72 replies to this topic

[GaryLShelton]

Oh Gary, you've never spoken to me on the tables, can you play more than write it would be beneficial.
2 miners against 2 pieces is an advantage to the miners dude and should result in a win for the miners dude

Maribo, what tables are you talking of?

The miners only have the advantage over two stronger pieces due to the anti chasing rules we have. Generally, I'm no longer arguing against those, though they in no way mimic real life. That I will always say. A guy running for his life will run, not stick and die. But notice I did not say it with vehemence. We have a game and it is what it is. My line in the sand has been pushed backward on these basic issues all the way to the cliff's edge on the issue of defending the flag. That exception I still fight for. Your two miners should not share in my general agreement on the double chasing.

Gary

[maribo]

Well Napoleon, I will try to make you feel taller when I say that if you start with a high limit, based on studying game times and piece counts you will be able to deterimine how long the LONG GAMES are, and then divide that time, by the number of moves of the game.

 

For example, and an example only. From my days at other sites when playing NON TIMER games, I know that total move count between two players in a 75 minute game is at least 450 up towards 600 moves. So taking this 600 move game, and discounting the time it takes to even play fast games <100, I would hand you a 500 move game in 75 minutes of time which meanss that we could start high and say if 500 moves is not having an effect than lets drop it another 100. If 400 is ineffective then drop it to 300. Again this is an example, but I would say that an average game is probably in the 300 move count, so 500 for a long game minus 300 for an average game yields us with 200.

 

AGAIN HOWEVER THE MOVE COUNT IS A COUNT OF CONSECUTIVE MOVES WHERE NEITHER SIDE ATTACKS OR SWAPS OR LOSES OR CAPTURES A PIECE. So show me proof that any normal LONG game has every had an instance of 200 consecutive moves of such nature? It has never happened in the first 75 minutes of any game, never ever ever ever ever.

 

200 it is

[GaryLShelton]

I'd be okay with the proposition forwarded that says both participants could extend the auto draw from kicking in. They would both have to agree, and if they didn't the game would auto-end at the 201st move. This extension should only be for merely another 200 moves and not forever.

Moreover, it also should not be available to choose to have auto draw at the outset of a game, as a general preference, but rather it should only be an option when the move counter reaches its final 10 moves and begins to flash red, and both players would then have to agree to temporarily ignore the auto draw or it would still kick in at the appointed time.

To me, it would also be okay if the auto draw rule did not start for 100 moves (50 per player), as it would never do anything prior to this time anyway. After this time the clock would appear, not too large or garish, and in an out of the way location on the screen. I would be okay with it counting upward or downward, but the latter downward idea of maribo's seems preferable to me.

Another nice thing would be if the timer turned red and grew a bit in size when only 50 moves are left (get just a little bigger... kind of like the avatars do currently to indicate whose turn it is), plus I would make the timer flash red in the final 10 moves. (I'd be okay with another warning at an earlier point as well, but we certainly wouldn't need any more than that.)

Further, passing this rule in concert with the double chase prohibition--as they would be a good one-two punch against needlessly long games--would be good. This would address a prime concern of someone being able to double chase to a draw.

Lastly, although the situation Napoleon 1er brings up about wanting a faster enactment of the draw in certain situations would not be aided by the current auto draw, I believe we should pass this simple auto draw first, and then later talk about more sophisticated tweakings of the rule. Players in no way would ever be forced to wait 200 moves if they both agreed to end the game sooner.



Gary

[Napoleon 1er]

Hi Maribo,

 

Yes the move countdown is only for x consecutive moves without any capture/swaps/losses. That's why 200 is to high in case the game is a clear draw (= none of the player can either capture the flag or all movable pièces of his opponent, see example 2 above), in such case the number of moves (respectively the time limit) shall be much less or even zero. While in games where at least one of the players has possibility to win, a serial of consecutive moves without capture/swaps/losses could be seen as a simple/multiple chasing in particular if only one of the player can win and the other can definitely not get a victory anymore, in such a game an appropriate move/time count until draw will pop up is ok, while in a game where both players still have the possibility to win then the autodraw is nonsense as as you said either at least one player will attack within less than 200 moves or both players agree not to attack. ... morality: the autodraw shall be "case sensitive" and an appropriate limit shall be set for each case.

 

Napoleon 1er

[GaryLShelton]

Napoleon 1er, I'm not, necessarily, against a more fine-tuned rule with the auto draw. Certainly there are times when the game is effectively a draw sooner than the a.d. would catch. I merely point out that your ideas require more complexity in the rule and that this will take time to hash out.

Another thing. Certainly the draw counter will be reset after every capture. I guess I do not agree that this extends the game. As long as pieces are being captured the game is simply being played, to my way of thinking. As I said above, if both players agree to a draw earlier than the 200 moves, then they can still call a draw sooner.

My point is, that to ascertain precisely all the nuances, and construct a rule to address them all, puts off the basic protection of the rule as it currently is worded. We can and should see how this version works in real time, and make needed adjustments, but it would be good to get on with it.

Gary

[The Prof]

Napoleon 1er, whatever the merits of your idea, I just think it unrealistic to assume that a programmer can write code that will be able to properly identify when the game enters one of the various cases you laid out.  Determining whether a game is an obvious draw or not is much easier for a human than a computer.  Think of all the different combinations of pieces and locations of these pieces that make a game a draw versus a game in which one or both players have a possibility of winning.  I just don’t think it’s feasible to try to program this.  Also, when we say it is not possible for a player to win, we usually mean it is not possible unless his opponent makes an obvious mistake, like hitting a bomb or forgetting where his opponent’s highest piece is, so now you would need the computer program to judge which types of mistakes a player won’t make.  I agree with Gary that we need to keep this as simple as possible in order first to have a chance of implementing it, and then to have it work as intended when it is implemented.  

[Napoleon 1er]

... Yes The Prof ... I had a hope that some expert math guy would find some nice stratego modelling for us ... maybe you have an idea who it could be?  ... some kind of expert in statistics and probabilities  ... Some people made it possible for chess to be programmed and become even stronger than human beeing, why not for stratego?

... I would say that at least Case D) should be easy to identify and program and having already that in the program would already avoide to wait 2x100 moves in my example 2 above.

 

Napoleon 1er

[Roondy Moose]

Because chess has theoretical 'best moves' and 'perfect play.'

It seems to me, to develop a great stratego AI, it would be necessary to give the machine some element of sentience.

Or, just create it as a pure lotto machine and don't even try to have it emulate strong human play. If you play it to its strengths of perfect memorization of everything moved and revealed, and probabilities it would do alright with a marshal lotto from the onset. Tell it to send some scouts down and follow up with a marshal. That would at least be more difficult to play against than Probe, I think.

[maribo]

I don't want game details functioned into the auto-draw or double chasing(double escaping) rules.

I want the auto draw to prevent a game from going more than 30 minutes beyond its obvious draw ending. This threat will put the responsibility on the immature player to keep being immature thru the whole 200. It will help in its goal of stopping "cry wolf" posts to the admins, and prevent a player from losing a known draw.

 

If a player sits down at the board he should have expectations of sitting there for at least 2 hours, else he should not start a game (gravon rule). Gravon has timers to help the ones who rush to work or go to bed early or have an appointment. We will not have a timer. Gravon expects you to sit down for a certain while at a non-timed game. At gravon if a player drags the game on the admins yell at him in live mode and continued warnings of such lead to 2 week suspension of ranked games (not point reductions).

 

Forget about gravon and just know that the obvious draw will happen, and you can't program into the software the abilitiy to look at the remaining pieces etc to enforce the draw sooner. LIve with the 2 hour  games and as Shelton says we have solved a crisis.

 

Double chasing is another matter and I disagree with double chasing exceptions. ISF has none. If you let the Silver players post to this page you will see a majority of them agrees that someone regardless of piece count or what not cannot double chase. However as long as you have one move every 6 turns that starts the counter back to zero, feel free and that is allowed. Gary disagrees but you cant program the exceptions. It is time for Ash to weigh in on the double chase rule before we do the autodraw voting

[GaryLShelton]

Maribo, it is entirely possible to program the one simple exception of staying the double chase when one player is down to two pieces. You, of course, know that.

Regardless of whether the majority of silvers here would agree with you on the flag exception issue, we ought to do it and see how it fares. This site is a fabulous woman of no easy virtue. Don't argue for her to slip into bed with ISF just yet. Let's keep our sovereignty and try out the flag exception. Give it six months to see how it looks to everybody (since, after all, how many times will it come into play?) and then make a decision to keep it or join the ISF.

I do not know if most of the silvers would agree with you--they might. But if they've been playing on the site awhile, maybe they like the freedom of our somewhat lawless environment. I don't know. But let's don't jump servilely into the deep end of the ISF waters. There's plenty of good swimming in the 4 to 6 foot depth.

The bottom line is it's a huge pool and there's plenty of water away from the ISF.

Gary

[maribo]

When you become silver you will long for that day where the opponent is laughing at you because you bombed your  2 in the opening 10 minutes but was able to swap out all remaining pieces and lotto some lowlifes. You sit with 11 pieces and the opponent is hanging onto his last miner but cannot defend 3 flanks . You would love it when your "major" slips through and turns into a miner all of a sudden, but he has one last defense and starts the double chase, but you've earned your right to victory. Its not ISF it is common sense to expect not to be double chased in all situations. it is not about piece count. It is about using deception, willpower, a little luck, and creatitivtiy to outsmart outwit and outlast your opponent. Capture the flag it says on the box. Not "Sit and Spin"

 

Jeff

[GaryLShelton]

It's a good joust, maribo. Your lance is the sleek, black taper of rules consistency. Mine, the flaming red spear of passion. You argue for a logical sameness in all circumstances. I push for an exception for flag defense. You preach the big league of the ISF, and I, the independence of our own league.

Yet, we are on the same team here. I have given my view on the auto draw and double chase rules, to which we are mostly in accord (a situation I think you would agree is fairly momentous), and it is merely on this one item we differ.

I will only say this last thing. If we are ever so fortunate as to actually see the day where we get the auto draw and double chase programmed into existence, the programmers will, needs be, back at their posts. Therefore, making small tweaks and changes should be easy. If we start with my proposition, which is less severe than yours, then it won't be any huge undertaking to make it stricter if we later so choose. However, if we begin the rule already exception-free and strict, it will be far harder to take that strictness out, I think. So begin with my idea on the flag defense and see where that takes us first.

People have heard both sides. Let the chips fall.

Gary

[Napoleon 1er]

Hi Jeff and Gary,

I like the story of the fabulous woman with no easy virtue. Again there is another forum with topic the "rules of the game" in which I posted my opinion about ISF rules. I rewrite it here because it seems not everybody got the same information:

ISF (International Stratego Federation)  rules are intended to define the rules for offline face to face stratego tournaments performed on "real" stratego boards. The objective of these rules is to define a kind of world stratego ranking. They are based on the fact that during face to face tournaments the best stratego players can confront themselves and one or several referrees are there to verify 1) the identity of the player, 2) that the ISF rules are respected in full and 3) in case of obvious draw to decide what is the correct outcome of  a game.

Stratego.com rules are different because the objective is different. The ELO ranking of stratego.com is not intended to define  who are the best stratego players on earth but is intended to make the promotion of stratego worldwide and allow any player to test their abilities and improve them. Online it is impossible to have referreees to verify the identity of an account (behind an account name there can be several players who knows?), online it is impossible to verify that players respect the rules in full (see the forum on notes taking for example) and online it is impossible to confirm if a situation is a clear draw or not (unless some nice guy with statistics/probability competency would do it for us, The Prof if you have an idea...). So because the objectives are different the rules offline vs online must be different.

 

I hope anybody who would read this post would understand it

 

Napoleon 1er

[The Prof]

It’s obviously true that certain rules from live events will not apply to online games, like what happens if you see a few of your opponent’s pieces after accidently knocking them over.  Also there is the use of game clocks in live events, since at the WCs players must play five rounds per day starting at specified times.  Napoleon has pointed out other necessary differences as well, and I do see the need for an auto-draw in online games since there are no referees.  However, in spite of all the differences between online and live games, there is no inherent reason why the basic rules of moving and attacking with one’s pieces should be different.  I believe it is to the benefit of our site that these rules should be made as true as possible to the game as played live.

[GaryLShelton]

I have a question. In live tournaments how do they keep it straight who has the 2 square advantage or, if you prefer, who has diagonal positioning? Do they have video to prove the issue? I would like to know what is to keep a fellow from claiming he was in the diagonal, when he actually wasn't? Is it just an honor system? If so, do players not make honest mistakes sometimes? How is this refereed?

Gary

[Napoleon 1er]

... that's a good question ... also what would be the reaction in an ISF tournament if a player is claiming that his opponent has moved a bomb  earlier in the game but such opponent denies it, who would be benefitting from the doubt?

 

Napoleon 1er

[Napoleon 1er]

... strangely this nice discussion about autodraw stopped a week ago after Gary and I made some questions (that we believe to be interesting questions...?) to ISF tournament players ... anybody would be so nice to provide some answers?

 

Napoleon 1er

[Roondy Moose]

No one's answering because there are very few of us active posters who have ever played a tournament game.

I haven't, but it seems to me, ideally, there should be an arbiter for each game. Also if you knock over your opponent's pieces, you should automatically forfeit the game. In all my times playing over the board, I've never knocked over my opponent's pieces or even touched them.

[LightingStorm]

HI i think that the game should contain autodraw because there are many players with abusive behaviour!!

[farzad777]

Hi everyone I think it should be a number of moves like 100 without any pieces captured we have such rule in chess .