74 replies to this topic

[KissMyCookie]

I disagree, anyone with a background in chess/draughts/go knows that repetitions are either forbidden or lead to a draw. That Stratego treats repetitions as special cases should not come as a surprise.

 

TemplateRex, you are one of the shining stars! Truly. I am with you, but you would really be surprised and even disgusted by the number of new players that I have encountered who really do not understand these points because they fail to possess rudimentary logic...in fact, I know it would shock you. It goes against my thinking as it obviously does yours, but please believe me...even recently, I had a silver player argue the point with me a few months ago, and he insisted on repeating a double chase pattern. Fortunately, I was able to reason with him without threatening and the match ended in a draw.

[GaryLShelton]

[Note: I am repeating this post and my quote of Fairway's post here from the draw refusal topic. gls]

I think that in T_O's case what his opponent is doing should be allowed. He is defending his flag, and if he does not double chase, then he will lose. As neither player can progress the game, it is a draw.

In a situation where a player double chases in midgame and flag defending is not involved, this should be punished.

.

Let's not make this so complicated. It's really simple. Double chasing is blocked whenever it occurs under the ISF rules, no exceptions. At Gravon, where double chasing is in the programming at this time, there is no "flag defense exception". If aligning with the ISF is the goal, then that means we do not differentiate between this or that example of double chasing.

Fairway, for the current Thucydides_Olorou game you say "as neither person can advance the game, it is a draw", and so in that game the double/multiple (triple) chaser shouldn't be in violation of any rule. But this thinking applies to a double/multiple chase mid-game as well. The person being double chased there cannot advance the game either, and is being blocked by the double chaser from doing so in both cases. In one case it may mean a clear loss for the double chaser to quit double/multiple chasing. In the other it may mean allowing the double chasee in to raid, pillage, and plunder a weak side. In either situation the double chaser is wanting to prevent something bad from happening to him and is double chasing to do so.

Continuing on this, take the example used earlier of a single chase. If you have one movable piece and an unblocked flag and your opponent has the Two Squares Rule advantage on you with his only movable piece, you will lose trying to block him, and that's a single chasing rule giving your opponent the win. Would anyone scream "flag defense exception" there? Hardly.

The thing that makes single chasing bad makes double chasing bad also. One person controls it and the other cannot do anything about it other than give up his piece. The rules and even the programming here on this site protect the single chasee. We are just trying to do the same as best we can for the double chasee's.

[Napoleon 1er]

The goal is only to find a way to enforce ISF rules on double/multiple chasing. ISF rules foresee only to forbid such multiple chasing moves but not to punish such multiple chaser. ISF rules allow for counterchasing and chasing from distance, so these 2 cases of chasing are excluded from this poll.
Let's focus on forbidding the multiple chasing moves.
1st we need to agree on when a multiple chasing is a multiple chasing. Here we can fix this limit at
Either 7 consecutive chasing moves as per ISF
or 20 consecutive moves as proposed above
Or after a certain time has elapsed, lets say for example 5 minutes

My proposal would be 7 moves from the moment a victim of double/multiple chase has informed by chat his opponent of his intention to have this rule applied. Note this formal chat request is intended to make sure that the victim really wants to stop the double chase. Sometimes double chasing can also be profitable for the victim. A victim who is not informing his opponent that he disapproves the double chasing is equivalent to somebody who would not call a referree in case of live games double chasing ... who does not formally disapprove is supposed to accept a multiple chasing, so he is not a "victim" until he formally raises a claim.

2nd we need to agree on the evidence necessary to proof such multiple chasing. Here several options have already been mentionned:
Either have a video proofing 7 multiple chasing moves before a chat is opened to inform opponent and then another 7 multiple chasing moves sequence.
Or have screenshots evidencing the same

My proposal is to have a video evidence

3rd we need to distinguish between a multiple chasing sequence that is blocking the game from evolving or if the sequence happened in the middle of a game but has been broken by one or the other player.

In case the double chaser broke a middle game multiple chasing by making a different move, even after the 2x7 moves have been over but before the victim would have surrendered or started a draw request procedure then i guess this shall end with no case or maximum a warning to the double chaser.
In case the victim of the double chase broke it by making a different move but finally the game ended with his victory then same thing apply ... no case or maximum a warning to the double chaser.
In case none of the players breaks the multiple chase sequence but the victim starts a draw request and surrenders after having evidenced the 10 minutes without game evolution. In this case obviously the penalty scheme shall follow those foreseen for draw refusal.
In case the victim of a double chase decides to surrender after having evidenced the multiple chasing then MT should judge if the game would have more likely been a victory for the victim or a victory for the double chaser if the double chasing would have been broken. If it is cristal clear that the double chaser would have won anyway then it should end in no case. If it is cristal clear that the victim would have won the game then the victim shall be given back 25 points and the same removed from the double chaser. Any additional penalty for the double chaser can also be foreseen. But in any other situation where the victory is not cristal clear then the final game result shall be draw and elo points corrected accordingly for both players. No additional penalty for the double chaser from my point of view.

[Napoleon 1er]

And i forgot the case where a double chaser is opening a draw request refused by the victim of the multiple chasing. In this case the victim of double chase shall gather evidence for double chasing, surrender and then raise a claim to MT. MT will then judge the double chase case.
But in case the victim continues to evade from the double chase till the 10 minutes necessary for evidencing the draw refusal and the opponent then surrenders and raises a claim for draw refysal to MTthen MT shall judge the draw refusal claim only and not the double chase case should the victim of it open a claim a posteriori.

[GaryLShelton]

I think that when defending your flag double chasing should be allowed. I'm not going to engage in a long argument (sorry) as it is a waste of time in my opinion.

.

It's not an unheard-of position, Fairway. Many did espouse it in the past including, at least, yours truly and one other former moderator named Midnightguy. The reasons for it are that, like defending in a two squares situation, in real life one is not going to lay down and die just because the rule says "you must quit now". We will all defend our homes and loved ones until the end, of course. This was always my feeling when I first came to the site, long about 4,500 posts ago.

But this is a game and it has its own rules. Like chess which says the only pieces that can move in any direction are the king and queen (you mean the good Lord Bishop doesn't know how to walk sideways? And why can a building--the rook--move at all? ), all games have their own idiosyncrasies. Here the Two Squares Rule is the basic movement rule we go by when only two pieces are involved and double chasing is an extension of that. To be consistent the single chase rule has no exceptions and so neither does the double chase one, under ISF rules.

An interesting fact is there is no mention of the words "double chasing" or "multiple chasing" in the official ISF rules. The only thing there is is the injunction against "More Squares" chasing in Article 11. But this is still commonly known to include the double chasing prohibitions.

[GaryLShelton]

Napoleon 1er, thank you for your long and thoughtful comments.

But the gist of the proposed plan above is not to catch every incident of double chasing as the ISF rules might lay out the prohibitions for. Rather, it's to catch the more worse cases of the offense only. The reason for this is the MT cannot, as you know, watch games live and intervene as would be required to actually block the moves as they happen. Nor can we rely on programming as does Gravon to effectively block the offense. All we have is a hindsight approach to enforcement that requires our players to take time to build cases and take video/screenshots, so it seems only logical to me that we limit our plan to cases that are more egregious and not merely the small 7 chase move events you mention.

For a 7 chase move sequence of double chasing on Gravon the penalty to the offender is merely a block of the movement by the programming. That is true. There's no other punitive penalty and the offending behavior is stopped far sooner than we have proposed.

All I can say there is that I, too, wish we had the programming here. But we don't. And because of the longer events of double chasing we have suggested to recognize, we have laid out a range of punishments that go from soft to harsh. This approach hopefully informs players that their efforts at providing evidence will be rewarded with corresponding action on our part.

One problem with a smaller offense recognition level here is that people already think that the double chasers won't know what they are doing wrong when the double chase. That it's not "intuitive" to new players. For a mere 7 chasing moves offense as you suggest recognizing here, that factor can only be more pronounced.

But the real reason why I don't like a smaller number for the offense is the fact that it requires the same amount of work by our players to build a case. The punishment shouldn't be a mere slap on the wrist for all the work. If the offense recognition level is only 7 moves, who is going to want a severe penalty against that?

And if the penalties aren't severe enough, who's going to want to take the time to make his case to the MT? Besides this, we have, as you well know, a limited supply of admin capital. Bothering admin for mere 7 move offenses might not be the best use of that time with admins.

Finally, I want to say--firmly--that in no circumstance will a double chaser ever be able to obtain a draw refusal verdict against the victim he double chases. Saying that this is possible, even proper, is supremely fallacious. How can a person doing wrong be rewarded for it? Even if we overlook the bizarre logic that would allow such a travesty, under the proposal advanced for double chasing enforcement in the poll the victim of the double chase can make his case in as few as 5-7 minutes. If his opponent, the double chaser, is making a case for the 10 minutes of draw refusal against his double chase victim, his victim can have him by three to five minutes of time. Of course, if the double chase victim does not have the required video proof, then he won't have that case working for him. Still, under the proposed plan above the MT will not allow a double chaser to win a claim where he is obviously double chasing and we may possibly make a case against him ourselves even when it might not be reported by his opponent, though it would have to be a fairly obvious case of double chasing to warrant that.

[Napoleon 1er]

Look it is similar to the following situation:
Jack has stolen 1000 $ from Tim. Tim has insulted Jack in public. Jack is opening a claim for defamation against Tim while Tim is not raising a claim for the robbery against Jack. Now if you are the police officer what do you do? ... in all logic the claim for defamation will proceed as it should while nothing will be done for the robbery because there is no formal claim, right?

[The Prof]

I think win points should be given to the victim of a double chase only when the game was a clear win for him, so only in Astros case #2.  Players who are double chased in early or mid-game should not be able to simply surrender and ask for points as if they won the game.  Wins need to be earned.  The players doing the chasing will learn what they are doing is wrong when they see their warning letter and/or penalty.   If I am being chased when I do not have a clear win then I would tell my opponent that is against the rules, and if he continues to chase then I can either (1) ask for a draw if I am not in a good position, and if he doesn't accept then I have a draw refusal case in addition to a double chasing case or (2) sacrifice a piece and continue the game - this would make sense if i still have the advantage even with the loss of a piece.  In this situation, I could still bring a case and have my opponent punished, but I shouldn't get points awarded to me if I lose the game.  The MT should do point adjustments for cases involving obvious endgame scenarios, but in general players should have the incentive to educate their opponents about this rule and settle things on the battlefield, not to quit and ask the MT for points.  

[tobermoryx]

And i forgot the case where a double chaser is opening a draw request refused by the victim of the multiple chasing. In this case the victim of double chase shall gather evidence for double chasing, surrender and then raise a claim to MT. MT will then judge the double chase case.
But in case the victim continues to evade from the double chase till the 10 minutes necessary for evidencing the draw refusal and the opponent then surrenders and raises a claim for draw refysal to MTthen MT shall judge the draw refusal claim only and not the double chase case should the victim of it open a claim a posteriori.

If double chasing is against the rules then it is cheating to force a draw by double chase.

A player with 2 sergeants threatening his opponents 2 miners would have to stop threatening and allow a miner through.

If the player with the sergeants offers ties then his opponent has the right to refuse ties for 10 minutes or as long as he likes. The player with the miners can ultimately resign and claim the victory points because of the double chase.

No draw refusal case could be considered.

[Losermaker]

for those who voted for 2) in question 2, I think it is only fair that first time players receive a warning, ALOT of people will not even know that its not allowed, they may or may not prevent a loss by it, but they may completely think that they are allowed to do so because as roeczak said, this is a programming issue. 1 warning before punishment is very fair IMO.

[Nortrom]

I've also mentioned to the initiator of this poll that a week ban for a QA offense is way more severe than a 25 pt deduction. He seemed to be in agreememt - but I don't think its possible to edit the poll anymore.

Draw refusals often are obvious cases of mosbehaviour. I have a gen, opponent has a marsh left... marsh can't trap me.. it's a draw and even a total beginner should be able to understand that.

Mutiple chasing thing is less obvious. A warning (or two) with proper explanation before any punishments would be handed out would be a good thing. Some players don't onow or fully understand the concept of it all. Even experienced players may make a mstake in this.

Would MT hand out a punishment in case a player would not be an ♥♥♥ about it but gebuinely disagreed with his opppnent over something? (E.g. counter chase.. some people think that isnt allowed).

I'd suggest to hand out punishments to those who are assholes about it (I've got all day kind of people) who are being ignrant on purpose.

Of course this will lead to some difficult vases, but as mentioned before, the rules should protect players and be written from that point of view. Not from the punishment point of view.

In a live tournament I would never penalize a player who would multiple chase, but after instructions stops it, for this offense. Educating people in a non-obvious rule is to be preferred. Save the punishments for the select few that prefer to be an ♥♥♥ about it.

---------

In said PM, I also said I'd share my POV after being appointed into MT but there you go .

[mazuzam]

What if we have female player? All the "his" and "he" in this thread would need to be converted to "her" and "she".

 

On the subject however:

 

- Without any automatic rule programmed into the game we are going to have laws that are difficult to enforce and a burden to the MT who would need to review rare occasions of video recordings (many times inconsistent).

 

- Any rule developed should not have time limit but rather number of moves only. This is including draw refusals. These should not have 10min rule but rather equivalent number of moves as 10min equals 5min of buffer and 20moves only each at 15sec. Adding move counter to the screen display should not be this difficult.

 

- Instead of video recording there could be pieces moves history. It should be easy to add option to track all moves from the beginning of the game (like in chess). Still burden and impractical.

 

- Lastly, don't get caught into a chasing game.

 

Best

 

Mazuzam

 

 

[Fks]

What if we have female player? All the "his" and "he" in this thread would need to be converted to "her" and "she".
-
Best

Mazuzam

English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun And with all the new genders popping up, We will be hard pressed to find one.

[TemplateRex]

English doesn't have a gender-neutral pronoun And with all the new genders popping up, We will be hard pressed to find one.

If you watch the TV show Billions, you could use "they, them and theirs"

[Fks]

If you watch the TV show Billions, you could use "they, them and theirs"

You could use any thing your heart desires TemplateRex

[GaryLShelton]

mazuzam, Fks is not technically correct that there is no general neutral pronoun in English, though I appreciate his humor.

There is a gender neutral pronoun. It's just that it is not commonly used. Every he or she could be a "one" but instead of this our pronouns in English have historically defaulted to the masculine. It is true that there is a more modern approach of noticing this language bias with a he/she for every he, but I personally find this habit annoying and usually avoid it.

I don't know the prevailing usages in other languages, I admit. If your language has a different practice, I will have to ask your feigned blindness to overlook my habit.

Thank you for your concern over the work the enforcement of double chasing means to the MT. We hope that we will be able to handle it, of course.

As for the desire to do away with time considerations in offense recognition, it is an interesting observation. But I would find fault with it. That would be basically that move counts alone are corrupted by the time it takes for each move. Ten moves could be 150 seconds by a super slow player, or they could be only 15 seconds for a fast one in a fast part of the game.

The time factor in the rule helps to limit the abuse of super slow players.

To help illustrate this let's take the first level of recognition for double chasing in our plan where it is either 5 minutes or 25 moves. If one figures 4 slow chasing moves a minute, that makes 5 minutes eat up 20 moves, not 25. And that's if we figure 4 per minute which allows zero time for the victim of the slow player to move.

Realistically, the number we should use is 3 chasing moves per minute. That's because if our victim is speedy and takes only 5 seconds a move, then in three chasing moves he himself uses 15 seconds of game time and, added to the 45 seconds for the three chasing moves, we're down to exactly 3 chasing moves a minute by the villain.

Using this new number in our calculation yields the fact that 5 minutes can eat up only 15 chasing moves. And, of course, there's 10 chasing moves to go to get to the 25 for the infraction. At 3 a minute these would take yet another 3 1/3 minutes, or 8 1/3 minutes total.

So I hope I've made it clear that a super duper slow player could easily do this exact thing and why it is that we incorporate the 5 minutes time limit alongside the 25 chasing move count limit.

[Oracle]

Nortrom, you have mentioned that you have good IT skills. Could you formulate the algorithm of a properly functioning multi chasing rule? (It is not important the programming language here, but you should mention the mean of the necessary variables - which keeps the position of the involved pieces for example)

 

I suggest to you and your team to formulate the algorithm of the necessary changes that has programming background.

If it will be the case, this can (will) be a huge advantage during the talk with developers.

In case of need it is possible to help you in these tasks.

[Morx]

Both Nortom and me can do this.

This is the most you have said since announcing your candidacy?

[mazuzam]

I do have an algorithm in mind that would solve chasing and draw refusals automatically and also other game delaying tacktics. What language is this thing written in? Does anybody know?

Mazuzam

PS if you must use one pronoun for a person than please use “she”. If this bothers you than you yourself recognize the problem.

[Nortrom]

The Stratego.com client seems to require Flash. 

 

The WCO (World Championships Online) has a special clause for this

10.8. Where "his" is used, "her" can also be used instead

 

Also, the algorithm can be found with a bit of research on the internet.