was ABSH "attacking" Enigma; he was merely defending his flag.  Enigma's own words bear this out.  (Note here, once more, that nowhere in Section 11 does the ISF define "attacker" and "defender".  This alone is problematic.)

 

So for me to peacefully accept the ISF rule here there would have to be an exception where the flag was involved.  But this then presents a huge problem:  Since the very enforcement of an exception such as I propose would possibly give away previously unknown information to a player (ie., the opponent's flag location), then we can't have that kind of exception to the rule.  

Though I favor option 1, I do have some sympathy for option 2), but I also am concerned about how the “defend the flag” exception could be programmed into the software.  Perhaps a player could be allowed to double chase if he only has two pieces remaining.  Would that work?  If you had a third piece then you wouldn't need to double chase, just move the third piece and stand your ground with the other two, right?

 

As I have said before, the "double chasing" enforced on the flag defender is taking sides by the rule, and we should not allow any favoritism like that on this site.  We need to maintain our independence from the ISF until the day comes when they can write fair rules in correct English.  

 

One last point, The Prof.   You can certainly put 'resolving games' up on a pedestal of goals for rules to accomplish, but you should put FAIRNESS a MILE HIGHER.  

Whatever the rules are, they apply equally both players, so I don’t see any issue of fairness here.  A player might be on the wrong side of things in one game, and then in a future game the roles could be reversed.

 

Hang your 'beautiful aspects'.  We do not need a slanted ISF rule here:  we have our own better answer to this and many other problems in the Auto Draw.  That would be a FAIR and EQUABLE (no favoritism) rule.

 

  I support Auto Draw.  But it should be a last resort.  Games that otherwise could be decided in an exciting endgame by players maneuvering abilities, or an extra lowly piece earned earlier in the game, are much preferable to games that get stuck and end in draw, especially if it takes 200 pointless moves to get to that result.

 

The Prof



#46 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 March 2014 - 08:27 AM

 

 

 

The Prof, sorry about the politics chop.  I only meant it humorously.  

 

 

EDIT:  I have another line of reasoning to add here, The Prof.   You say the double chase warrants the same treatment by the rules as the single chase.  Well, if the 2 Square allows the skilled player to kill a weaker piece without assistance in the single chase, why would the "double chase" (two instances of 2 Square simultaneously) not be deserving of the same result?   In other words, ABSH wins! 

 

As I added this after your previous reply, obviously, I would ask for your reply here.  

 

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

#47 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 05 March 2014 - 06:04 PM

 

The Prof, you are from the left coast and think in a left coast manner!  'Shouldn't having those extra pieces mean something?  NO! 

No need to bring politics into this discussion. 

 

You sound like Super Drew of old when he always pushed for material to make a difference.  Instead of an Auto Draw based on the X number of moves of nothing happening, he always wanted an Auto Win at the same point of inactivity (200 moves) based on the relative material strengths of each side.

 

The comparison between agreeing with the ISF Rules and supporting Auto Win based on material strength is absurd.  The ONLY ways to win the game are capture the flag or all your opponents pieces.

 

I never doubted your position on Drew.  The comparison only has ground due to the lexicon of your sentence, "Shouldn't having those extra pieces mean something?"  But this was only a feint on my part.

 

As it was very hard then (and still is) to categorically state the value of any or multiple pieces on the board at ALL times in a game, his ideas never got traction.

 

Because they were ridiculous and anathema to the game.  

 

 The simple thing in the current case is that Enigma's material was insufficient to capture ABSH's flag and vice-versa.

 

That is an opinion.  If this were a live ISF tournament game then Enigma’s material would have been sufficient to capture the flag.

 

Well, yes, the rule is established by an opinion of the rule makers at their respective venues, but what I said is a fact on this site, obviously, and your statement far below indicates you show sympathy for this position.

 

The Prof, you have said that if we do not want single chasing, why do we allow double chasing?  I have a solid response for you.  If you look at single chasing, the HmmNess rule does not typically cost the chaser or chasee the game.  It might have such an effect, I agree, in the extreme case of the Marshal vs. Miner (or Miner + Sergeant) example we recently discussed.  But this is by far a miniscule percentage of the times the HmmNess rule will come into play.  Most of the time it will not decide the game.  

 I would think one miner against a higher piece is just as likely an endgame scenario as two miners against two high pieces.  

 

Yes, and I would abide by the result of the enforcement of any single chasing rule that we currently have.  This level of nuance I would accept, since it would be a natural offshoot of the single chasing rules that exist here.  

 

 Likewise with the 2 Square, it will be used mostly (vastly mostly) in instances that do not decide the game. Both these rules have utilitarian benefit (did I actually say that about 2 Square?...better mark your calendar!) that all of us experience in our games.  

 

This onerous "double chasing" is different.  If enforced à la the ISF in the not-uncommon situation of the Enigma/ABSH game, it would definitely decide the game.  Contrarily, the number of times this rule would be used more or less harmlessly in the middle of games is not nearly as many as either the HmmNess or 2 Square rules.   

This is a good point.  However, though double chasing is not as common, I think the game would still be better without it.

 

I could/would agree for every situation but "defending the flag".   Though the flag deal would be tougher, I would think the programming to be very simple to accomplish the elimination of double chasing in most instances.    Primarily, it would have to be decided if the chasing you want to modify is HmmNess's chasing rule, or the current 2 Square rule, or both.  It seems to me you should seek to modify both.  Also, keep in mind we might be having the same discussion on "triple chasing" in the future as well.  

 

Now what I'm about to say will possibly surprise you.  If "double chasing" were enforced here in the middle of games, its enactment here would not bother me terribly. (Hold on, I'll get back to normal soon.)   Yes, it is a untenable stretch to say that "continuous" can be equated with "broken on each turn".  For most instances I wouldn't mind this slaughtering of English.

 

Let not go back to debating semantics but keep debating substance.  Above I wrote a precise definition of multiple chasing without using the much maligned word “continuous”.

 

Agreed, but I do not see your definition.  Can you repeat it here?

 

 However, in the aforementioned Enigma/ABSH game, I would ONLY want the "double chasing" rule where the flag wasn't involved.  We shouldn't morally want a guy to be forced out of defending his castle, or his flag.  Enigma himself said that he had the stronger pieces although he didn't have the higher ranked ones.  That he admitted this only goes to show who was attacking whom and how an apparent glance can sometimes be misleading.  In no way was ABSH "attacking" Enigma; he was merely defending his flag.  Enigma's own words bear this out.  (Note here, once more, that nowhere in Section 11 does the ISF define "attacker" and "defender".  This alone is problematic.)

 

So for me to peacefully accept the ISF rule here there would have to be an exception where the flag was involved.  But this then presents a huge problem:  Since the very enforcement of an exception such as I propose would possibly give away previously unknown information to a player (ie., the opponent's flag location), then we can't have that kind of exception to the rule.  

Though I favor option 1, I do have some sympathy for option 2), but I also am concerned about how the “defend the flag” exception could be programmed into the software.  Perhaps a player could be allowed to double chase if he only has two pieces remaining.  Would that work?  If you had a third piece then you wouldn't need to double chase, just move the third piece and stand your ground with the other two, right?

 

The Prof, I'm happy you have come to this very anti-ISF notion.  If we used this (good) reasoning here, then Enigma/ABSH would be adjudicated a DRAW by our rules, and an Auto Draw system would've ended the game without M.T. involvement.  I must point out, however, that you can't say you support option 1) --if that means you support implementation of ISF rules here-- and simultaneously say you want to have the rule you have just described at this site.   

 

As I have said before, the "double chasing" enforced on the flag defender is taking sides by the rule, and we should not allow any favoritism like that on this site.  We need to maintain our independence from the ISF until the day comes when they can write fair rules in correct English.  

 

One last point, The Prof.   You can certainly put 'resolving games' up on a pedestal of goals for rules to accomplish, but you should put FAIRNESS a MILE HIGHER.  

Whatever the rules are, they apply equally both players, so I don’t see any issue of fairness here.  A player might be on the wrong side of things in one game, and then in a future game the roles could be reversed.

 

The "Fairness" that I mention does not mean merely that things are equal for each player, but that the rules do not show official favoritism for either a weaker position or a stronger one, especially in a crucial, game-deciding situation.  The ump and the rules have to be impartial.

 

Hang your 'beautiful aspects'.  We do not need a slanted ISF rule here:  we have our own better answer to this and many other problems in the Auto Draw.  That would be a FAIR and EQUABLE (no favoritism) rule.

 

  I support Auto Draw.  But it should be a last resort.  Games that otherwise could be decided in an exciting endgame by players maneuvering abilities, or an extra lowly piece earned earlier in the game, are much preferable to games that get stuck and end in draw, especially if it takes 200 pointless moves to get to that result.

 

Yes, I thoroughly agree on all points.  

 

The Prof

 


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

#48 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 06 March 2014 - 02:42 AM

My definition of multiple chasing was stated as follows in reply #41: "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."  Note that this includes double, triple, and any other kind of multiple chasing.  The way the chase is broken is by playing a move that does not threaten any piece that can indefinitely avoid capture.  Note also that threatening a piece that can be trapped by the two-squares rule is never considered chasing and is a perfectly legitimate type of pursuit.  The way a multiple chasing prohibition could be implement in the software is to use the same program designed by Hmmness, except that the AI cache would be cleared only when a player makes a move that does not reconstruct ANY semi-broken fullbind, as opposed to the current version that clears the cache for any move of any piece other than the one that has been chasing.

 

Regarding your edit:  The two-squares rule only allows one piece to capture any other if the fleeing piece was the first to make the side-to-side move.  Otherwise, the two-square rule prevents the threatening piece from making more than three side-to-side threatening moves.  It is possible for a player to have the two-squares advantage simultaneously in two places on the board, and in that case he could trap both pieces.  But ABSH did not have the two squares advantage will either his colonel or major and so Enigma could evade him indefinitely, so I don't understand how you could conclude that ABSH would win.

 

 Maybe this wasn't what you had in mind, but if the two squares rule were applied cumulatively so that after six total back-and-forths, three with one piece between two squares and three with another between two squares somewhere else, you were not allowed to make a 7th consecutive move with either of those two pieces between the same two-square sets, then it would have had the effect of stopping ABSH's double chase and allowed Enigma to capture the flag. 



#49 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 06 March 2014 - 05:24 AM

I voted on the original poll question to make our own rules for the site, because I think the ISF rules can be improved.  No doubt the wording of the current rules can be improved.  But there are also two additional cases where a game can get stuck for which ISF does not have an answer.  The first is one in which, in an attempt to prevent or forestall the loss of a trapped piece, a player begins to chase an opponent’s piece that cannot be captured.  For example, suppose my blue captain is trapped by the 2-square rule by a red major that is about to take it.  So then I threaten a red colonel which was on a diagonal with my blue general.  After three moves back and forth with the general, I then evade with the captain.  My opponent follows me with his major.  Those two go back and forth until I can’t move the captain anymore.  Then I threaten the colonel again for three more moves.  After that, I move the captain again.  This loop can go on indefinitely unless my opponent decides to let the captain go free or to give up his colonel in exchange for the captain.  My captain was trapped fair-and-square by the two-squares rule yet I am denying my opponent its capture by chasing a piece that is not trapped, and the game is in a state of no progress.  So I think there should be a rule that resolves a stalemated situation like this in favor of the player who had trapped the opponent’s piece.  Thus, my blue general should not be allowed to continue threatening after evading with the captain and red’s major should be entitled to capture it without having to give up his colonel.    To program this rule we just use Hmmness’ system but don’t reset the chasing count on a player’s piece until a non-evasive move is made with another piece.  What do you think?

 

The second loophole in the ISF rules, and this I see as a smaller issue than the one discussed above, is that it’s possible for a player to effectively chase without it falling under the definition of threatening.  For example, a player has two colonels, one on each side of the board near the lakes.  The opponent has a major on a diagonal with one of the colonels on the left side, and the other major is a knight’s move away from the colonel on the right side.  This major cannot afford to let the colonel line up with it because it will be trapped by the two-squares rule (suppose there are bombs or other pieces blocking a retreat).  The colonels can then conduct the equivalent of a double chase, even though one of the colonels is not technically threatening the major, so even with ISF prohibitions, this would not qualify as double chasing.  This problem is solved if moving a piece in line with another so that has to evade or otherwise be trapped is included in the definition of threatening.  So I propose broadening the definition of threatening to include when a player moves a piece such that the opponent’s piece will be trapped by the 2-squares rule if it doesn’t move on its next turn. 


  • Midnightguy likes this

#50 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

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

Posted 06 March 2014 - 07:17 AM

Wrong Prof. A full bind hold does not have to become enforced just because it started. the captain has an out, and the 2 on the colonel is that legit out. He does not have to sacrifice his captain. He can shake out of it, just as you say.

A piece that is backed into a full bind is not rightly dead just because you say so.

bomb at a1,

bomb at d1.

captain at b1

open square at c1 for blue.

major of red at a2 moves to b2.  captain starts his back and forth and moves first. threatening major OF RED ALWAYS follows and moves second.

Blue always next to move, threatens a diagnol colonel. MOVES FIRST.RED ALWAYS follows and moves second.

 

cycle continues with captain evade. The rules should not have to end this result, both players have earned their right to hold the opponent's piece in a non-escapable yet uncaptureable position,

HOWEVER to avoid the draw which could result here, RED has to break the stallmate if he wants to see the game progress to some further outcome than this obvious stalemate. Its the same weakness save as in Chess.

 

Of course on blue's turn before the a2-b2 move of the RED major, Blue should of known to move the captain to c1 before he got trapped, then the diagnol positions would of established a normal anti-chasing rule prohibited situation.

 

A reverse rule of 3's from one opponent to the other is the same as your example. Both players know that each piece is uncaptureable.

 

However I would feel much better the be the person who has the major because as soon as Blue wants to use his 2 to further the flag capture or piece capture process, he is going to have to lose his grip on the 3, and say goodbye to the captain. That is when he finally will be rewarded for his full bind



#51 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 06 March 2014 - 03:52 PM

The rules should not have to end this result, both players have earned their right to hold the opponent's piece in a non-escapable yet uncaptureable position

 

This is right!  Thank you maribo.  But you confuse me because I thought you were after having the rules eliminate the double chase?   (I think your words were "stop quibbling about it and program it away." ???)

 

The Prof, you're always very observant.  You have two cases the ISF has missed an answer for.  I'm thinking that's all the more reason we do not want to tie ourselves to them, rule-wise.  Do you agree?

 

Both examples are interesting.  But let me be clear at the outset.  I don't think we need the rules against double chasing in the first place, though I may be in the minority here. That said, I think that in your first proposition you will find many in favor to incorporate into whatever (if any) double chasing rule that we adopt at the site. Myself, however, I would of course be against it.  The stronger piece already has the 2 square working for him so that he does not need the requisite 2nd piece to make the kill.  As the victim of this rule the only defense I might have is to attack another of your pieces in exchange.  I don't think this should be limited.  An attacker should be forced to get the 2 square cleanly to take advantage of that rule, at the least.

 

As for your more exotic 2nd proposal, it seems to me that if we expand double chasing to new example of double threatening, we're going to be moving to a point where a stronger piece can only block the lanes, and little else.  

 

If you are looking to have rules that resolve games, then I submit to you that by expanding the notion of double chasing's jurisdiction you are further decreasing the stronger pieces' ability to do just that, resolve the game.  You can say you want to "equalize" the impact of the smaller pieces with your proposed expansion, but this change seems to me to simply be both showing even more favoritism toward those weaker pieces ...and against the stronger ones...and also possibly extending the game.  

 

If we're going to have this thing called double chasing enforced here, then let's leave it at it's previously limited definition, and also include your exception of "only 2 movable pieces" so that the Flag can be defended to a draw.  Then let's add the auto draw to make sure the draw happens.

 

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

#52 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 06 March 2014 - 10:14 PM

My definition of multiple chasing was stated as follows in reply #41: "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."  Note that this includes double, triple, and any other kind of multiple chasing.  The way the chase is broken is by playing a move that does not threaten any piece that can indefinitely avoid capture.  Note also that threatening a piece that can be trapped by the two-squares rule is never considered chasing and is a perfectly legitimate type of pursuit.  The way a multiple chasing prohibition could be implement in the software is to use the same program designed by Hmmness, except that the AI cache would be cleared only when a player makes a move that does not reconstruct ANY semi-broken fullbind, as opposed to the current version that clears the cache for any move of any piece other than the one that has been chasing.

 

Regarding your edit:  The two-squares rule only allows one piece to capture any other if the fleeing piece was the first to make the side-to-side move.  Otherwise, the two-square rule prevents the threatening piece from making more than three side-to-side threatening moves.  It is possible for a player to have the two-squares advantage simultaneously in two places on the board, and in that case he could trap both pieces.  But ABSH did not have the two squares advantage will either his colonel or major and so Enigma could evade him indefinitely, so I don't understand how you could conclude that ABSH would win.

 

 Maybe this wasn't what you had in mind, but if the two squares rule were applied cumulatively so that after six total back-and-forths, three with one piece between two squares and three with another between two squares somewhere else, you were not allowed to make a 7th consecutive move with either of those two pieces between the same two-square sets, then it would have had the effect of stopping ABSH's double chase and allowed Enigma to capture the flag. 

 

The Prof, I like your definition but I would add a few things into it:  

  1. The specific number of turns that constitute the offense.  This number I chose is the same as the HmmNess 10, and since it is divided by two pieces it means only 5 moves by the attacker for each half of the chase. 
  2. The notion of two or more pieces be added to satisfy the definition of "multiple" better.  If you are wanting to escape from the "continuous" equivocation, then it needs to be clearer on this point. Also,
  3. I would like the definition tweaked so that it excludes incidental pieces next to the pathways of attack.  The piece the rule should only apply to the specific pieces continually chased. For example, if I am chasing your Captain with my Major here and your Colonel with my General there, and this is the double chase the rule wants to break, then don't prevent me from nabbing the Lieutenant that your Captain moves toward as my consolation prize.   (I hope that made sense.)  Finally...
  4. Give me my Bill of Rights entry on defending the flag separately after your definition.

 

The final iteration I would suggest is:

 

"Multiple chasing occurs when a player's every move in a consecutive sequence of 10 turns, using two or more of his pieces to attack, threatens some the same opposing pieces that can indefinitely avoid capture by the piece that is threatening it. This rule shall not apply when the attacker has only two movable pieces left, so that he may defend his flag unhindered by this rule."

 

Now, having contributed thusly, I agree with your next point that ABSH could not have won without the 2 square advantage. I would only point out that in this discussion of the double chasing, the 2 Square rule can still be broken by alternate movements and that this can and will remain the same, even though we might adjust the HmmNess rule.  

 

Ergo, if we are so terribly determined to eliminate double chasing here, it might make a more comprehensive repair of the issue to adjust the 2 Square rule at the same time, to prevent its break in the AI cache due to alternating piece movements, although I truly don't feel this should be necessary, and there may indeed be reasons why we would not want to that I can't think of now.

 

To restate my own feelings on this subject from a previous post, I really don't think we need to have a rule against double chasing at all.  But if people feel differently, I'll be okay with it as long as the flag defending issue is included.  

 

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

#53 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

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

Posted 07 March 2014 - 06:13 AM

I still want the rule. The game rules do not consider this a double chase because the software ends the chasing before the 4th return move of the same piece occurs. However as gravon does it, the software know that when both opponents are doing this to each other, it will allow it because it is programmed that way. It should be allowed because each player is not at a further disadvantage if they both agree to end this draw, yet if they both decide to continue this madness, then they are both deciding to continue the game into infinity.

In fact at stratego.com there is no limit to game time, nor piece moves, this game would never end if both players move within 15 seconds.

 

But by not enforcing a double chase ban, you are handing the player with combined piece advantage between the 4 pieces, a free capture. This capture the result of being erroneusly allowed to chase a diagnoled piece.

 

Actually in a way I agree with you, that, because of the current software at stratego.com, does not ban this move, than a player who positions his 2 miners at a diagnol to 2 opponents remaining pieces at varying positions on the board is allowing his opponent to send him into being double chased, so the decision to continue being double chased sends the game into an overtime status and nears the game toward a draw.

So who has to go to work next, loses the game.



#54 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

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

Posted 07 March 2014 - 06:24 AM

That prof example of being a "knight's position away" has nothing to do with anything. Because the attacker should be allowed to maintain that position. An example of this is when the attacker does not want to let any miners slip past him or other middle pieces, he does not want to go down as low as row 2 (or even row 3 sometimes)

 

double chasing has nothing to do with endlessly threatening a piece, it has to do with never being able to capture a diagnolly placed piece singularly and expanding that diagnol placement across as many 4 square open areas exist on a board. End of story.

The game rules always go to the escapee, as in our 2/3 4/5 example,but the only rule that we are discussing is not being able to move more than 3 times back and forth.

 

A full bind "hole" can be escaped from when one of the column pieces leading into that cavity are of higher or equal value,

This happens a lot when someone who after swapping both 1's and 2's thinks he has trapped a major in between 2 bombs but he is still 1 full square away from approaching the front of that buried major. Walla, the colonel is there in that cavity to swap.



#55 maribo

maribo

    Sergeant

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

Posted 07 March 2014 - 06:38 AM

Gary, it is not an arguement to say that games are extended by creating a double chase ban. A game's outcome win lose or draw is still an ending. Draws Are endings. You may learn this as you get better at stratego, that as your skill level goes up, and you play so many games against the same people, you will handshake more often and end the game via a draw sooner. , you will have a beer over it.

 

The enforcement of a double chase rule does not always hurt the attacker. Are you forgetting that while the player who is playing cutesy with his miners, has no pieces to defend his flag?

 

You are saying "I have 2 strong pieces left" I should be able to trap all of his remaining pieces. Yet if you analyze the situation, just before you got freaky over losing your flag, you probably missed some opportuniites to go deep into his setup and lotto, a miner or a lute or something. You may have a clonel and a major left and had a captain, but this opponent was able to swap captains, and now you only have 2 strong pieces left. You messed up and it might end in a draw because of this. But it may also end in a loss to you because of that 2-miner thing. Its your fault for being up in power but down in pieces. Lose or draw, learn fromit



#56 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 07 March 2014 - 07:28 AM

Thank you maribo and Gary for taking the time to understand my proposals and comment on them.

 

Thanks also to Gary for the suggestions on improving the definition of multiple chasing.  Since on each move only one piece is being threatened, I don’t think it should say on every turn the “same opposing pieces” are threatened.  To address the point about incidental pieces in the pathways of attack, the 10 move limit gives ample opportunity to make any legitimate captures of other pieces that are in the line of attack of those pieces being chased.  So here’s the latest draft of the definition, with the red part at the end being still up for debate. 

 

A player conducts a multiple chase when he/she uses two or more pieces in such a way that on every move in a consecutive sequence of turns one of these pieces threatens an opposing piece that can indefinitely avoid capture by the piece that is threatening it.  It is not allowed for a player to conduct a multiple chase for more than 10 consecutive turns, unless the chaser has only two remaining moveable pieces.   

 

Now, suppose we adopt the last part for which Gary has been such as strong advocate, then to me it seems like we would not be consistent if we do not also allow one high piece to chase a miner if that is the only option to defend the flag.  Don’t misunderstand, my view is that the best and most straightforward option is just not to allow either single or multiple chasing and have no exceptions. But It seems weird to me that we would allow double chasing to defend the flag but not single chasing.  To me the situations are very similar.   Let me summarize how the endgame plays out in various situations, assuming bombed in flags and neither player makes mistakes.  Note that all of these scenarios work exactly the same way if you replace the sergeants with any higher piece.

 

1 vs. 1 or 2 vs. 1 Endgames (With chasing not allowed – this currently is the case)

  • Miner and Scout vs. Sergeant (Miner wins)
  • Miner vs. Sergeant (Miner wins 50% of time, otherwise it’s a draw)
  • Miner vs. Sergeant  and Scout (It’s a Draw)

 

2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 2 Endgames (With multiple chasing not allowed)

  • Two Miners and Scout vs. Two Sergeants (Miners win)
  • Two Miners vs. Two Sergeants (Miners win 50% of time, otherwise it’s a draw)
  • Two Miners vs. Two Sergeants and Scout (It’s a Draw)
  • Miner (unknown) and 2 Scouts vs. Two Sergeants (Miners win 67% of time - if sergeants guess wrong, otherwise it’s a draw.  If one scout is known then miners win 50% of the time)
  • Miner (unknown) and Scout vs. Two Sergeants (Miner wins 25% of the time - Miner and scout first have a 50% chance to have the right spacing, then there’s a 50% chance the sergeants will guess the miner), it’s a draw 75% of the time)

Now let this be clear, if we allow chasing to defend the flag with two pieces, then all five of the 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 2 endgames will be forced to end in a draw!  There will be none of the intrigue, and none of the excitement.  Gary, please reconsider.  Think of all the interesting and exciting endgames that will never happen if all these different situations must end in a draw.

 

To everybody else, please vote on question #2.  If you already voted on #1 then to do so you have to click “Delete my Vote”.  Don’t worry, you will be able to vote again on question #1 as well, so your original vote won’t be lost!



#57 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 07 March 2014 - 06:36 PM

Thanks also to Gary for the suggestions on improving the definition of multiple chasing.  Since on each move only one piece is being threatened, I don’t think it should say on every turn the “same opposing pieces” are threatened.  To address the point about incidental pieces in the pathways of attack, the 10 move limit gives ample opportunity to make any legitimate captures of other pieces that are in the line of attack of those pieces being chased.  So here’s the latest draft of the definition, with the red part at the end being still up for debate. 

 

A player conducts a multiple chase when he/she uses two or more pieces in such a way that on every move in a consecutive sequence of turns one of these pieces threatens an opposing piece that can indefinitely avoid capture by the piece that is threatening it.  It is not allowed for a player to conduct a multiple chase for more than 10 consecutive turns, unless the chaser has only two remaining moveable pieces.   

 

The Prof, my concern about incidental captures still does seem addressed by your new definition.  One of the two chase situations could easily move next to another, third, piece that the attacker might wish to take, but who is also in a situation where he could never be captured by the attacking piece.  According to your latest version, moving next to this incidental piece (therefore now next to two of the defender's pieces) could be viewed by the programming as two separate chasing moves in one --as two pieces were attacked simultaneously-- and if the move counter was already at 9 chasing moves, then this particular move could not be made by the attacker, disallowing the attacker his "consolation prize".  This is why I stipulated "same opposing pieces".  

 

 

 

Now let this be clear, if we allow chasing to defend the flag with two pieces, then all five of the 2 vs. 2 or 3 vs. 2 endgames will be forced to end in a draw!  There will be none of the intrigue, and none of the excitement.  Gary, please reconsider.  Think of all the interesting and exciting endgames that will never happen if all these different situations must end in a draw.

 

The Prof, I'm sorry.  You can claim that expediency and game intrigue or excitement are buoyed by the ISF rules.  But these ideas should never trump the fact that a man has a right to defend his castle or his flag.  You make a good point about consistency, however, between the single- and double-chasing rules.  I, of course, would argue for the flag exception in your rule to be altered to "unless the chaser has only one or two remaining moveable pieces."  And also that a corresponding adjustment be put into the HmmNess single chasing rule as well.  Make both rules consistent this way.  

 

Would this make for less of the nuances you want.  I guess so, sure.  But would it make a difference between a silver player and a low bronze?  I don't think so.  There'd still be a huge skill difference in other areas.  The players in the field...the men in the arena...these are the people that should decide that game, not any rules that favor one side or the other, or allow for "intrigue" so that TV commentators have something to talk about.  

 

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

#58 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 07 March 2014 - 07:49 PM

The Prof, this is delving deeper in the issue perhaps, but I've always wondered why we limit the 2 square by the full-bind/diagonal positioning and we do not do this with the HmmNess rule.  Also, why is it that we are trying to expand the HmmNess chase to encompass double chasing while the vaunted 2 square rule does allow for alternate attacking, as well as merely changing the "leg" of one's attack (using a single attacking piece) to break the 2 square injunction?   It seems to me that in the name of consistency, we would want these rules the same in all regards. 

 

While we're on the subject of consistency, is there any reason why you could see that HmmNess would not work if we applied the full-bind/diagonal positioning to that rule?  It doesn't seem to me that just because the chase can range over many squares that that would, or should, affect it. It would certainly be simpler for everyone to know the rules were very similar in application between the two big chasing regs.  Also, it would perhaps open up a lot more 'aspects' you talk about.    

 

What say ye, The Prof?

 

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

#59 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,131 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Lieutenant

Posted 07 March 2014 - 09:23 PM

Gary, it is not an arguement to say that games are extended by creating a double chase ban. A game's outcome win lose or draw is still an ending. Draws Are endings. You may learn this as you get better at stratego, that as your skill level goes up, and you play so many games against the same people, you will handshake more often and end the game via a draw sooner. , you will have a beer over it.

 

maribo, I never argued that "creating a double chase ban" would extend a game.  If anything, a ban on double chasing would, in the name of expediency, decide the game quicker.  So it's the other side's argument.  Check The Prof's quiver.

 

I do have a strong interest in seeing less rules interference than others.  I'll admit that much for certain.  In baseball we hear the TV commentators talking about "the 'chess match' between managers going on right now."  The drama of it all is so much for me at times I just can't handle it!  A left-handed batter comes up.  They take out the righty and put a left hander on the mound.  They throw one pitch, go get another lefty pitcher, throw another pitch, and go for yet another final lefty for the third strike pitch...I seriously saw this once.  It is so ridiculous.  Let the players in the field play the game!  Similarly here, let the players play.  We do need rules.  We possibly need more.  But we don't need to keep layering rule upon rule upon rule on the game.  The rules of Stratego ought to be easy and graspable by all.

 

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

#60 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,427 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 07 March 2014 - 10:34 PM

The Prof, my concern about incidental captures still does seem addressed by your new definition.  One of the two chase situations could easily move next to another, third, piece that the attacker might wish to take, but who is also in a situation where he could never be captured by the attacking piece.  According to your latest version, moving next to this incidental piece (therefore now next to two of the defender's pieces) could be viewed by the programming as two separate chasing moves in one --as two pieces were attacked simultaneously-- and if the move counter was already at 9 chasing moves, then this particular move could not be made by the attacker, disallowing the attacker his "consolation prize".  This is why I stipulated "same opposing pieces".  

 

 

First, the program would be written so that one move could never count as more than one chasing move, no matter how many pieces were in proximity to the chaser.  Next, if the incidental piece does not happen to be adjacent to the chased piece, for example the chaser is on the diagonal with both pieces and moves directly in between them, then if the chased piece evades and the chaser attacks the incidental piece it would break the chase and thus always be a valid move.  But if the incidental piece is adjacent to the chased piece then capturing the incidental piece also threatens the chased piece and so would not break the chase.  This becomes a problem if the chaser wastes most of his 10 turns making pointless chasing moves before turning his attention to the incidental piece, and the capture of the incidental piece would then be the 11th chasing move.  Now, one can go from one end of the board to the other in 9 moves, so if a chaser’s goal is to use a chase as a means to capture the incidental piece then there should be more than enough turns to do that, provided he makes it a priority and does not engage in a pointless chase somewhere else on the board immediately prior to commencing his plan to take the incidental piece.

 

One could concoct a scenario of a chain reaction chase in which a chase of 6 moves leads a chasing piece near some other piece, which he then begins to chase for 4 more moves until he is next to a third piece which he is unfairly blocked from capturing because it would be his 11th consecutive chase move.  I’m not sure if this is already blocked by HmmNess rule of not, since although there is only one chaser, there were two chasees.  In any event, to alleviate the potential that this could occur we could either increase the chasing threshold from 10 to say 15, so that such a situation is very unlikely, or we design the system so that a multiple chase is broken if any of the chasing pieces makes a move that does not threaten one of the original evading pieces.

 

To do this we could add the italics portion to the definition:  A player conducts a multiple chase when he/she uses two or more pieces in such a way that on every move in a consecutive sequence of turns one of these pieces threatens an opposing piece that can indefinitely avoid capture by the piece that is threatening it.  It is not allowed for a player to conduct a multiple chase for more than 10 consecutive turns that involves the same number of threatening and evading pieces, unless the chaser has only one or two remaining moveable pieces. 

 

This way, if piece X is chasing piece A, and Y is chasing B but then Y leaves B alone and starts to go after piece C instead, then the chasing moves Y made against B are no longer counted and the counter will only add those made against C and A.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users