43 replies to this topic

[HmmNess]

I’ve noticed a lot of players are complaining about “chasing” in Stratego. I have posted some comments about an Auto Draw feature, but I am happy to say that after viewing the opinions of other players on this website, I now agree with you that an Auto Draw option is the wrong way to deal with this issue. Therefore, I have put together an idea that I believe will stop players from cheating in this manner. I hope that this idea is easily understood by the community, but more importantly, the programmers.

IDEA: If 2 opposing pieces are resting on squares diagonally adjacent from one another, this is called a “Pre-Bind.” A “Pre-Bind” is readying the path for a “Full-Bind.” If 2 opposing pieces are resting on squares horizontally or vertically adjacent from one another, this is called a “Full-Bind,” meaning the pieces are bound together. A “Full-Bind” may only be created if a “Pre-Bind” was created first by 2 opposing pieces resting on squares diagonally adjacent from one another. Any pieces that are in a “Pre-Bind” can be labeled as a “Pre-Bind” if they are resting on any 2 squares connected diagonally adjacent from one another. Any pieces that are in a “Full-Bind” can be labeled as a “Full-Bind” if they are resting on any 2 squares connected horizontally or vertically adjacent to one another. Once a “Pre-Bind” is created, a player may choose to create a “Full-Bind” by moving their piece that is adjacently diagonal from their opponent’s piece, to adjacently horizontal or vertical from their opponent’s piece. Remember, a “Pre-Bind” ALWAYS needs to be created in order for a “Full-Bind” to be created.

When a “Pre-Bind” is created, the AI will make a cache note that the “Pre-Bind” has been created and that a “Full-Bind” is allowed to be created soon after. At any time, a piece may leave a “Pre-Bind” by moving 1 space away from the opposing piece. This will totally break the “Pre-Bind” and the AI cache will be cleared. If a “Pre-Bind” is set in place and a pawn moves horizontally or vertically adjacent to an opposing piece, this will allow a “Full-Bind” to be created and the AI will note this. At any time, a piece may break a “Full-Bind” by moving away from the opposing piece. Once a “Full-Bind” is successfully broken, in order to create another “Full-Bind” the pieces must first create another “Pre-Bind.” There are 2 types of ways to break a “Full-Bind.”

• A piece may totally break a “Full-Bind” by moving 1 space away from the opposing piece. The 2 pieces must have a gap of 1 full square away from each other in order for a total break to occur. The 2 pieces may NOT be resting diagonally adjacent from one another by any means in order for a total break to occur. Taking this action will clear the AI cache of “Pre-Binds” and “Full-Binds” from the 2 target pieces. Once any 1 of the 2 pieces are captured, the AI cache is cleared.
  
• A piece may semi-break a “Full-Bind” by moving 1 space away from the opposing piece to create a diagonal between the 2 pieces. If the 2 pieces are resting diagonally adjacent to one another, this will create a “Pre-Bind.” The AI will then note that a “Full-Bind” has just a semi-break and that a new “Pre-Bind” has just been created. This will not clear the AI cache by any means. If a player’s piece semi-breaks a “Full-Bind” and the “Full-Bind” remains semi-broken on the same player’s next turn, the AI will clear all “Full-Bind” notes from the cache. On the opposing player’s turn, the opposing player may choose NOT to clear the AI cache by chasing the piece that has JUST left the semi-broken “Full-Bind.” These 2 pieces must first be in a “Pre-Bind,” resting on squares diagonally adjacent from one another before taking this action. This will create a reconstructed “Full-Bind” with the same 2 pieces. Recreating or reconstructing a “Full-Bind” is considered chasing and the AI will store notes that the player is reconstructing the same broken “Pre-Bind” and semi-broken “Full-Bind” over and over. Once any 1 of the 2 pieces are captured, the AI cache is cleared.

If an opposing player reconstructs the same semi-broken “Full-Bind” 4 times in a row, the opposing player will be prompted with a message. The message will read, “You may not continuously chase pieces that are unable to be captured.” Once the opposing player clicks the “OK” button, the player will NOT be able to move the target piece in a manner that reconstructs the same “Full-Bind” once again. The opposing player may choose not to move the target piece at all if this occurs. The opposing player may also decide to move away from the bound piece by breaking the “Pre-Bind.” After this action has taken place, the AI will clear the cache.

This post has been edited many times to suit the needs of the developers and other players. I really hope this resolves the chase issue that haunts us all. Opinions and comments will be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading.

HmmNess

[HmmNess]

"Bumpped" I edited the Idea with Spiff's help.

[M-D]

So looking at all the different topics about this manner its quite obvious its very difficult to find a good solution for these problems.

We've also been talking about this issue here in the office and I think we all agree about the following:

• Any kind of system that forces a draw (or loss) after x moves of no battle is not an option. Basically all this would do is given delayers more reason to delay the game. It will also be difficult to calculate which player would have a stronger position, because you can also win with weaker pieces.

The solution HmmNess proposes is promising, although not without problems:

• It will be quite difficult to explain this system for new players that are just starting. Especially players that have never encountered this problem. The rules will probably also be seen as 'annoying' by the more casual players.
• It can also kick in on situations where there is no bad manner involved at all (for example, when you're "pushing" a piece out of your defended area).

We will be implementing the ISF rules at some point (although I cannot say when exactly), which might provide a more general solution. The main problem however is that the ISF rules are written for tournaments where there is an arbiter present that can solve the different issues that appear during the game. Another fact is that the games are played in real life (where players can slap each other when they're being annoying ). But since we're on the internet, we don't have this luxury.

We could make a system where a player can request an arbiter in-game, but that would require that there would be arbiters available at all times (which we cannot promise). We could also make a system where the players can send a 'virtual slap', but this probably wont have the same effect as a slap in real life .

This is a difficult problem, and we're still thinking of a good solution.

In the meantime: we thank you for all the ideas everyone has sent in about this and the discussions you've been having about it here on the forums. It really gives us a different view about issues we never even though of. So keep it up! I'm positive we can think of a perfect (or close to perfect) solution that will solve all the problems.

[Wojtek]

Maybe I do not fully understand the idea, but for me it seems like chases that are longer than 4 turns (4 moves of each player) will be penalized by the game. I think this is bad, because I can imagine that chases like that might appear completely naturally in the course of the game without any unsporting behaviour by any of the players. For example one of the players uses a strong piece to force a weaker enemy out of his own setup area and then follows him in a counteroffensive to the opponent's setup area; it seems beneficial for the player controlling the stronger piece to use chasing moves while getting closer to the enemy setup area as it forces the opponent to either waste his moves on backing away with the weaker piece or lose the piece. By penalizing the stronger piece owner for continuing that kind of chase we alter the rules of the game in a significant way and force the players to use a different a style of playing than in the regular board Stratego. At least for me this is not acceptable.

There are no anti-game-delaying rules in the board Stratego manual, because normally you can always tell your opponent to stop fooling around. Sadly, you cannot do the same in a web game, but you also cannot do it an official Stratego tournament, there everyone will try to achieve the best result even at the cost of making irritating moves. This is why I think Stratego developers should adopt some of the official ISF game rules used in the tournaments as in my opinion they solve the problem well enough and their "officiality" helps avoid discussions about the spirit of the game.
The rules I am referring to may be found here: http://www.isfstrate...sfgamerules.pdf
Tournament regulations can be found here: http://www.isfstrate...regulations.pdf

Basically, the solution proposed there is timeboxing the whole match (have a look at section 12 of tournament regulations covering time schedule, specifically paragraph 12.2, and section 16 covering digital clock usage, if you are interested in all official timer settings); apart from the players' personal timers there's a Main Period timer. The game rules dictate that after the Main period timer has run out the players may choose to declare a draw by time instead of performing their next move (they cannot do this if they cannot make a move anymore - they just lost the game by losing the flag, losing the last movable piece or surrendering; this is covered in paragraph 14.9 of the game). The Main Period timer limits the matches to around 50 minutes, this should probably be shortened for the digital Stratego as it seems faster than the board counterpart.

Another thing is stopping the continous chase abuse, which should be done by implementing the game rule 11.1 already mentioned in another topic of the forum.

I believe that those changes will make giving penalties to players unnecessary, because there will be no risk of getting into an endless chase. With a bit of patience the game will always finish.
I would also like to mention that ISF itself does not consider delaying the game an unsporting behaviour, a quote from paragraph 4.4 of the game rules:

Not undertaking meaningful initiatives during the match or claiming a draw by time according to article 14.8 or 14.9 is not considered to be unsporting behaviour.

[HmmNess]

Wojtek, you can’t be flagged for chasing a player unless your piece starts diagonally adjacent from an opposing piece. This will create a “Pre-Bind.” You can only create “Full-Binds” if you first create a “Pre-Bind.” Therefore, if you happen to have your piece starting on a space that is resting horizontally or vertically from an adjacent enemy piece, the AI will not cache. But, if you start on a space that is diagonal from another piece, this will create a “Pre-Bind.” Once a “Pre-Bind” is in place, if you happen to move from your diagonal to a horizontal or vertical from your opponent’s piece, this will create a “Full-Bind.” This starts a chain reaction that may lead to you being flagged.

Let me give you an example how of this system works:

So, let’s say you wanted to pursue a piece that you believe you can capture. Your piece and the enemy piece are both resting on your right flank next to the Lake. The enemy piece is resting on the same column as your piece. You move forward towards the enemy piece which will now make you vertically adjacent to the enemy piece, but since you didn’t start off adjacently diagonal from the opposing piece, the AI does not flag this as a “Full-Bind.” The Opponent piece steps left. This creates a diagonal between you and the opposing piece, which creates a “Pre-Bind”. So now you follow the enemy piece by stepping left as well. This will create a “Full-Bind” since you and the enemy piece are now adjacently connected vertically. That is 1 “Full-Bind” that you have created. The enemy piece steps right. You then follow him and step right also. You have now created 2 “Full-Binds.” The enemy piece then steps left again and you follow him stepping left with your piece creating 3 “Full-Binds.” The enemy now tries to step right again, but he can’t. The screen states that you can’t move back and forth between the same 2 squares 4 times in a row, so now the enemy piece is forced to move backwards or be captured.

By moving backwards on the same column as you, the AI cache will clear, because you are no longer connected with the enemy piece on an adjacent diagonal or an adjacent vertical / horizontal. As of now, there are no “Pre-Binds” or “Full-Binds.” You now move your piece forward to pursue the enemy piece and now you are adjacently vertical once more to the enemy piece. The AI will NOT cache this, because in order to create a “Full-Bind” the pieces must first be resting adjacently diagonal from each other creating a “Pre-Bind.”

This can occur over and over without flagging the pursuer at any point in time. Remember, you can only move 3 times back and forth on the same 2 squares. If you try to move a 4^th time between the same 2 squares, the AI flags you with a message, and the game will not let you move back to the same square. It takes 4 “Full-Binds” to flag you with a Warning Card.

If you don’t like the idea of a Warning Card, I guess you can just use a message that prompts you like the 2 square rule, telling you that you can’t chase a piece that cannot be captured. The AI will then not allow you to move to a square that will create another “Full-Bind” with the piece. This will make it easy for new players to understand that they can’t chase, while not penalizing them by forcing them to forfeit. I hope this clears things up a bit.

[Wojtek]

Thank you for the clarification, but your example focuses on showing that the player is not penalized for continous chase between two squares due to the 3-squares rule being in effect. When I mentioned 4 moves long chases being penalized I meant a situation where the weaker piece moves 4 times straight toward it's own setup area and the stronger piece follows exactly in it's steps (I am sorry for not making that clear immediatelly). I'll try to illustrate one of the examples that I have a problem with:



There is a move that suddenly cannot be made though the point of this chase is not necessarily capturing the enemy piece (that might not even be possible without cooperation of other pieces), but just forcing the enemy's hand similar to a check in chess. Also in the example given by you, the enemy piece has a choice of being captured or moving backward, but I guess that if it moves backward, my piece can't follow. I am not saying this is a bad rule, it's just really different than the board game. and it does not really solve any more problems than rule 11.1. The game can still be played endlessly.

[HmmNess]

Wojtec, remember in order to create a "Full-Bind" there must 1st be a "Pre-Bind." In your illustration, there is only 1 "Pre-Bind" which is displayed on move 0. On move 1 we have a "Full-Bind" created, because there was a "Pre-Bind" created on move 0. Now, on move 2 the "full-bind" is broken by the Blue Player and a "Pre-Bind" is NOT created. This has cleared the AI Cache, since "Pre-Binds" and "Full-Binds" must always be linked together. On move 3 the Red Player tried to recreate a "Full-Bind," but will fail to do so, because in order for a "Full-Bind" to be created, you must first start with a "Pre-Bind." Since there was no "Pre-Bind" on move 2, move 3 will not make a "Full-Bind" by any means. The same goes for move 5. There is no "Pre-Bind" created on move 4 with a diagonal, so move 5 will not create a "Full-Bind." This type of system occurs throughout the rest of your illustration.

Therefore in this case, from moves 2-9, no "Pre-Binds" or "Full-Binds" will be created by any means. This also means that no AI Cache will be stored and all AI Cache will be cleared after move 2. Hope this clears things up and thank you for your illustration. This will help other people understand the system more clearly.

HmmNess

[SpacemanSpiff]

Great discussion but I must say that I think HmmNess's initial logic model was much better before the pre-bind was introduced. Consider a situation where 1 piece is being chased around a lake endlessly. With this pre-bind logic, the AI cache would be continually cleared on the straight sides of the lakes so the chase would go on endlessly.

I think a better solution for the issue of potentially invalid chase warnings is to stick with your initial logic model and allow the chasing warning to come out only after 10 full-binds. This way the linear "pushing back" scenarios should not be affected even in Wojtek's illustration. With a 10 full-bind chase warning threshold, the system should be able to catch only the true chasing situations. Make it 12 if needed. Also, as we had discussed previously, the AI cache should be cleared for the pursuer if the runner get's a "back 'n forth" warning.

I say we set it up and let's do some beta testing. This is Stratego Beta - isn't it?

[HmmNess]

ok guys, I fixed my post 1 more time. There are no more Warning Cards that can force you to lose the game. I also made the rule more clear, so that we can have less confusion. I understand that it wasn't totally clear that a "Full-Bind" always follows a "Pre-Bind" no matter what turn it is. I hope this makes everyone happy and makes it easier to understand the idea I've been laying out. Please scroll up to the top and read the idea over once more so that everyone is on the same page.

Thanks
HmmNess

[BLeonard]

Well, something has to be done... I was in a game earlier, where I had one of my opponent's pieces trapped... He simply kept moving between 3 unoccupied squares while I gave chase. After like 5 minutes, I even offered him a draw. He declined and we continued the same thing. Could literally have went on forever.

Finally, I mad e a different move, just to get the game going again. Ended up eventually costing me a game that I was winning up until that point.

-Bill

[SpacemanSpiff]

Bill - you were chasing and were in the wrong in that scenario. The ONLY time you have a piece trapped is when they can't move or their only option is back 'n forth movement between 2 spaces which the system will prevent after 3 moves. If a piece has 3 or more different spaces to move into, they have no obligation to "give" you their piece. It's up to you to come up with another strategy to trap the piece with 2 of your pieces.

Please Google International Stratego Federation rules and read section 11.1 that addresses chasing.

[SpacemanSpiff]

OK – we need to rewind a bit here. We were on the right track initially but now the logic model has become complicated and ineffective. The diagonal “pre-bind” model does not address linear pursuit (straight line in a column or row) which renders the model as insufficient and ineffective. Most of the serious chasers on this site will pursue endlessly until you run your piece into one of their unmoved pieces and linear pursuit is almost always involved. It does not make any sense to implement a model that only addresses certain types of chases.

The initial logic model with the system noting and counting “reconstructed binds” is simply the way to go. It addresses all scenarios of endless pursuit (linear and chaotic) – all we need to do is increase the warning threshold to 12 moves so almost all non-chasing “push back” pursuits as mentioned by myself, M-D and Wojtek should not be affected. We don’t want chase warnings to go off after 4-6 moves – way too many scenarios where it might not be chasing. But after 12 straight “reconstructed binds”, I’m 99% sure there is a chase in progress. I’m not a programmer but I think this model would be very similar to the code the site is using for the “back ‘n forth” warning. I would think this would be relatively easy to implement.

From a player perspective, this will not be complicated at all as they need not be interested in the logic model that’s behind the scenes. They just play and when they chase, they will be warned – which will be effective in stopping the chase AND will educate the players as to the illegality of chasing.

Here’s the updated “Reconstructed Binds” model:

ANTI-CHASING SYSTEM WARNING MODEL - RECONSTRUCTED BINDS

If 2 opposing pieces are resting on squares horizontally or vertically adjacent to one another, this will be called a “Bind,” meaning the pieces are bound together. Any pieces that are in a “Bind” can be labeled as a “Bind” if they are resting on any 2 squares connected horizontally or vertically adjacent to one another. Pieces that are connected by a “Bind” are considered to be connected in a “2 Square Zone.”

At any time, a piece may leave a “Bind” by removing itself from the “2 Square Zone.” This will totally break the “Bind,” and the AI must note that the “Bind” has just been broken. On the opposing player’s turn, the opposing player may choose to pursue the player and reconstruct the “Bind” with the piece that has just left the “2 Square Zone”. This will create a new or “Reconstructed Bind” and “2 Square Zone” with the same 2 pieces. Recreating or reconstructing a “Bind” will be considered chasing if the player that is reconstructing the same “Bind” continues to do so successively for 12 turns.

The AI cache will be cleared upon the following events:
1) Any 1 of the 2 pieces are captured
2) When 1 of the 2 pieces gets a "back 'n forth" warning
3) If a player in a “Bind” leaves or breaks the “Bind” and the “Bind” remains broken after the other player’s next turn.

If a player reconstructs the same broken “Bind” 12 times in a row, both players will be prompted with a Warning card! The game will pause for 7 seconds and an image of a Warning card will appear on the middle of the game board, stating: “Delay of game (Opposing Player’s Name). You may not chase pieces that are unable to be captured.” The Warning card will then shrink down into a small icon and place itself next to the opposing Player’s name that gained the Warning card. The player that did not gain the Warning card will see that the opposing player now has a new Warning card next to their name. This will inform both players that the player with a Warning card is cheating by continuing to chase a piece that cannot be captured. Once a Warning card is prompted, the AI cache will be cleared on this issue.

There will be 3 different Warning cards that will be given in this order:
1.) Green Warning card
2.) Yellow Warning card
3.) Red Warning card
The Green and Yellow Warning cards will display the same exact text: “Delay of game (Opposing Player’s Name). You may not chase pieces that are unable to be captured.” The Red Warning card will display this text: “(Opposing Player’s Name,) the continual delay of game has forced your resignation.” Once a player has received a Red Warning card, the Warning card will shrink down to an icon next to the player’s name and then the Defeat logo will be displayed. The player that did not receive a Red Warning card will gain a Victory at this moment.

[HmmNess]

11. Repetition of Threatening Moves: More-Squares Rule
11.1 - It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly. The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place.

The rules are stating that a player may not move a piece in a manner that will result in the same position endlessly over and over while chasing another piece. In Wojtek’s illustration, the pieces do not result in the same position over and over. This would not be under a violation of rule 11.1, since the so called chaser is not leading the opponent piece into a position on the board which has already taken place. Let me illustrate how my idea works which will take care of rule 11.1 without an admin, moderator or judge.

 mAP.jpg   199.25KB   42 downloads
Move 0
It is Blue’s turn and the Blue General is 1 space away from the Red Colonel. There are no “Pre-Binds” or “Full-Binds” present at this moment. The AI cache is clear.

Move 1
Blue places his General vertically adjacent to the Red Colonel. This does NOT create a “Full-Bind” since you must first create a “Pre-Bind” in order to create a “Full-Bind.”

Move 2
The Red Colonel moves to the right creating a diagonal between him and the Blue General. This will create a “Pre-Bind,” which the AI notes.

Move 3
The Blue General follows the Red Colonel to the right creating a “Full-Bind.” This “Full-Bind” is created, because a “Pre-Bind” was created on Move 2. The AI will store this action in the cache.

Move 4
The Red Colonel moves left to try and dodge the Blue General’s attack. This has semi-broken the “Full-Bind” by creating another “Pre-Bind.” The AI will store this action in the cache.

Move 5
The Blue General moves left, once again following the Red Colonel to reconstruct the semi-broken “Full-Bind.” The AI has once again noted this.

Move 6
The Red Colonel moves right again to dodge the Blue General’s attack. This has once again, semi-broken the “Full-Bind” by creating another “Pre-Bind,” which is noted once more by the AI.

Move 7
The Blue General moves right, once again following the Red Colonel to reconstruct the semi-broken “Full-Bind.” There is a total of 3 reconstructed “Full-Binds” at this point that the AI has noted.

Move 8
The Red Colonel can’t move to the left once again, because of the 2 square rule. If the Red Colonel does not want to be captured, the Red Colonel must retreat one space backwards. This has totally broken the “Full-Bind,” since the 2 pieces are not resting on squares diagonally adjacent from one another. This action of retreating one square away from the Blue General, forces the AI to clear the cache.

Move 9
The Blue General pursues the Red Colonel by moving one space along the same column as the Red Colonel. This will NOT create a “Full-Bind,” since the 2 pieces were not in a “Pre-Bind” on move 8.

Move 10
The Red Colonel moves left to avoid capture from the Blue General. This creates a “Pre-Bind,” which is noted by the AI.

Move 11
The Blue General creates a “Full-Bind” with the Red Colonel by moving one space to the left. This “Full-Bind” is able to be created, because there was a “Pre-Bind” on move 10. The AI must note this action as well.

Move 12
The Red Colonel knows that he is trapped by the 2 square rule, so moving to the right to avoid any attack from the Blue General is pointless. The Red Colonel has another plan to dodge the Blue General by moving 1 space back. This totally breaks the “Full-Bind” and the AI cache is cleared once again.

Move 13
The Blue General pursues the Red Colonel by moving one space along the same column as the Red Colonel. This will NOT create a “Full-Bind,” since the 2 pieces were not in a “Pre-Bind” on move 12.

Move 14
The Red Colonel moves left to avoid capture from the Blue General. This creates a “Pre-Bind,” which is noted by the AI.

Move 15
The Blue General creates a “Full-Bind” with the Red Colonel by moving one space forward. This “Full-Bind” is able to be created, because there was a “Pre-Bind” on move 14. The AI must note this action.

Move 16
The Red Colonel retreats back one more time, semi-breaking the “Full-Bind” by creating another “Pre-Bind” with the Blue General. The AI must also note this action.

Move 17
The Blue General chases the Red Colonel by moving forward also, which reconstructs the same semi-broken “Full-Bind.” This is now becoming a chase since the Red Colonel is no longer locked in a 2 square rule by any means. So far we have 2 reconstructed “Full-Binds” created by the Blue General. The AI must note this action.

Move 18
The Red Colonel steps backwards once again to avoid an attack from the Blue General. This semi-breaks the “Full-Bind” once again and creates a “Pre-Bind.” It is clear at this point that the Red Colonel cannot be captured in this manner. The AI will note that another “Full-Bind” has been broken and a new “Pre-Bind” has been constructed.

Move 19
The Blue General doesn’t care that he is cheating by chasing the Red Colonel in this manner. He moves to the left, creating a reconstructed “Full-Bind” from the “Pre-Bind” created on move 18. The AI has now noted that there has been 3 consecutive reconstructed “Full-Binds” involving the same 2 pieces.

Move 20
The Red Colonel once again avoids the Blue General’s attack by moving 1 space to the right. This semi-breaks the “Full-Bind” and creates another “Pre-Bind.” At this point, the Red Colonel cannot be flagged by the 2 step rule, and he may continue to dodge the Blue General in this manner. The AI will note that this action has occurred.

Move 21
The Blue General may not move to the left or forward to reconstruct another “Full-Bind.” The AI has noted that 3 “Full-Binds” have been constructed by the same 2 pieces. If the Blue General tries to move to the left or forward, the AI will prompt him that he is chasing and forbid him to move to either of those 2 squares. The Blue General now has a few choices. He may stay where he is and move another piece on the game board or he may move 1 space to the left or 1 space to the right. Whichever decision the Blue Player makes, the AI cache will be cleared.

The problem with chasing deals with pieces that are on a diagonal from each other. This will violate rule 11.1, since you can endlessly lead to the same position over and over if you try to reconstruct the same semi-broken “Full-Bind” over and over. The AI will prevent this from occurring over and over, but the AI can only do so much before clearing the cache. The ISF chooses to use Warning Cards if a player continues to violate rule 11.1. I would like to implement these Warning Cards, but I agree with M-D that beginner players might not understand what is going on exactly. This could frustrate new players and perhaps push them away from coming back to this website. If we give the players maybe 4 prompts before the first Warning Card is issued, that might be a fair balance. I would also like to add, that we can make it so the AI won’t prompt you if you try to create 4 consecutive “Full-Binds.” We could change that number to 5, 6 or 7, whatever the community and developers are comfortable with.

HmmNess

[Wojtek]

Disallowing chasing for more than 12 consecutive moves sounds good to me, situations where the chase has some constructive (or maybe destructive) purpose should not be affected by this rule as most paths from one end of the board to the other are shorter than 12 moves. You also need less patience with this one than with the rule 11.1 from the game rules.
I believe this should be simply disallowed similarily to disallowing the fourth shift between two neighbouring squares, so just a explanation message without any elaborate card system. I believe a penalty system would disencourage people from continuing chases if they did not count the number of moves and I do not think this is the desired effect. It seems more clear for me to simply not allow moves, which we consider cheating.
Maybe this rule should have a similar exception like 11.1 in the game rules, that you are always able to go back to the position you came from in your previous move as long as it does not violate the three squares rule (this is described in paragraph 11.2 of the game rules).

[SpacemanSpiff]

HmmNess - your thoughtful explanation is appreciated as always

The thing with rule 11.1 is that is says 2 things:
1) It is not allowed to continuously chase one or more pieces of the opponent endlessly.
2) The continuous chaser may not play a chasing move which would lead to a position on the board which has already taken place.

The 12 move warning addresses the endless chase portion and the "Pre-Bind" addresses the returning to a preoccupied space in the chase. So the answer is simple - we should implement both!

I also like the idea of 4 warnings before the cards are issued but I really think we need the cards too, to make sure that the habitual chasers don't learn how to game the system and just ignore the warnings.

I really think we're on to something here. If this gets implemented, this will be the only site that has automated anti-chasing features which, in my humble opinion, will attract WAY more Stratego players than repel. I think the news of this feature will spread like wildfire in the forums and chat rooms and many Stratego players will come here versus the competition.

Spiff

[HmmNess]

Thx Spiff,
I think implementing both would be acceptable. We should also direct some of the vet players to this thread to see if we can get more input.

HmmNess

[trickz]

that's idd a great solution, the anti chasing system!
there were some moments in games that my opponent trapped me in the left corner with his marshall, try to get my general.
i just couldn't do anything but avoid and with the 2 square rule, i couldn't move to the side so i went down and when if i went up, i couldn't go down and then i had to crash in his bomb.
but i couldn't go down as well so eventually he trapped me and i couldn't do anything and with this kind of play, the chaser has always got the benefits, which is totally bogus

i think you have to be able to avoid an attack of a superior piece at ANY TIME
they can only trap you if they use two pieces in order to take you out
avoiding attacks must always be possible

i never heard of this rule in my life and before 2010, there was no 2 square rule
the ISF only implemented this after the 5 move rule

because i didn't know, it has costed me some games where top pieces were jacked and i couldn't do anything

so please introduce the anti chase system which hmness and spiff have been talking about and this will be the best stratego site BY FAR!
and after all,...this is the official stratego site, isn't it?


make it happen please and punish irritating non)stop chasers!


grtz

trickz

[HmmNess]

Tricks you got trapped by the 2 square rule which is ok in my opinion. It is not chasing if the piece can be captured in that sort of way. The main problem we have is people delaying the game by moving the same piece back and forth over and over.

HmmNess

[trickz]

Yes, I got trapped by that rule on several occasions when I still didn't know why and how it worked.
I can understand now why that rule is being applied but it took me a while to be honest.
That rule didn't exist before 2010. It replaced the 5-rule.

And they did chase me.
Situation was :

I'm going through the middle with the general, attack on the left his major and then he chases my general to the left side of the board with his marshall which I knew.
Obviously, I was not gonna attack an unknown piece so the only thing I could do was going to the left and go down from there.
He chased me to the left, we stood diagonally. He on his front line on his right side at the left spot and me diagonally towards him.
He goes down so I'm going up. He goes up again next to me so I'm moving it down again.
He goes down again and I can't go up anymore.
But he started the chase? So he went down, up, down and yet he can pull it off!
However, the 2-square rule says you can't,.... So I went down, I had no other choice.
This is totally unlogical?
I had to go down all the way where he trapped me between my two bombs.
There was nothing I could do about it.


Now I just know that I have to walk a straight line over and over again.
If I go up, I have to go all the empty spaces up instead of one and then go down.
And the same vice versa,....all the way back down instead of one space down.

This is an official rule implemented by the ISF in 2010 apparantly but my point is,...
the majority of the stratego players just don't know this and it makes it really confusing.

And it is confusing because I can't explain why the chaser can violate the rule while I simply want to avoid his attack but for whatever reason just can't?

Or was my game bugged or something? :s

[SpacemanSpiff]

Trickster,

You're still not getting the 2 square "back 'n forth' rule. When you are being pursued (not chased) down a 2 column wide corridor where your only options are retreating down the corridor or evading back 'n forth between 2 squares, the system will stop you when you INITIATE the back 'n forth movement - in other words, when you are the FIRST to move back to the square you just occupied the previous turn before the pursuer does the same. Because the system stops you from back 'n forth movement, your only option is to retreat down the corridor until you can no longer move backwards and the pursuing piece takes you. This is backing down - not chasing. The savvy pursuer recognizes that your only options are retreat or back 'n forth and knows the pursuit will end shortly with a capture when you stop the back 'n forth movement or retreat until your back is at a wall.

Chasing is when there is no end to the pursuit.

Spiff