Jump to content


Photo

Automatic Draw - Part 2


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

Poll: Automatic Draw - Part 2 (13 member(s) have cast votes)

How many moves do you believe should be played by each player before a Draw is Declared?

  1. 50 (1 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

  2. 100 (5 votes [38.46%])

    Percentage of vote: 38.46%

  3. 200 (3 votes [23.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.08%

  4. 400 (3 votes [23.08%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.08%

  5. Other - Explain in your post. (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

  6. None - There should be no Draws unless if both players are in an agreement (1 votes [7.69%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.69%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 28 March 2013 - 11:36 PM

I'm making this my goal here to make certain this site will create some sort of automatic draw system where if both sides can't make any progress to end a game, whether or both sides refuse to draw, it will be a draw. 

This is a clear example of a drawn game I was in last night, yet my opponent refused to accept my draw offer and we played for another hour before I gave up (game was a hour and 1/2 and 1580 moves made)  Here is screen shot of the game on this post: 

 

http://forum.strateg...-better-person/

 

 

A month or so ago Hmmmness started this topic about the need for an automatic draw system and people can read what progress was made back then.  We need the new forum admins/programmers to look closely at this and see if we can't continue the progress piece what we can that makes sense.

 

http://forum.strateg...ic-draw-system/

 

 

After reading back on past posts and rethinking of what needs to be done I offer some of my ideas.  Some reasons to force a draw are easier than others and some shouldn't be a draw.

 

 

1) Both sides have a sealed Flag by bombs, and both sides have no Miners left. 

 

Easiest example to know this game is a draw.

 

Example:  Player A has X piece and Player X piece.  Player B is on one side of "no mans land" Player A theirs on the other side.  This game will go on forever!  This is the clearest example!

 

2) Both sides have no way to get at one another Flag

 

Classic reason here where we are in an end game situation and yet both sides can't or won't make progress to capture the flag. 

 

Examples:  Player A has corner flag but bomb in front was opened by a miner earlier in the game and they have only a Colonel left.  Player B has Major and Sergeant left and both pieces are near Players A Flag area.  Clearly Player A can't leave their Flag area because it's exposed to attack by two pieces, yet Player B can't win because they don't have the material to get past the Colonel. 


3) One side has Miner but, is trapped or unable to make progress to bombed Flag area..

 

Questions about what if one side has a Miner, and some believe draw game counter should not start.

 

Example:  Player A has a Captain, Sergeant, and a Miner and sealed Flag.  Player B has has a Major, Sergeant and a Scout and also has sealed Flag.  Player A has a Miner in their right zone and is blocked by Player B Major.  Clearly no progress will be made and player B will not care if anything happens to his other pieces because they have no baring in the game.  Game may end up Major vs Captain at the end as in example 1. 

 

4) One side has higher material but, has no clue how to get to Flag. 

 

One side has to guess what is a bomb or not to win the game. 

 

Example: Player A has only a Marshall left with a sealed Flag and player B has a Flag surrounded by two bombs and one Sergeant (that has not moved) and has a moving Captain and another Sergeant.  Player A has only a 1/3 chance of winning the game if they pick the right side to attack, and yet can't trap either of the two other pieces.  This yet another example of "Won't win the game" yet, Player B refuses the draw and demands player A to gamble on what area to attack. 

 

5) One player chases another but, makes no effort to make progress.

 

One side is down in material early in the game, and relies on chasing to frustrate the other player or hope they give up and lose a piece to a bomb. 

 

Example:  Player A has a General, Colonel, two Majors and a few smaller pieces vs Player B has General, Colonel, Major, and few smaller pieces.  Player A just Player B's Major in the corner of the board in their zone.  Player B decides to hold up game by chasing Player A Colonel with their General and refuses to let up until  Player A either attacks an unknown piece or gives up.  This example is NOT a draw, and I'll leave it up to the people who are avid people to stop chasing to come up with a solution. 

 

These are a handful of examples I have come up with.  Now what do we do about it?

 

Limit the number of moves.

 

There were suggestions of 50 moves by each side and the game would be a draw.  I'm thinking at least 100 moves per player now to force a draw since, this is a fast moving game.  If others want 200, I'll go with that too just so no one will have to play forever and wait to see who gives up first. 

 

How many pieces should be remaining to start the counter?

 

This is a tough question.  I would like to recommend if one side is down to 3.  Why 3?  Three pieces would be needed to guard a totally exposed Flag from Scout attacks.  If no attacks has been made in X moves, then the game should be declared a draw.  If one side has a vast lead in pieces, then they should have no problem in winning the game in X number of moves and take out the final 3 pieces of the other player.   If however one player has a Marshall, General and Colonel and other player has 12 pieces under a Colonel, they don't have any way to win and should accept a draw.  Player A can just park their top pieces around their Flag if the other player has too many Miners left.

 

Does a Drawn Warning Box appear?

 

 

At first I was against this idea, but then I began to rethink my opposition.  We have no counters to show us how many moves we have made, so it would be difficult to know when it started or how many moves have been made once the counter starter.  We also have a number of new players on our site, and they have no idea what might go on.  Finally,. I used example of opposition at first where Chess Players don't tell each other a draw is coming.  However, we don't take notations and keep track of moves, so this is far different example.

 

I have included with this post a poll for your opinion how many moves or it should take for an automatic draw should take place. 

 

Let's get this done and not have other players to lose games they were a clear draw and have hurt feelings or anger towards the other player who landed up winning the game.  This is my post here, let's hear what others have to say.



#2 M-D

M-D

    Game Developer

  • Administrators
  • 124 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Miner

Posted 29 March 2013 - 09:02 AM

Hi MidnightGuy,

 

We're already discussing this issue in another topic.

Although that topic is also about people chasing each other, you can already see in the poll that not a lot of people seem to like the idea of a forced draw.

 

Still, maybe your post explains the situations for which a forced-draw makes more sense so I'll leave this topic open.


  • Midnightguy likes this

#3 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 29 March 2013 - 03:24 PM

I voted for 50, but am thinking of 75..

But I can already see me facing those fools who use 50-75 x 15 secs, just to annoy me..

 

Some great examples where a forced draw should apply.. The sad part is, that people are to ingorant to accept a draw in the first place. Especially when they ain't got an idea neither and just moving without any thoughts


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#4 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 29 March 2013 - 11:53 PM

M-D thanks for allowing this post to come up because I spend over an hour writing that post and coming up with examples of why an automatic draw system is needed.  I do understand that you brought up automatic draw as secondary point to the bigger issue of chasing, but little was really talked about it and the last time a serious talk about it was two months ago. 

 

Hmmess was in full agreement with me that something needed to be done, but how we go at that was the issue at hand.  If you'll notice of this poll, I did include a "No draws unless if both sides are in an agreement" as part of my question.  I agree that chasing does go hand in hand with the issues of an unwinnable game.  If the site comes up with the anti chasing rule, that is great but it won't clear up if one or both sides can't force a win. All the player(s) will do is try to chase in another way so the stop chasing for feature won't come up and the game will still go on forever. 

 

I believe some of the people who are in a disagreement with the idea of an automatic draw is, because they don't understand it or never been in such a situation.  I'm hoping with my carefully thought out examples, people will understand the need to resolve games that will go on forever until someone gives up.  I've been in no less than 5 games on this site and a few on another site where I was in a clear drawn game, but my opponent refused my draws and just wanted to keep moving around until I gave up.  That type of playing is unsportsmanlike and needs to be addressed by, implementing this system. 

 

Patty, you are correct that many players who are just casual players or not very good won't have a clue what is a true drawn position or not.  They will feel just because they have the higher piece(es) will always win yet, there is no way they will ever be to trap the remaining pieces of the other player or be able to get to their Flag.  If clear examples are posted in the rules, there will be confusion and they will know what to expect after X number of moves. 


  • Christrock likes this

#5 For79

For79

    New Recruit

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze Lieutenant

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:18 AM

Well, this was ridiculous.

 

A clear tie and rejected three times. His response "You can press quit to".

 

vPy5n3Q.jpg

 

Welcome mouse macro, repeat 1,000,000 times and got some paybacktime to the cheater :)

 

adzgrhO.jpg

 

Is it possible for a moderator to set this match to tie?



#6 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 30 March 2013 - 12:46 AM

I picked 100.

I am with you, midnightguy, it must be AT LEAST 100 because we must be sure no player is forced to draw when he can win and is taking steps to do so.

Maybe 150 is better than 100.

The only problem with making it too high is how long it would take just running around doing nothing. In all of this situations that we constantly debate on the forums, the best way to work it out would be to play test.

I hope the devs are doing extensive play testing for these specific issues, and if they aren't they should open up some test games for forum members to play that count moves and give us a feel for some of these situations and we could talk during the test games about these potential rules and try to act out game situations where the rules would be in effect.


  • Midnightguy and GaryLShelton like this

gg


#7 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,277 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 March 2013 - 01:26 AM

M.G., as you know I've been putting in more thought on anti-chasing than the draw issue, though it is clearly very important, however.   Your post outlines some of the more common situations, and that is good to have in a nutshell.

 

At this time I don't know what I feel the counter limits should be, because I do feel that number is dependent upon the chasing rule that gets enacted...but I have a few thoughts to share.  

  1. First of all, I want to state a concern of mine loudly.  Under the circumstance #1 in your post, you state that this is the clearest example of a draw situation, the classic as it were.  That may be, but this circumstance is extremely close to the #4 situation.  WE MUST BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO INSTALL A RULE THAT WOULD DIVULGE INFORMATION OTHERWISE UNKNOWN.  That is, if your rule begins a counter when both flags are fully bombed and there are no miners on either side, THEN IF THE DRAW COUNTER DID NOT START EACH PLAYER WOULD BE INFORMED, INDIRECTLY, THAT ONE OR THE OTHER SIDE WAS NOT FULLY BOMBED.  Giving this information out through a rule would be wrong, in my opinion.  (M.G., oh guardian extraordinaire of info, this should bother you! Please consider carefully.)
  2. Secondly, I am a bit puzzled as to why you would want a counter to begin when one side is down to 3 pieces.  You have a flag and two pieces to make three on one side?  Man, the opponent should be winning here, right?  It seems to me we ought to have a counter begin somewhat sooner than when one player is down to 3 pieces.  Or maybe it just needs to have some other reason to kick in, and not a piece count.
  3. Lastly tonight, I would toss out that if we install an anti-chasing rule soon, that will no doubt have a huge impact on the game, and certainly the draw situation you describe in #5 that is exacerbated by chasing.  It may affect the outcome of many games to quell the chasing because often it is just one square that makes the difference in the game.  


i77rs4m.jpg

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

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


#8 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 30 March 2013 - 02:01 AM

I did not fully read midnightguy's post. The counter should be started without any regard to the number of pieces on the board or the kind of pieces or anything.

The counter should be started every time a piece is captured and at the start of the game.

If AT ANY POINT DURING THE GAME a piece is not captured within X moves, the game should be drawn.

All of this special contingencies that lead to certain responses are not viable for rules for a game.


gg


#9 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,277 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:26 AM

M.G., I tend to agree with D.B. on this one.  The simplicity of the approach appeals to me.  I feel I would vote on 100 moves per player for an initial figure, and make this limit for at any time in the game straight from the get go, as D.B. says.  I would be willing to go with your term "attack" versus an actual "capture", though I don't think it makes much difference.  

 

So, start the counter at the beginning of the game, and restart it with every attack (or capture if you choose).  

 

Now my question is do we make the counter restart for both players with an attack (capture) by EITHER one?  Or is there a counter for each player that starts and restarts only when that player makes an attack (capture)?

 

Is there a reason to go with attack or capture?  I don't know....



i77rs4m.jpg

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

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


#10 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 30 March 2013 - 05:49 AM

Yeah, I meant attack. Didn't think of the distinction.

And just to keep it simple I'd restart the counter as soon as one is made. No need to overthink it.


  • GaryLShelton likes this

gg


#11 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:12 AM

Well the problem is, when should a starter count?  What if Player A and B just move a bunch of pieces just to move them at the start of the game and makes no attacks.  You have two guys playing chicken wondering who will make the first attack?  All lanes are blocked up by 8 or more pieces each...what do we do then?  Should game end as a draw if all pieces on the board and 100 moves made?  I'm very flexible when starter should begin.  Gary you made a suggestion if 20 pieces are on the board left, and no progress is made, then counter could start.  I was just throwing the idea of 3 out there since only 3 pieces are needed to block scouts from attacking an open flag from scouts.  Clearly I'll need to think more closely on that idea.

 

In the early vote count we had a 3 to 1 and 1 lead on 100 moves before draw is declared, yet no one has voted yet saying "No draw at all".  We'll need another week to get a true idea of what the people feel about this.



#12 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:16 AM

For79, clearly you understand my frustrations and your opponent decided that their time is meaningless and will just force you to play until you finally just give up.  This type of play by someone needs to be dealt with, but the only way to prevent that is for this site to force a draw.



#13 Designated Baby

Designated Baby

    Scout

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 119 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Scout

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:30 AM

I think if neither player makes an attack at the start of the game for 150 moves, they deserve to have a draw... We could make it more moves. I think the piece number is very arbitrary (inconsistency is the worst thing for a game like this I think) and would not help much.


gg


#14 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,277 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 30 March 2013 - 06:32 PM

M.G., I had commented previously, yes, that perhaps 20 pieces was a valid number.  I also saw the lack of miners as being valid.  I am at a point of having re-thunk those ideas.  I personally like D.B.'s idea as being so straightforward and simple....and very unobtrusive with a large number....that I feel it would be very conservative to try it first.  And I want to be conservative where these rules are concerned!  We may not exactly know what problems it eradicates and/or causes until we put it into play.  But I always say err on the side of the conservative classic game.  

 

Some specifics here:  I also agree that if something is happening, by either player, then the draw counter should not end the game.  I think that an attack by EITHER player should restart the counter.  And I think that we should then talk in terms of TOTAL MOVES in the game, instead of X number of moves per player.  With that thought, I suggest 200 TOTAL MOVES would be a good number.  Even if 200 TOTAL MOVES were too many, one would always know that the lousy guy across cyber space from you couldn't win just because you had to go to work the next day and he didn't.  

 

I'm not saying that I have all the negatives in grasp that could be associated with such a plan, but perhaps this automatic draw thing would encourage the skills to avoid it by better players?

 

I look forward to hearing some ideas from the silver community.  Where is that input? 



i77rs4m.jpg

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

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


#15 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 30 March 2013 - 08:34 PM

50-100 moves without an attack for one of these is more than enough...

I've hardly been in a match where none of the players didnt move a scout within 100 of his first moves.. It's also not needed to move 100 moves without an attack (at the beginning of a match) , just to move the same pieces over and over again within 4 squares..

I like the idea of 2 counters which seperatly count for each player..

Whenever the counter has 20 AND 10 moves before, it would be enough time/moves to think of a plan B.

 

Any idea of 150 or above is just ridicilous..

We want to stop chasing, as thats whats going to happen when none of the players can't accept their loss.

 

150 moves is somewhat equil to 18x moving from left to right on the board

150 moves is also somewhat equil to 12x moving around the 2x2 squares..

 

Now think of it being a player who faces an oppenent who has no miners left while your flag is surrounded by bombs.. Do you really wanna play longer than 20-30m minutes without any action and all what is happening is the annoying chasin? Just because the other is to ignorant, or really has nothing better to do , all for a few rank-points?


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#16 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,277 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 31 March 2013 - 01:47 AM

Patty, the reason I like 200 Total moves is that it is simple and unobtrusive.  200 Total moves would mean, essentially, 100 per player, but since the counter could be reset with an attack by either player, I think the concept of "Total Moves" is warranted.  This might be a bit on the semantic side, but I think it's a bit more clear and simple.  And it eliminates the necessity of two counters.  Only one is needed.  

 

So if you were suggesting 50-100 moves per player, then you and I aren't in disagreement at all.  I only suggest the higher number first, with the plan to tweak it down from there should real game experience dictate that, because it's a conservative approach.  If the number turns out to be so high that it doesn't affect enough games, then lower it next month.  If it is too low, go the other way.  I only suggest that 200 total moves is a "safe" place to start and will be far better than nothing.  

 

The number of 200 total moves might sound high, but it might occur more rapidly if a larger anti-chasing rule number is adopted (e.g., 20 per incident), as I proposed in that thread.  Beside, if the Total Game Limit for anti-chasing is adopted of 200 "full-binds" per game there, then these two numbers would be the same and that might be a very good thing...for simplicity's sake.



i77rs4m.jpg

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

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


#17 PsychoPatty

PsychoPatty

    Sergeant

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 253 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 31 March 2013 - 03:43 AM

@Gary,

 

Naah, I dont feel a "total amount" of moves..

It means someone else would be able to mess up my gameplay by playing a sissy..

 

If ya would ask me, some1 who doesn't attack within 100 moves should LOSE..

For example, what if my counter is on 70, and i only got 5 moves left, but dont feel like getting a draw, because i'm on the winning side, but the other keeps on running..

I move a low piece to his bomb, just to reset my counter.. And my oppenent has his counter on 70 but keeps on running , just and only because he is "in my opinion" to ignorant to lose a match..

 

On the other side, with a forced loss, people would use the draw button (even more if "draw points" are increased a little bit) much faster.. As none is feeling like losing alot of points when it is not neccesary..

 

IF 2 counters would take place, i would even suggest that, when someone does make an attack, his counter resets and the other persons counter should decrease with 10.. (so lets say he had 15 moves left for a forced draw/loss, he now got 25)

 

 

In the end, its braincracking, 

How do you get rid of issues like this without changing the original intend of Stratego


Untitled-1.jpg

When I say sucker, I mean Good Game, Sucker!


#18 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,277 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 31 March 2013 - 06:57 AM

Patty, I too have thought about a potential automatic loss rule, instead of a draw, but I would now argue against it this way: The reason for an automatic loss should be because the infraction is despicable enough to warrant the severest punishment, the automatic loss. Whereas chasing behavior rises to this level for me, I don't feel the players who wind down a match without being able to make the final flag capture have made such a horrible offense. They were only guilty of not playing well enough to have overwhelming power at the end. So yes, I would go with the proposition that a draw could be good, but not a loss.

Ruling out an automatic loss, I would make the further corollary that we do not need the separate move counts that you discussed. The separation of counts for the two players is a device to assign blame. And it isn't necessary where the infraction does not warrant an automatic loss. The object of the automatic draw should be to establish a point in the game--as simply as possible--when the game automatically ends, so as to prevent bad online behavior by one or both players. If something is NOT happening in a game, as defined by an attack taking longer than X number of total moves for both players (right from the game's start), then the game should draw.

It is an elegantly simple rule.

Whether both players can't, or won't, make the attack, they both have a choice. They both know what is coming. A draw counter is visible to both players right from the game's start, and warnings are issued a couple of times, perhaps, as the counter counts down to zero. If this automatic end of game does not please one or the other of them, then they should learn to avoid the draw situation in the future.

Patty, getting back to your example above a moment. You state that you could blow up a lower piece on a bomb to reset your counter, while your opponent's counter might be considerably farther along, causing him to have to rush to attack something while you would have the luxury of waiting him out. This seems plausible, I'll admit. The trouble with the idea, to my way of thinking, is that it favors the side with the most pieces. Now, in the natural play of the board game this would not happen. If you didn't have the power to get to his flag, you would lose, or at best decide with your opponent across the table to draw the game. But you could not "out wait" your opponent in the manner you describe to win the game. Therefore, I am against separate move counts for each player. I feel the litmus test for the automatic draw should be if something is "happening" from a total game perspective.

I am in favor, at this point, of the elegant simple rule above. I would hope many others would comment on this thread.

i77rs4m.jpg

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

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


#19 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,277 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 31 March 2013 - 06:59 AM

Please delete this post.

i77rs4m.jpg

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

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


#20 Midnightguy

Midnightguy

    Colonel

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

Posted 31 March 2013 - 08:42 AM

D B, even though you are leaving the site, I agree with your notion that a draw may happen no matter how many pieces are on the board.  However, my issue is goes back to my example:

 

5) One player chases another but, makes no effort to make progress.

 

One side is down in material early in the game, and relies on chasing to frustrate the other player or hope they give up and lose a piece to a bomb. 

 

Example:  Player A has a General, Colonel, two Majors and a few smaller pieces vs Player B has General, Colonel, Major, and few smaller pieces.  Player A just Player B's Major in the corner of the board in their zone.  Player B decides to hold up game by chasing Player A Colonel with their General and refuses to let up until  Player A either attacks an unknown piece or gives up.  This example is NOT a draw, and I'll leave it up to the people who are avid people to stop chasing to come up with a solution.

 

It is more the imperative than ever that the anti chase system needs to be implemented along with automatic draw, so someone can't either move forever in a chase or force a draw in X number of moves just by chasing because they are losing early in game. 

 

I had thrown out an example of three pieces remaining for the counter to start, but I feel now it can start at anytime if both sides are refusing to make any attacks (I will use that term "attack" because if you lose a battle, you still made an effort to make progress) 

 

Patty, you and Gary are thinking in the same lines.  I posted my question on the poll:

How many moves do you believe should be played by each player before a Draw is Declared?

If you answered 100 that means 100 moves by each player meaning 200 total moves not 200 moves by one player.  So far early results have zero people saying no automatic draw should take place.  We need a higher sample size from people taking time to give their view on this subject to make it more meaningful.  However, M-D I disagree with your notion that people are against automatic draws.  We have yet to seen any real posts or any strong counter argument  to that affect.  Before I can go further with my posts, I need more input. 

 

Patty your suggestion of two counters, just doesn't seem practical.  However, you do bring out a valid point, a player who still refuses to draw a game could keep the game dragging out by running into a bomb.  I'll have to think more about that scenario, because any attack whether that player wins or loses the battle should restart the counter and that includes running into a bomb on purpose. However, most of the time we are looking at situations where we have less than say 10 movable pieces and the smaller the number, the  less practical it would be to restart a counter to sacrifice a piece to a bomb to restart the counter.    They keep doing that, they will have no pieces left!

 

EDIT:  A GAME SHOULD NEVER BE OVER UNLESS BY A WIN OR LOSS UNLESS IF ONE PLAYER'S FLAG HAS BEEN CAPTURED, ONE PLAYER SURRENDERS/QUITS,  OR HAS RUN OUT OF MOVEABLE UNITS.    That would be like in example 1) Player A has a General and Player B has a Colonel.  Why should player A be declared the winner just because they had the higher piece?  As D B said in my other post, some people play to losing other pieces so they can force a drawn situation. 

 

I do thank you Patty, Gary and D B for your input so, far.  I'm sorry I'm pretty busy this weekend to really sit down and refocus on this issue, but I would hope others give us some new ideas and input. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users