Jump to content


Photo

Two square rule question


  • Please log in to reply
22 replies to this topic

#21 Don_Homer

Don_Homer

    Captain

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 902 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Spy

Posted 19 August 2018 - 02:08 PM

OK, I admit your E7xE6 moves kills the blue win for this position, since it takes too long for the blue sergeant to reach the flag. Nice find! I posted  a new position in the Training forum where I think blue can win no matter red's defense. 

I also admit (and have so from the beginning) that these positions are contrived. I just want to find out where the differences occur between 5-times, 3-times or even 2-times two-squares rules. 

 

Thanks. I am curious too but more about situations that are (more) realistic. But maybe there are not such situations. Some people claimed to me in the past that in certain situations its different (between 3 times and 5 times) but I never saw a valid example. 


Molto Bene, Thats a nica Donut !


#22 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,412 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 19 August 2018 - 04:01 PM

Don, it's not realistic but valid enough, the first example about the four scouts.

 

Another valid but also unrealistic option to show the difference between the 5 and 3 move limits would be to change just the one sergeant at F6 to a Scout in the latest example.  Red wouldn't be able to draw the game then. 



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


#23 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Flagbearer

  • Moderators
  • 6,412 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Silver Major

Posted 19 August 2018 - 04:04 PM

Here's a situation where the modified rule makes a difference:  Blue colonel on C7, red general on E4, and blue sergeant on E5.  Red does not want to let the colonel come down his left side and attack his pieces over there.  It's his turn and he captures the blue sergeant.  Then Blue moves C7 to B7.  Red must be able to move back to E4 to be able to prevent the colonel access to his territory, however he is blocked from moving to E4 by the modified rule.

 

The Milton Bradley board game, which is all I knew growing up, gave this as the Two-squares Rule:  "A piece cannot move between the same two squares on three consecutive turns".  Thus, the limit was two moves.  I've always liked this, as it cut down on unnecessary moves, and it rmakes a player think if he really wants to move back to the square he just came from.  But this also has the issue of not allowing captures if it means too many moves between two squares.  

 

If I had to suggest a modified rule that would limit unnecessary moves but allow captures it would be:  "A piece may not move between the same two squares on three consecutive turns if his opponent has also just moved the same piece back and forth between two squares."   Thus the two-squares rule only comes into effect when both players are moving back and forth.  So it would work the same way for chasing and trapping, but wouldn't ever block capturing or moving back and forth while the opponent is advancing a piece or moving different pieces.

 

 

The Prof, can you use the Stratego Editor to show this example you describe?



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





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users