Jump to content


Photo

2 Square Rule Change Suggestion


  • Please log in to reply
83 replies to this topic

#21 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 November 2013 - 05:33 AM

Because your heart burst, as you say...or you ran out of breath! :-p

 

LTG, I don't know about you, but I'd be a marathoner if someone were chasing me!  

 

This is my point: we can't just make up the realities we want to justify rules. In fact, I argue that reality has no place in this game beyond the "reality" defined by the rules as set. 

 

Some people may not like the rule of en passant in chess; some may argue it is "unnatural and unfair." But it remains a rule, nevertheless. 

 

Again, I ask:

 

When should "reality" dictate the rules of this game, and when shouldn't it? Which form or "reality" should govern and why? 

 

Well, how about the fact this rule doesn't appear in any original board game versions?  Who in authority made it up?  Every kid in America in the 1960's and 1970's would've played the game without this rule and things went along just fine.  Games didn't take too long.  Obviously, someone with a hankering to do things the easy way made this rule up later.  For that's exactly what this rule does:  it makes it easier for the experienced user of the rule to accomplish a "kill".  He only needs one piece where two are required.  

 

You propose that your version of "reality" should be governing because in your "reality" it seems unfair. In one of my constructed "realities," the 2-square rule is perfectly sensible. That's my point. At some stage "reality" really has no place and one just needs to learn how to play the game and adapt. It's not even a particularly difficult one to learn or understand, though I agree it is not the most intuitive (then again, neither is castling in chess).

 

LTG, how many "realities" do you think there are?  Gravity works the same everywhere.  We all need sleep.  We all die and pay taxes.  We all have the same general reality.  In my experience I've never been constrained to die.  Have you been so constrained?  If not, have you ever witnessed such a constraint upon an individual?  Yes, there are some puzzling things in other games.  But Castling in Chess at least has a basis in reality.  Hiding and protecting one's king is a natural desire.  Castling is a special move, but it is neither UNFAIR nor UNREAL.  The current 2 Square Rule in ONLINE Stratego is UNREAL and UNFAIR.  It is completely without basis in any kind of real-life example.

 

I'm not trying to give you a hard time, Gary. I just think - respectfully - you are approaching the rationale for eliminating the 2-square rule - or modifying it - from a set of invalid starting assumptions.

 

LTG, I rise from the fires of righteousness against this offence to common sense called the 2 Square Rule.  This heinous creation was born well after I began playing the board game, so it is in no ways original.  Further, do you think it right that two miners can defeat a Marshal and a General in Trickz' scenario?  Your 2 Square Rule says I have to die and Trickz cannot defend his flag.  How "invalid" are my starting assumptions?

 

GLS


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...604#entry339604

#22 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 November 2013 - 06:01 AM

LTG,

 

Zugzwang is the compulsion to MOVE.

 

It is not the compulsion to NOT MOVE!  There is a huge difference between this rule and our Stratego 2 Square Rule.

 

In Zugzwang the chess player plays himself into a position where he would rather pass one turn but is forced to move, and with a likely poor result for his position.  The same could be said in checkers where often the game comes down to one simple forced move.

 

Here with the 2 Square Rule we have a COMPULSION TO NOT MOVE.  The resulting kill is not the result of a game full of playing into such a position but rather the effect of usually only a few moves of a skilled player with the aid of the computer to chain down his opponent into his snare.  It's like ruffian punches his victim while his henchman hold him down.

 

I ask where are the guilty consciences of those who utilize this rule?

 

GLS 


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...604#entry339604

#23 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 08:23 AM

LTG,

 

Zugzwang is the compulsion to MOVE.

 

It is not the compulsion to NOT MOVE!  There is a huge difference between this rule and our Stratego 2 Square Rule.

 

In Zugzwang the chess player plays himself into a position where he would rather pass one turn but is forced to move, and with a likely poor result for his position.  The same could be said in checkers where often the game comes down to one simple forced move.

 

Here with the 2 Square Rule we have a COMPULSION TO NOT MOVE.  The resulting kill is not the result of a game full of playing into such a position but rather the effect of usually only a few moves of a skilled player with the aid of the computer to chain down his opponent into his snare.  It's like ruffian punches his victim while his henchman hold him down.

 

I ask where are the guilty consciences of those who utilize this rule?

 

GLS 

 

In the case of your miners vs. general/marshal example, this is where zugzwang comes into play. It is the clever use of miners that eventually will compel the general and marshal to move away from the defense of their flag. That is, a requirement to move when one would otherwise like to "pass" on their move. This is the "sophisticated" application of zugzwang principles to Stratego. I agree that - at a cursory, first glance, it seems zugzwang is the opposite, but really the principle is the same (where utilized and applied well by a clever/astute player).

 

As for your other point, castling to me can be argued as unfair and unreal. Why should a king be allowed to move two squares and then tuck another piece through it? When can an edifice penetrate and skip past the corporal being of the king? What magical power endows the king with the ability suddenly to move twice as "fast" when castling? I am being facetious, but hopefully you get my point. :)

 

As for the point on realities, my point is precisely as you have noted: there are multiple realities depending on the interpretation of the individual experiencing said reality. You say that " It is completely without basis in any kind of real-life example."   Yet I provided several real-life examples of how one could say the 2-square rule reflects reality (a defender running out of energy or breath, for example). Your assumption that a defender would always be able to have more motivation to escape than an attacker is as fallacious as my argument to the contrary. :) This is my point. It is all a matter of perspective. I don't think there is some absolute "reality" that renders the 2-square rule unfair.

 

We'll have to agree to disagree as you artfully put it. 

 

Again, thanks for sharing your perspective. No personal attack intended in any of the above - just debate on the core principles underlying Stratego as played herein.


How can I help you?

#24 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:15 AM

In the case of your miners vs. general/marshal example, this is where zugzwang comes into play. It is the clever use of miners that eventually will compel the general and marshal to move away from the defense of their flag. That is, a requirement to move when one would otherwise like to "pass" on their move. This is the "sophisticated" application of zugzwang principles to Stratego. I agree that - at a cursory, first glance, it seems zugzwang is the opposite, but really the principle is the same (where utilized and applied well by a clever/astute player).

 

I would defer to Trickz to fully explain the situation, but it is definitely NOT your zugzwang coming into play, as you say.  The problem is NOT a COMPULSION to MOVE, but rather a PREVENTION of MOVING that stops the superior pieces from killing the miners.  The part that does reflect zugzwang is that there is no choice for the General or Marshal NOT to move.  One or the other must move in his turn, yes.  BUT THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM!  In chess or checkers I may want to pass because it often comes down to the situation of "he who moves, loses".  But of course I cannot do that there, nor here in Stratego, so I move.  BUT IN CHESS OR CHECKERS I AM NEVER PREVENTED TO MOVE IN ANY POSSIBLE DIRECTION.  I may have two or three bad moves all available, but  I am FREE to CHOOSE death at whichever hand I CHOOSE.

 

With the infamous 2 Square Rule we all love, one is CONSTRAINED NOT TO MOVE IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION.  This is what allows the Miners to win over the Marshal and General.  The "reality" question becomes laughable here.  We have not only a situation where the Stratego rule not only bears no relationship to "reality", it doesn't bear any relationship to other "non-reality" constructs, such as chess or checkers.

 

Only if "zugzwang" means "screwed up" does it apply to the 2 Square Rule.

 

 

As for your other point, castling to me can be argued as unfair and unreal. Why should a king be allowed to move two squares and then tuck another piece through it? When can an edifice penetrate and skip past the corporeal ;) being of the king? What magical power endows the king with the ability suddenly to move twice as "fast" when castling? I am being facetious, but hopefully you get my point. :)

 

The history of chess goes way back.  In India the Rook was called the Chariot.  So it is natural, perhaps, that it is able to flee fast and grab the King to safety in the Castling move.

 

As for the point on realities, my point is precisely as you have noted: there are multiple realities depending on the interpretation of the individual experiencing said reality. You say that " It is completely without basis in any kind of real-life example."   Yet I provided several real-life examples of how one could say the 2-square rule reflects reality (a defender running out of energy or breath, for example). Your assumption that a defender would always be able to have more motivation to escape than an attacker is as fallacious as my argument to the contrary. :) This is my point. It is all a matter of perspective. I don't think there is some absolute "reality" that renders the 2-square rule unfair.

 

How, LTG, does the 2 Square Rule reflect "a defender running out of energy or breath"?  Might that defender falter?  Yes, but  might he also be in great marathon shape and easily outrun his pursuers?  Of course.  The plain question is this:  Is that defender in your example free to keep running?  Is he FREE?  Yes he is.  Therefore, this is no reflection of the 2 Square Rule at all.  Under the 2 Square Rule an evader is absolutely NOT FREE to run.  And this is only for the reason of game expediency for the skillful.

 

As to motivation, je vous dis au contraire, monsieur.  I believe the principle of a defensive advantage is well proven over the centuries.  In the US Civil War the South had 9 million people vs. 22 million in the North at the outset.  Yet, despite being outnumbered more than 2 to 1, and far out numbered in industrial concerns, the South fought a dogged 4 year battle.  When one is fighting on his home turf he has all the motivation in the world.  He may not be victorious, but he has an inherent advantage in the motivation department.  

 

We'll have to agree to disagree as you artfully put it. 

 

Thank you.  I try to be artful, if unoriginal.  It is the probably only the rarest of creativities in life that has never been sounded before, though we would have to ask deity about that.  

 

To borrow from Pirates of the Caribbean.  "So what now, Jack Sparrow?  're we to be two immortals locked in an epic battle til Judgement Day and Trumpets sound?"  To which Captain Jack calmly replies, "Or you can surrender."

 

Again, thanks for sharing your perspective. No personal attack intended in any of the above - just debate on the core principles underlying Stratego as played herein.

 

D'accord.


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...604#entry339604

#25 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 November 2013 - 12:29 PM

Miners vs sergeants, both sealed flag, should be a tie and no way that the miners would win!

That simple,....continuously chasing one piece is NOT the same as continuously chasing more pieces.

Continuously=uninterrupted in time

With a double chase, I switch my attacks constantly so the deffinition is not the same anymore) I can't continuously chase.

 

I've tried to explain this with some rap entertainment but apparantly it's not an issue. :D

 

 

ISF : International Stratego Facists :)

 

Double chase is perfect legit.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#26 Sohal

Sohal

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 614 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Marshal

Posted 16 November 2013 - 03:27 PM

why should the rules be changed because one or two guys don't understand it ?

the two squares rule is one of the most important one in stratego.

not continuously chasing an opponent (one or more pieces) is another one.


  • LearningThisGame likes this

#27 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 November 2013 - 04:13 PM

why should the rules be changed because one or two guys don't understand it ?

the two squares rule is one of the most important one in stratego.

not continuously chasing an opponent (one or more pieces) is another one.

 

 

Oh, I do understand the rule perfectly, that's not a problem.

But you don't understand me I think,.....and I'm talking about the 2s-rule in combination with the continuously chasing part.

 

Classic example : you have two miners left and a sealed flag and I have two sergeants left with a corner sealed flag.

Your first miner is on the edge blocked on a diagonal with my first sergeant.

Your other miner is on my bottom on a diagonal with my second sergeant.

Now I'm gonna double chase you all the way and I say that it's perfect legal.

Why?  Because THERE ARE TWO 2-SQUARE SITUATIONS on the board now.

The ISF rule clearly states that I can't continuously chase on or more pieces.

 

Look the meaning of the word "continuously" in the dictionnary and you will find the deffinition : UNINTERRUPTED in time.

To be sure :

http://dictionary.re...se/continuously

 

So in order to continuously chase I have to do it CONSTANTLY, NON-STOP without an interruption.

But the fact is,....there is an interruption after each attack!

I chase one piece and then the chain is broken so in theory it's only possible to continuously chase one piece and because the 2s-rule prevents you for doing that (since you can't continuously chase one piece), I can't kill that piece.

 

But now there are TWO 2s-situations on the board and I still can't kill the two pieces.

However, I can chase them till infinity, I switch my attacks so the loop is getting renewed everytime.

But apparantly you guys don't understand the true meaning of the word continuously cuz' you don't make a difference between continuously chasing ONE piece OR more pieces while the fact is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

You can't change the meaning of a word just to fit your ideal vision, I'm sorry.

Or the word means something,....or it means NOTHING.

UNINTERRUPTED IN TIME,......that's what continuously means!

So I can't chase uninterrupted in time and that's exactly why I switch my attacks so both the miners are not being chased continuously since the deffinition of the word only says that I can't chase uninterrupted in time.

Chasing in ONE 2-situation is therefore NOT the same as chasing in TWO or more 2s-situations on the board because I switch the attacks constantly.  

If you think that is the same as chasing ONE piece ,then it's obvious that the term "continuously" loses its meaning completely.

You can't have two complete different meanings for the same word Sohal, that's impossible.

 

 

That's why the 2s-rule absolutely suks, it doesn't make any sense.

Most of the time Stratego exists, this rule wasn't even into play at all!

The 2s-rule has only been in use since 1997 when the ISF implemented it in the first worldchampionship.

That means that this rule never saw the daylight for more than 50 years!!!!

 

 

It's very easy without thinking blindly copy and follow what other people say you have to do.

You claim the ISF has got a monopoly on the truth or something but the truth is that they don't even know how to describe the word continuously.  They don't care about the deffinition in the dictionnary at all.

For me, that's wrong and I see the ISF as a disease that's ruining the game.

 

So I understand it perfectly,......but the point is,....you also understand this but you're just to stubborn (like the ISF) to admit you're wrong.  Rules have to be bulletproof and they have to be there to serve everybody.

ISF-rules only serve high elite players who have found a new way to dominate the game.

It's absolutely INSANITY that two sergeants will lose to two miners on the board.

Everybody knows it should be a tie.  The miners can't get to the flag and the sergeants can't kill the miners without risking the flag.

Only the stupid ISF thinks it's not like that,........but every COMMONsensed creature knows it should be a tie (normally it should end like this unless someone makes a mistake of course).

 

 

Btw,.....You would say that Jumbo would follow the ISF regarding their continuously-issue, no?

Well, how come that I can do a double chase till infinity here on this site? They have not implemented this BS on the site

because Jumbo apparantly has got some common sense as well and decided to NOT blindly obey every rule of the ISF!

 

 

You guys just don't know how to play at all without a 2s-rule situation.

It means a lot more efforts in your game, it means a lot more tactics, it means a lot more bluffin' in fact.

You should only be killed if you can't run away so if you're stuck.

If that's not the case, you can only be killed if your opponent AMBUSHES you with two pieces.

That's how the game has been for more than 60 years!

 

60 years of the classic original Stratego versus 16 years of the new fokked up ISF version,...........

and then you're arrogantly claiming that 80 percent of all the Strategoyears are pure wasted because the 2s-rule was not in place back then?!

Stratego wouldn't even EXIST so I suggest you have some respect for the history of the game cuz' without the history, there was no Stratego at all.  Never betray the roots of the game.

 

 

That's my vision about it.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#28 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:21 PM

Oh, I do understand the rule perfectly, that's not a problem.

But you don't understand me I think,.....and I'm talking about the 2s-rule in combination with the continuously chasing part.

 

Classic example : you have two miners left and a sealed flag and I have two sergeants left with a corner sealed flag.

Your first miner is on the edge blocked on a diagonal with my first sergeant.

Your other miner is on my bottom on a diagonal with my second sergeant.

Now I'm gonna double chase you all the way and I say that it's perfect legal.

Why?  Because THERE ARE TWO 2-SQUARE SITUATIONS on the board now.

The ISF rule clearly states that I can't continuously chase on or more pieces.

 

Look the meaning of the word "continuously" in the dictionnary and you will find the deffinition : UNINTERRUPTED in time.

To be sure :

http://dictionary.re...se/continuously

 

So in order to continuously chase I have to do it CONSTANTLY, NON-STOP without an interruption.

But the fact is,....there is an interruption after each attack!

I chase one piece and then the chain is broken so in theory it's only possible to continuously chase one piece and because the 2s-rule prevents you for doing that (since you can't continuously chase one piece), I can't kill that piece.

 

But now there are TWO 2s-situations on the board and I still can't kill the two pieces.

However, I can chase them till infinity, I switch my attacks so the loop is getting renewed everytime.

But apparantly you guys don't understand the true meaning of the word continuously cuz' you don't make a difference between continuously chasing ONE piece OR more pieces while the fact is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE!

 

You can't change the meaning of a word just to fit your ideal vision, I'm sorry.

Or the word means something,....or it means NOTHING.

UNINTERRUPTED IN TIME,......that's what continuously means!

So I can't chase uninterrupted in time and that's exactly why I switch my attacks so both the miners are not being chased continuously since the deffinition of the word only says that I can't chase uninterrupted in time.

Chasing in ONE 2-situation is therefore NOT the same as chasing in TWO or more 2s-situations on the board because I switch the attacks constantly.  

If you think that is the same as chasing ONE piece ,then it's obvious that the term "continuously" loses its meaning completely.

You can't have two complete different meanings for the same word Sohal, that's impossible.

 

 

That's why the 2s-rule absolutely suks, it doesn't make any sense.

Most of the time Stratego exists, this rule wasn't even into play at all!

The 2s-rule has only been in use since 1997 when the ISF implemented it in the first worldchampionship.

That means that this rule never saw the daylight for more than 50 years!!!!

 

 

It's very easy without thinking blindly copy and follow what other people say you have to do.

You claim the ISF has got a monopoly on the truth or something but the truth is that they don't even know how to describe the word continuously.  They don't care about the deffinition in the dictionnary at all.

For me, that's wrong and I see the ISF as a disease that's ruining the game.

 

So I understand it perfectly,......but the point is,....you also understand this but you're just to stubborn (like the ISF) to admit you're wrong.  Rules have to be bulletproof and they have to be there to serve everybody.

ISF-rules only serve high elite players who have found a new way to dominate the game.

It's absolutely INSANITY that two sergeants will lose to two miners on the board.

Everybody knows it should be a tie.  The miners can't get to the flag and the sergeants can't kill the miners without risking the flag.

Only the stupid ISF thinks it's not like that,........but every COMMONsensed creature knows it should be a tie (normally it should end like this unless someone makes a mistake of course).

 

 

Btw,.....You would say that Jumbo would follow the ISF regarding their continuously-issue, no?

Well, how come that I can do a double chase till infinity here on this site? They have not implemented this BS on the site

because Jumbo apparantly has got some common sense as well and decided to NOT blindly obey every rule of the ISF!

 

 

You guys just don't know how to play at all without a 2s-rule situation.

It means a lot more efforts in your game, it means a lot more tactics, it means a lot more bluffin' in fact.

You should only be killed if you can't run away so if you're stuck.

If that's not the case, you can only be killed if your opponent AMBUSHES you with two pieces.

That's how the game has been for more than 60 years!

 

60 years of the classic original Stratego versus 16 years of the new fokked up ISF version,...........

and then you're arrogantly claiming that 80 percent of all the Strategoyears are pure wasted because the 2s-rule was not in place back then?!

Stratego wouldn't even EXIST so I suggest you have some respect for the history of the game cuz' without the history, there was no Stratego at all.  Never betray the roots of the game.

 

 

That's my vision about it.

 

trickz, 

 

You are drawing a distinction between continually chasing pieces and continuously chasing pieces. That is clear. 

 

I personally don't think folks should be allowed to keep chasing one piece and then switching the chase to another set of pieces in an infinite loop. What the outcome of that should be, however, is more interesting. In my opinion, a certain number of such repetitions should result in an automatic draw. The exact mechanism for making this happen would need to be refined, of course.


How can I help you?

#29 trickz

trickz

    Major

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,450 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 16 November 2013 - 09:43 PM

trickz, 

 

You are drawing a distinction between continually chasing pieces and continuously chasing pieces. That is clear. 

 

I personally don't think folks should be allowed to keep chasing one piece and then switching the chase to another set of pieces in an infinite loop. What the outcome of that should be, however, is more interesting. In my opinion, a certain number of such repetitions should result in an automatic draw. The exact mechanism for making this happen would need to be refined, of course.

 

 

An automatic draw after an x-period of time would be the ideal and FAIR solution in this case, I agree.

Btw,...I don't draw a distinction between chasing pieces and chasing pieces.

I draw a distinction in chasing ONE piece continuously (so never ending attack) and chasing TWO or more pieces continuously.

Cuz' according to the deffinition of the word continuously, I can NEVER and I repeat NEVER so called "continuously" chase two or more pieces cuz' this causes an interruption of one of my chasing actions which means that the meaning "uninterrupted in time" is no longer the definition of the word!

You can say I SWITCH the attacks but you can't say I continuously chase them.

I can only continuously chase one piece.

And let's face it, that would be bs too,....so don't get me wrong,....the 2s-rule has got some real advantages too.

But the problem is that this rule is not detailed enough to cover all the related problems on the board.

 

 

Or you get a rule that deals with ALL situations on the board or you simple don't change anything.

This is just total vagueness and an open portal to incountable discussions since the classic gamesituation I described can happen more often than you think.  It's these situations that make the 2s-rule look bad.

If this wasn't a problem, then I can understand the rule in fact cuz' it's made with an idea, obviously.

But unfortunately, it is the biggest problem of the entire rule and that's why I think the rules should advance.

Rules change all the time, in whatever you or you're in so why is it then so impossible for the ISF to EVALUATE (I don't even mention the word change now) the rules?

 

 

Its crystal clear that they lack details and I even got these issues confirmed by an ISF-referee himself.


I love the smell of Napalm in the morning

#30 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 16 November 2013 - 10:10 PM

 

In the case of your miners vs. general/marshal example, this is where zugzwang comes into play. It is the clever use of miners that eventually will compel the general and marshal to move away from the defense of their flag. That is, a requirement to move when one would otherwise like to "pass" on their move. This is the "sophisticated" application of zugzwang principles to Stratego. I agree that - at a cursory, first glance, it seems zugzwang is the opposite, but really the principle is the same (where utilized and applied well by a clever/astute player).

 

I would defer to Trickz to fully explain the situation, but it is definitely NOT your zugzwang coming into play, as you say.  The problem is NOT a COMPULSION to MOVE, but rather a PREVENTION of MOVING that stops the superior pieces from killing the miners.  The part that does reflect zugzwang is that there is no choice for the General or Marshal NOT to move.  One or the other must move in his turn, yes.  BUT THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM!  In chess or checkers I may want to pass because it often comes down to the situation of "he who moves, loses".  But of course I cannot do that there, nor here in Stratego, so I move.  BUT IN CHESS OR CHECKERS I AM NEVER PREVENTED TO MOVE IN ANY POSSIBLE DIRECTION.  I may have two or three bad moves all available, but  I am FREE to CHOOSE death at whichever hand I CHOOSE.

 

With the infamous 2 Square Rule we all love, one is CONSTRAINED NOT TO MOVE IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION.  This is what allows the Miners to win over the Marshal and General.  The "reality" question becomes laughable here.  We have not only a situation where the Stratego rule not only bears no relationship to "reality", it doesn't bear any relationship to other "non-reality" constructs, such as chess or checkers.

 

Only if "zugzwang" means "screwed up" does it apply to the 2 Square Rule.

 

 

 

Perhaps I have a different example in mind than you do. Would you mind illustrating your concept?

 

Here is an example of what I have mind:

 

Starting position, Marshal to move, only movable pieces left shown:

 

Edge of board

Miner    ______ Bomb    Flag    Bomb  
_______Marshal _____   Bomb_______

 

Note that this example throws the concept of attacker/defender by rank out the window. 

 

If the Marshal moves to the right

 

 

Edge of board

Miner    ___    Bomb    Flag     Bomb    

_____ ______Marshal Bomb

 

 

The Miner moves to its right

 

 

Edge of board

  _____Miner Bomb   Flag Bomb    
_____ _____Marshal Bomb  

 

 

Now we have a zugzwang position. Any move the marshal makes will allow the miner to capture the flag. 

 

So let's go back to the starting position:

 

 

Edge of board

Miner _____ Bomb Flag Bomb

____Marshal   ____Bomb

 

 

Say instead the Marshal moves to block the miner

 

Edge of board

Miner   Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb      

                                    Bomb

 

Now the 2-square rule is strategically applied

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

  ____ Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner                         Bomb

 

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

 _____  _____   Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner Marshal               Bomb

 

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

Miner  ____  Bomb Flag Bomb

_____Marshal ___   Bomb

 

 

 

Next move:

 

 

Edge of board

Miner Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb    

____  _______ ____  Bomb

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

  ____ Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner  ______  ____    Bomb

 

 

Now the Marshal is frozen by the 2-square rule, and zugzwang comes into play. The Marshal can only move

 

Edge of board

Marshal  ____  Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner     ______ ____Bomb

 

The player would rather "pass" (since moving up and down is not legal for continuous chasing reasons; you can argue this is unfair to the marshal who should not be constrained from moving up and down infinitely, but then you would need another system for preventing continuous chasing...like a "draw after X moves of no progress" system. This would raise a legitimate debate as to whether that position should always be a draw or whether the miner player should be rewarded for getting to the starting position on the board.)...

 

and the miner is home free to capture the flag.

 

Notice that in this case, based on the "reality" you describe, Gary, the miner is seemingly the defensive piece fleeing for its life from the marshal. But in a context-based scenario, the miner is actually the aggressor in the game (even though it is second to act). (leave aside for now the complexity of trying to program the system to recognize when the second move is the aggressor and when it is the defender, as Losermaker probably was wondering, above).

 

I don't see any issue with this. You could perhaps argue that the Marshal should be able to shuffle up and down infinitely, but this would be the same issue as a continuous chase which is so displeasurable in other aspects of the game (you can't have it both ways...). Thus, the rule is applied fairly and reasonably, and it is up to the astute player to recognize how to create the positions and situations such as the above whereby the miner can actually be a strong piece in this endgame.

 

As a bonus "insight" for the newer players, note that if the starting position were the same but the miner were first to move, the marshal player would win by another application of zugzwang.


How can I help you?

#31 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,454 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 17 November 2013 - 02:21 AM

The 2-Squares Rule and the prohibition of continuous chasing are two separate issue.  I'll address the first.  Eliminating the 2-Squares Rule is a bad idea for several reasons.  First of all, it would make our great game one of considerably less skill, since knowing how to use the rule to one's benefit is one of the main skills that separates good players from new or low ranked players.  Second, as noted by Nortrom, it would give too much advantage to the defense, result in less risk-taking, and lead to more draws.  Here are a couple more examples that show the benefit of the current rule:  It allows a player (even if he is bluffing) to use one piece to force his opponent to retreat.  This can lead to a stronger board position or an opportunity to scout an opponent’s piece.  Without the rule, this type of move would be discouraged because it would require a player would have to expose two pieces.  Also, without the 2-squares rule, it would be much harder to open up a lane a get a piece through.  Two pieces would need to go in front of a miner to clear the way for it.  Moreover, currently a player’s piece can prevent a miner from passing down a side against his opponent’s high piece / miner combination only if it beats it’s opponent’s high piece to the side of the board.  Without the 2-Squares Rule, one piece could block a side even it arrived late when the opponent’s leading piece was already in its territory.  Capturing the flag is one of the most exciting aspects of the game.  It is already enough of a challenge and should not be made more difficult by a rule change that skews the game toward the defender.  Eliminating the 2-Squares Rule would thus lead to stalemated board positions, more draws, and less fun.  



#32 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:17 AM

Perhaps I have a different example in mind than you do. Would you mind illustrating your concept?

 

See Below.

 

Here is an example of what I have mind:

 

Starting position, Marshal to move, only movable pieces left shown:

 

Edge of board

Miner    ______ Bomb    Flag    Bomb  
_______Marshal _____   Bomb_______

 

Note that this example throws the concept of attacker/defender by rank out the window. 

 

If the Marshal moves to the right

 

 

Edge of board

Miner    ___    Bomb    Flag     Bomb    

_____ ______Marshal Bomb

 

 

The Miner moves to its right

 

 

Edge of board

  _____Miner Bomb   Flag Bomb    
_____ _____Marshal Bomb  

 

 

Now we have a zugzwang position. Any move the marshal makes will allow the miner to capture the flag. 

 

So let's go back to the starting position:

 

 

Edge of board

Miner _____ Bomb Flag Bomb

____Marshal   ____Bomb

 

 

Say instead the Marshal moves to block the miner

 

Edge of board

Miner   Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb      

                                    Bomb

 

Now the 2-square rule is strategically applied

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

  ____ Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner                         Bomb

 

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

 _____  _____   Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner Marshal               Bomb

 

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

Miner  ____  Bomb Flag Bomb

_____Marshal ___   Bomb

 

 

 

Next move:

 

 

Edge of board

Miner Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb    

____  _______ ____  Bomb

 

Next move:

 

Edge of board

  ____ Marshal Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner  ______  ____    Bomb

 

 

Now the Marshal is frozen by the 2-square rule, and zugzwang comes into play. The Marshal can only move

 

Edge of board

Marshal  ____  Bomb Flag Bomb

Miner     ______ ____Bomb

 

The player would rather "pass" (since moving up and down is not legal for continuous chasing reasons; you can argue this is unfair to the marshal who should not be constrained from moving up and down infinitely, but then you would need another system for preventing continuous chasing...like a "draw after X moves of no progress" system. This would raise a legitimate debate as to whether that position should always be a draw or whether the miner player should be rewarded for getting to the starting position on the board.)...

 

and the miner is home free to capture the flag.

 

Notice that in this case, based on the "reality" you describe, Gary, the miner is seemingly the defensive piece fleeing for its life from the marshal. But in a context-based scenario, the miner is actually the aggressor in the game (even though it is second to act). (leave aside for now the complexity of trying to program the system to recognize when the second move is the aggressor and when it is the defender, as Losermaker probably was wondering, above).

 

I don't see any issue with this. You could perhaps argue that the Marshal should be able to shuffle up and down infinitely, but this would be the same issue as a continuous chase which is so displeasurable in other aspects of the game (you can't have it both ways...). Thus, the rule is applied fairly and reasonably, and it is up to the astute player to recognize how to create the positions and situations such as the above whereby the miner can actually be a strong piece in this endgame.

 

As a bonus "insight" for the newer players, note that if the starting position were the same but the miner were first to move, the marshal player would win by another application of zugzwang.

 

LTG, first point:  The first piece to make full-bind is the agressor. Period.  It's not complicated at all.  The Marshal is the aggressor in the Miner/Marshal situation you describe because he makes the first full-bind.

 

Second point:  Okay, this is an interesting example that you spell out.  It is indeed an illustration of zugzwang and problematic for the Marshal who has to defend against a Miner when the Marshal has to move first.  And it is a good point to also add that the Miner loses if he has to move first.  I have no problem with this situation.  The bombs are in the way and the Marshal is in trouble.  It is fair and natural enough that he could lose if he has to move first.  

 

But this is NOT the example I was speaking of with Trickz' situation.  There, he has BOTH a General and Marshal, and each is defending against an opposing Miner.   Now, as I said above, I would prefer to defer to Trickz for the exact description.  I believe he spelled it out thoroughly in the past but I don't know the link to the Forum Post in which he did so.  At the risk of not getting it perfect, I believe his situation mirrors your single-sided description with the only difference being that the defender has two movable pieces and should be able to circumvent the 2 Square Rule by the alternating of movement of his Gen and Marsh.  Trickz' problem was that the 2 Square Rule did not reset when he switched from moving his Gen to his Marsh, as would be expected anywhere else on the board.  The computer treated the defender's moves as if done by the same piece in a single continuous move against TWO pieces.  

 

If I have that wrong, hopefully Trickz will clarify.

 

The big question is, Is this right?  The 2 Square Rule ought to at least apply to only a single piece in a single attack.  In Trickz' example, it takes on a broad new power, treating two pieces as one, so as to be in sync with the ISF interpretation of "continuous movement".  Trickz argued vociferously about this all before.  Perhaps he will provide us with links.

 

--------------------------

 

Now, I want to get to a comment you might find interesting here.  Take your first example, the one that gives the win to the Miner in the single battle against the Marshal.  If we make my 2 Square Rule change of giving an extra move to the evading piece, the MINER WILL STILL WIN, which seems odd but is clearly the case, as the Marshal is still limited to his three moves, while the Miner is given an unneeded (in this case) extra move.  

 

Even if we return to my original proposition of 2 moves for the attacker and 3 for the evader, the result is the same.  The Marshal will have to move and he will lose.  

 

Again I have no problem with this result.  The bombs are in the way of the one-on-one battle for the Marshal, and he's in trouble if he has to move first.  The problem I have is the one of the Trickz example where two pieces are treated as one.

 

GLS


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...604#entry339604

#33 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 17 November 2013 - 03:59 AM

The 2-Squares Rule and the prohibition of continuous chasing are two separate issue.  I'll address the first.  Eliminating the 2-Squares Rule is a bad idea for several reasons.  First of all, it would make our great game one of considerably less skill, since knowing how to use the rule to one's benefit is one of the main skills that separates good players from new or low ranked players.  Second, as noted by Nortrom, it would give too much advantage to the defense, result in less risk-taking, and lead to more draws.  Here are a couple more examples that show the benefit of the current rule:  It allows a player (even if he is bluffing) to use one piece to force his opponent to retreat.  This can lead to a stronger board position or an opportunity to scout an opponent’s piece.  Without the rule, this type of move would be discouraged because it would require a player would have to expose two pieces.  Also, without the 2-squares rule, it would be much harder to open up a lane a get a piece through.  Two pieces would need to go in front of a miner to clear the way for it.  Moreover, currently a player’s piece can prevent a miner from passing down a side against his opponent’s high piece / miner combination only if it beats it’s opponent’s high piece to the side of the board.  Without the 2-Squares Rule, one piece could block a side even it arrived late when the opponent’s leading piece was already in its territory.  Capturing the flag is one of the most exciting aspects of the game.  It is already enough of a challenge and should not be made more difficult by a rule change that skews the game toward the defender.  Eliminating the 2-Squares Rule would thus lead to stalemated board positions, more draws, and less fun.  

 

The Prof,  respectfully, "our game"  was great before the advent of the 2 Square Rule.  It is not an original feature of the game.  I would comment that some of the Silver intransigence in this issue stems from the fact that they may have never played WITHOUT the Rule.  Will the effects of the Rule change be as you and Nortrom premise?  Possibly exactly so.  And some of your conclusions are no doubt rightly drawn.   But how can this honestly hurt the game which is now so "skewed" to the aggressor who has 2 Square Rule knowledge?

 

Today's 2 Square Rule users will just have to work harder without the Rule.  And that's not such a bad thing, I submit.

 

Perhaps we could experiment with either the elimination of or the proposed change to that I made for the Rule?  It would be neat to see how it fared in a three month trial. Let's see if it actually leads to "stalemated board positions, more draws, and less fun."  You know, we play the game because we don't just accept that 600 beats 575.  Nor should we fear the bad results you predict without actually doing the experiment.

 

Maybe we could do this after next year's first-of-the-year tournament.  Is that reasonable?

 

GLS


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...604#entry339604

#34 Guest_The Prof_*

Guest_The Prof_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:43 AM

The rule may not have been an original feature of the game, although I’ve been playing Stratego since 1982 and I’ve never known anything other than this rule.  The Milton Bradley games in the 1980s said very clearly “A piece cannot move between the same two squares on three consecutive turns.”  Imagine that, no more than two moves were allowed!  That’s even stricter than the current ISF rule of a maximum of three.

 

Gary, though we disagree, I would like to complement you on your creative solution to prevent chasing in the absence of the 2-squares rule.  if such an experiment as you propose were to be done I would hope that it would include your idea of a maximum 3 moves for the threatening piece and 4 moves for the evading piece.  



#35 The Prof

The Prof

    Major

  • NASF Committee
  • 1,454 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Platinum Scout

Posted 17 November 2013 - 06:59 AM

To clarify your understanding of Trickz’s example, the marshal and general alternately threatening the miners does not involve 2-square rule, but instead is a violation of ISF continuous chase rule, and would not be allowed in a tournament, although the current software at this site does nothing to prevent this type of movement.



#36 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 17 November 2013 - 11:11 PM

 

 

 The computer treated the defender's moves as if done by the same piece in a single continuous move against TWO pieces.  

 

Woah. If I understood the situation you have in mind correctly (a diagram would help to make sure), that would be very weird and - to me - unnatural. I haven't come across this situation/experience, before.

Trickz - would you mind illustrating (again) the example you have in mind to make sure I am understanding the situation correctly? It would seem to me that a marsh / gen defending two miners approaching from different angles should be able - under current programming - to hold a draw through continual chasing (alternating between a general chase and a marshal chase of two different miners). I leave aside judgment for now as to whether this is "right" or "wrong."

 

Now, I want to get to a comment you might find interesting here.  Take your first example, the one that gives the win to the Miner in the single battle against the Marshal.  If we make my 2 Square Rule change of giving an extra move to the evading piece, the MINER WILL STILL WIN, which seems odd but is clearly the case, as the Marshal is still limited to his three moves, while the Miner is given an unneeded (in this case) extra move.  

 

Even if we return to my original proposition of 2 moves for the attacker and 3 for the evader, the result is the same.  The Marshal will have to move and he will lose.  

 

Again I have no problem with this result.  The bombs are in the way of the one-on-one battle for the Marshal, and he's in trouble if he has to move first.  The problem I have is the one of the Trickz example where two pieces are treated as one.

 

GLS

 
Are you sure that is the case? In the starting position above, the problem is in the attacker (Marshal) getting stuck and not the evader (the Miner). Your proposal becomes interesting when the starting position is one in which a full-bind already exists and the evading player moves first.
 
For example:
 
Starting position:
 
Edge of board
Miner   Marshal    Bomb   Flag  Bomb
                                         Bomb
 
First move: 
___ Marshal Bomb Flag  Bomb
Miner ____  _____  Bomb ____
 
Next move:
___ _______   Bomb Flag  Bomb
Miner Marshal  _____  Bomb ____
 
Next move:
 
Miner ____ Bomb Flag  Bomb
___Marshal _ ___ Bomb ____
 
Next move:
___ Marshal Bomb Flag  Bomb
Miner ____  _____  Bomb ____
 
Now normally the Mashal would follow ...
___ _______   Bomb Flag  Bomb
Miner Marshal  _____  Bomb ____
 
...and the Miner would be stuck (forced to move down or be eaten by the Marshal - but not back to its starting position square).
 
You are proposing that the Miner would be allowed one more move? Ending in...
 
Miner   ___    Bomb   Flag  Bomb
____Marshal             Bomb
 
Now the Marshal would be subject to zugzwang if prohibited from continued vertical chasing. 
 
This basically results in an additional advantage to the Miner as the Marshal is now screwed both if it starts at a diagonal to the miner and has to move, as well as if starts adjacent to the Miner, and the Miner has the first move (obviously in all other scenarios the Marshal wins). 
 
Your proposed modification favoring the evader - unless I have missed something or misunderstood something, Gary - would severely disadvantage the Marshal player. You are increasing the number of scenarios in which the Marshal player is forced to lose.
 
Is this what you are proposing and what you deem more fair? If so, I would have to object strongly.

How can I help you?

#37 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:19 AM

To clarify your understanding of Trickz’s example, the marshal and general alternately threatening the miners does not involve 2-square rule, but instead is a violation of ISF continuous chase rule, and would not be allowed in a tournament, although the current software at this site does nothing to prevent this type of movement.

 

Respectfully, The Prof, yes Trickz' situation clearly does involve the 2 Square Rule, as he describes the problem in some detail at Post #27 earlier in this thread.  Yes, the continuous movement aspect is another complication of things which brings about Trickz' situation, but his problem would plainly not exist if the 2 Square Rule were done away with.  

 

What you have said that I didn't know, and I thank you for making this point, is that the "continuous chasing" rule is found with the ISF and is not part of the rules here at Stratego.com.  I didn't catch it, but that is precisely what Trickz also said in the same post #27 when he said Jumbo had the common sense not to have the continuous chasing rule here.

 

But, nevertheless, the 2 Square Rule is very germane to situation with Trickz.  His problem well illustrates how continuous chasing and 2 Square are conjoined at the hip with the ISF.

 

GLS 


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...604#entry339604

#38 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 18 November 2013 - 10:35 AM

The rule may not have been an original feature of the game, although I’ve been playing Stratego since 1982 and I’ve never known anything other than this rule.  The Milton Bradley games in the 1980s said very clearly “A piece cannot move between the same two squares on three consecutive turns.”  Imagine that, no more than two moves were allowed!  That’s even stricter than the current ISF rule of a maximum of three.

 

Gary, though we disagree, I would like to complement you on your creative solution to prevent chasing in the absence of the 2-squares rule.  if such an experiment as you propose were to be done I would hope that it would include your idea of a maximum 3 moves for the threatening piece and 4 moves for the evading piece.  

 

The Prof, that is interesting, and even more strict, huh?   I can only speak of the 1960's and 1970's when I was introduced to and often played the board game, I suppose.  However, without a computer to enforce it, as I've said before, I seriously doubt whether this 1980's rule worked the way we imagine it would with our online experience today. 

 

Thanks for the complement.  I would also want to add here that if an experiment in this vein is indeed tried next year, I wouldn't mind if we went all the way and just eliminated the 2 Square Rule altogether for awhile.  But certainly an experiment with at least the 3/4 modification would be very fruitful, I think.   

 

GLS


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...604#entry339604

#39 GaryLShelton

GaryLShelton

    Marshal

  • Moderators
  • 4,265 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Gold Captain

Posted 18 November 2013 - 06:52 PM

I thought I responded to this post already, LTG.  Somehow it got lost.

 

See below:  

 

 

Woah. If I understood the situation you have in mind correctly (a diagram would help to make sure), that would be very weird and - to me - unnatural. I haven't come across this situation/experience, before.

Trickz - would you mind illustrating (again) the example you have in mind to make sure I am understanding the situation correctly? It would seem to me that a marsh / gen defending two miners approaching from different angles should be able - under current programming - to hold a draw through continual chasing (alternating between a general chase and a marshal chase of two different miners). I leave aside judgment for now as to whether this is "right" or "wrong."

 

 
Are you sure that is the case? In the starting position above, the problem is in the attacker (Marshal) getting stuck and not the evader (the Miner). Your proposal becomes interesting when the starting position is one in which a full-bind already exists and the evading player moves first.
 
For example:
 
Starting position:
 
Edge of board
Miner   Marshal    Bomb   Flag  Bomb
                                         Bomb

WHOA!  Here's the error.

 

LTG, in the situation you postulate just above you will see that it is impossible apart from the Marshal having moved into the position to cause it to be the way you describe, if is now the Miner's move.  The Marshal therefore made the first move in essentially the exact same scenario as your previous example, wherein you positioned the Marshal diagonally from the Miner.  This example is the same only you show the Marshal already after his first move.  

 

Agree?

 

I am not inventing anything new, except to submit to you that, like the continuous chasing of Trickz, your principle of zugzwang and the 2 Square Rule are conjoined at the hip in allowing the Miner to defeat the Marshall in a one-on-one affair.   But it is very critical, I agree, that the Marshal has to move first if they are in diagonal positioning to start.  If the Miner has to move, then he cannot win.  That is your principle of zugzwang: HE WHO MOVES FIRST LOSES.  

 

Now let's move the situation away from your pyramid bomb set up a space or two.  Here, again if it is the Marsh's turn to move first out of the diagonal positioning,  it becomes evident that the 2 Square Rule kicks in to favor the Miner when the bombs aren't blocking the Marshal.  

 

Let me illustrate:

 

Here's the initial position.

 

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____   Marsh  _____Bomb _____
Miner    _____  _____  ____  _____
-----------------------------------------------------
 
It is now the Marshal's turn.
First move:

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____   _____  _____Bomb _____
Miner    Marsh   _____  ____  _____
 
Next move:
_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 
Miner    _____  _____Bomb _____
_____  Marsh   _____  ____  _____
 
Next move:
_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 
Miner    Marsh   _____Bomb _____
_____  _____  _____  ____  _____
 
Next move:

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____   Marsh  _____Bomb _____
Miner    _____   _____  ____  _____

 

Next  move:

 

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____   _____  _____Bomb _____
Miner    Marsh   _____  ____  _____
 
Next move:

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

Miner    _____  _____Bomb _____
_____  Marsh   _____  ____  _____
 
Now the 2 Square Rule is invoked and the Marshal has to move elsewhere so he moves one space closer to his Flag, but it is hopeless now; zugzwang has got him by the throat.
 
Next move:

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

Miner    _____  _____Bomb _____
_____   _____  Marsh  ____  _____
 
Next move:

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____  Miner     _____Bomb _____
_____   _____  Marsh  ____  _____
 
Next move:

_____  _____   Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____  Miner     Marsh Bomb _____
_____   _____  _____  ____  _____
 
Next move:

_____  Miner    Bomb  Flag  Bomb 

_____  _____   Marsh Bomb _____
_____   _____  _____  ____  _____
 
And it's all over for Mister Marshal.  
 
So to recap.  If the diagonal confrontation between a Marshal and a Miner occurs and it is the Miner's turn, the Miner will always lose, no matter what.  If it is the Marshal's turn, he will always lose, no matter what...but only because of TWO RULES working against him.  The first is this zugzwang you refer to, LTG.  The second is the 2 Square Rule, which kicks in if the Marshal is not hindered by the bombs.   
 
I really do not mind the zugzwang principle.  That is just the way the cookie crumbles.  One must move in his turn.  It's a 50/50 proposition on whether either player has the first turn in the face-off, and I see nothing unfair about that.  What I do mind is that even with the 3/4 modification I have requested in this thread, the Marshal will still lose due to the 2 Square Rule in the example above.  Because of this, and my adherence to the "bullet-proof" theory of rules talked about by Trickz, I feel something else has to be added to my 2 Square Modification suggestion at the start of this thread.   
 
Surely the majority on this site will agree that a Miner-versus-a-Marshal scenario where both pieces are away from a bombed flag SHOULD BE A DRAW.  Note that I didn't say the Marshal should win, because he shouldn't.  But neither should the Miner win by an artificial crutch/aid/help/benefit/cheat called the 2 Square Rule.    
 
I THEREFORE MAKE THE FOLLOWING ADDITION TO MY SUGGESTION AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS THREAD.  Let's install the 3/4 movement limits I have previously proposed with one addition:  LET'S ALSO MAKE THE 2 SQUARE RULE NULL ON A PLAYER'S OWN SIDE so that a player can DEFEND without interference from the Rule.  In other words, if a player is the aggressor, he is free to pursue all he wants on his own side.  But once next to the ponds the aggressor would be stopped by my 3/4 suggestion.   This would prevent the Trickz travesty I have been talking about.  Yes, it means the Miner will not win, in all probability, but the same will be true for the Marshal and the game will end in a DRAW.  
 
Another way of cinching up the Trickz loophole is to say that the 2 Square Rule is NULL as soon as the aggressor moves within three spaces of HIS OWN FLAG.  This would also solve the Trickz situation, but at the cost of giving up automatic information on where the flag is, and would not be desirable if there were any doubt as to the flag's position.  NULLIFYING 2 Square on one's own side yields no such important information.
 

GLS

 

 


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...604#entry339604

#40 LearningThisGame

LearningThisGame

    Lieutenant

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 505 posts
  • Coat of arms
  • Bronze General

Posted 19 November 2013 - 02:48 AM

Edge of board
Miner   Marshal    Bomb   Flag  Bomb
                                         Bomb

WHOA!  Here's the error.

 

LTG, in the situation you postulate just above you will see that it is impossible apart from the Marshal having moved into the position to cause it to be the way you describe, if is now the Miner's move.  The Marshal therefore made the first move in essentially the exact same scenario as your previous example, wherein you positioned the Marshal diagonally from the Miner.  This example is the same only you show the Marshal already after his first move.  

 

Agree?

 

You are correct. I missed that point, and your logic is sound. I stand corrected on that example (now I am intrigued if a new example has a spy to the left of the miner, but that's another discussion). Thanks!


How can I help you?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users