Jump to content


Photo

Enforcement of ISF Stratego game rules


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

Poll: Should MT, finally, enforce ISF rules regarding chasing? (25 member(s) have cast votes)

Should MT, finally, enforce ISF rules regarding chasing?

  1. Yes (24 votes [96.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 96.00%

  2. No (1 votes [4.00%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 The Prof

The Prof

    Colonel

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,549 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 28 October 2017 - 04:40 AM

The Prof
Question regarding your distant chasing with a scout. I understand this is only applicable to a scout but what if a player is making distant chasing with an unknown piece that is not a scout but makes his opponent believe it is a scout ... how do you manage this in your proposed rules adjustments?

 

If it is not a scout then at no point would the player's moves be blocked.  If he wants his opponent to believe it is a scout then he should only move in such as way that is allowed for a threatening piece.  If the movement would violate the More Squares Rule then he will give his opponent knowledge that the piece is not a scout, but if he doesn't, then the opponent cannot know for sure and it could be a successful bluff. 



#42 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,101 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 10 November 2017 - 01:05 AM

I would like to clear up one small confusing point.

The term "counter chasing" as used by Nortrom is the more general use of the term, and pretty much in line with the dictionary's English definition of the words. It refers to any action that is a response, i.e., a "counter", to an action by an opponent. Generally, it is about responding to (countering) an attack by an opponent with an attack of one's own.

The term "counter chasing" as used by The Prof refers specifically to the singular situation where there exists a Two Squares trap on the one leg and the victim of the trap begins countering the situation by threatening another piece of the trapping player elsewhere on the board.

Morx lamented this type of counter attacking above, in this thread, and The Prof, KARAISKAKIS, and others have agreed with this sentiment previously. Mostly this is because, I believe it is safe to say, they feel the Two Squares trap they have worked to achieve should not be thwarted by an annoying counter attack elsewhere. The right of the Two Squares trap should supercede that of the opponent to counter chase, they feel.

Under ISF rules the Two Squares trap currently only exists if the following two conditions are meet:

1) there is no path of escape for the object piece, and

2) there is no other piece of the trapping player vulnerable to a counter attack on another part the board.

If the Two Squares trap has these features, the trapping player will get his man. If not, should he? That is the question.

As Nortrom has stated, counter chasing is allowed under the ISF, and so this includes a counter chase involving a trap as well as any that do not.

My position is opposed to the pro-Two Squares trapper one described above. Here's why I support the current position by the ISF:

A) it encourages clean versions of the Two Squares trap, and doesn't reward sloppy ones. and,

B) it recognizes that any counter chase involves both players attacking each other, and so either player can end the situation. (As opposed to a double+ chase which is all done by one player and the other is helpless to stop it.)

I think this is a good position by the ISF because if two guys want to play a game of no progress in this very silly way, they should be perfectly free to do so as long as they like. As an old country doctor in my hometown used to say, "There's no pill for ignorance."
  • Don_Homer likes this

#43 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:13 AM

If I understand you correctly Gary, you are in favor of keeping the counter chase legal? I wonder how Nortrom, Hielco, Playa1, Losermaker, Overlord and other extremely strong players judge this rule and what advantages and disadvantages they can think of?
  • OVERLORD likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#44 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 09 January 2018 - 03:18 PM

And guess what folks? Months have passed by and nothing has been communicated by MT so far. Way to go guys. A truly amazing accomplishment, something to be truly proud of. 


  • texaspete09 likes this

sOoQsuN.png


#45 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,101 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 17 January 2018 - 11:38 PM

I think that double chasing is a thing that truly annoys the more senior live players.
 
It does annoy me when my marshall is about to get a colonel in the 3 moves rule and the opponent starts to counter chase a piece that they would not be able to get just to prevent me from taking a piece that would be lost. It does not happen a lot in games, but when it does its very frustrating. Also I feel like that its most times the same players that intentionally use this tactic in all their games.
 
Morx

.

Morx, you mention that double chasing annoys senior live players in the first paragraph, but then in the second you give an example of counter chasing. Counter chasing is allowed both here and in the ISF also. So if we are to strive for alignment with the ISF, we should maintain the practice of counter chasing.
  • Don_Homer likes this
Posted Image
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

#46 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,101 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 17 January 2018 - 11:41 PM

If I understand you correctly Gary, you are in favor of keeping the counter chase legal? I wonder how Nortrom, Hielco, Playa1, Losermaker, Overlord and other extremely strong players judge this rule and what advantages and disadvantages they can think of?


I don't know about the others but Nortrom has stated his position on this matter elsewhere in the past. I know what that position is but would prefer that he say it if he's interested.
Posted Image
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

#47 Nortrom

Nortrom

    Marshal

  • WC Online Team
  • 3,965 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 17 January 2018 - 11:45 PM

As Gary mentioned, I've expressed it elsewhere in the past, but to summarize it:

 

No need to change.


sOoQsuN.png


#48 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,101 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 17 January 2018 - 11:53 PM

The one who is been chased can only stop with
A) deciding to not capture the piece he had originally traped with the 2 sq rule
B) allowing a piece that the opponent did not trap correctly with 2 sq rule to be captured.
Both of which seem unfair to the guy being chased.

.

roeczak, think about it this way. If you attack cleanly, you are rewarded. If you don't attack cleanly and are pestered by a counter chase, then you don't deserve your intended award without pain.

Allowing for counter chasing in the rules as we do here (and also the ISF does in live tournament games) encourages clean attacks. Aren't clean attacks a better thing to encourage than sloppy ones?
Posted Image
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

#49 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Major

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,359 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 18 January 2018 - 03:15 PM

I dont know where I stand in this discussion (yet). But isnt it too easy to call an interruptable attack "a sloppy attack"?
  • Edmond Dantes 1844 likes this

Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#50 Unladen Swallow

Unladen Swallow

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 826 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 18 January 2018 - 03:48 PM

In rare situations, there is strategic merit for counter chasing. However in 99% of cases chasing is unnecessary and unsporting. 


  • Major Nelson and Edmond Dantes 1844 like this
I used to play against a few drunken idiots in College and University. I just recently discovered this game online, playing my first matches against real-world opponents. After 100 games, I'm now one of the top 10 players in the world.

#51 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Honorary members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,101 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Miner

Posted 18 January 2018 - 05:42 PM

I dont know where I stand in this discussion (yet). But isnt it too easy to call an interruptable attack "a sloppy attack"?

.

In the game you win pieces because either:
1) the opponent cannot stop you, or
2) you are willing to play the price of your action.

If your opponent can stop you, then you don't get the prize. For example, if you bring up a scout and line it up with my spy, and you even have the two squares advantage, you will not capture my spy if I can move another piece between it and you.

If you want to clear a bomb but know there's a likely sergeant waiting behind it, you opponent has stopped you from taking the bomb if you are unwilling to lose the miner.

Awarding someone a capture because they have the two squares advantage on the opponent encourages attacks that are not well-thought-out. I call it sloppy for simplicity. Isn't that fair?
Posted Image
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

#52 Edmond Dantes 1844

Edmond Dantes 1844

    General

  • Moderators
  • 2,091 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Spy

Posted 18 January 2018 - 07:35 PM

True, Gary, these are good examples, but as you well know...there will be situations completely unexpected by even the most seasoned of players that could not be predicted and end up in a bad situation–programming a fix for double chasing would certainly help to minimize the abuse of such situations. Let us face it–sometimes it is a solid tactic as you described: "If you want my piece, you're gonna have to pay for it well." This is totally understandable, and quality players understand this moment and either accept the fee or move on...there are those players, however, as Unladen Swallow points out, that are intentionally being unsporting and performing something unnecessary.

 

Fix the double chasing issue, please!



#53 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 18 January 2018 - 08:07 PM

well the topic here is about enforcement of ISF rules. Having 100% identical rules as ISF online is not desired as for example the online non ISF 10 minutes draw refusal rule is much better than the ISF "wait the end of the game up to  50 minutes" rule. However for other rules the objective is to be as close as possible to ISF rules. As ISF is allowing counterchasing or chasing from distance and as these actions are also allowed online then there is nothing to talk about here, Stratego.com is ISF compliant in this regard,  just keep it as is. The only real decision to make is for double chasing. ISF rule do not foresee any penalty for a double chaser, only such double chaser has to do what a referre would tell him to do which is to make a different non double chasing move. And if he refuses he can be disqualified (not for double chasing but for not accepting a decision of the referee). Online, because there is no referee a system of penalty has probably to be defined, the question is how? if we ask 10 forum members what they think we will have 10 different proposals, so how to reach a kind of consensus? MT would not like to decide unilaterally but is rather willing to first listen to various ideas and discussions that might be proposed here and then decide. Anybody shall feel free to make constructive proposals.


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

#54 astros

astros

    Stratego TM

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,244 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold General

Posted 25 January 2018 - 06:02 AM

I was against an anti-double chasing rule initially. However, I would like to amend my position such that a player may not report his opponent for double chasing if the accuser is double chasing.

Message me on Discord for more game breaking bugs such as: how to cause your opponent to lose points after a victory, identify whether a piece is a scout based on how it moves, and the piece movement kick to login screen bug.


#55 Napoleon 1er

Napoleon 1er

    Marshal

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,186 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Major

Posted 25 January 2018 - 08:23 AM

I was against an anti-double chasing rule initially. However, I would like to amend my position such that a player may not report his opponent for double chasing if the accuser is double chasing.


Not sure to understand. The game does not allow for the 2 players to reciprocally doubke chase each other. It's either one or the other. So not sure to understand what you mean.
If you don't know where you go ... you have a lot of chance to arrive elsewhere ...




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users