Adrian King wrote on Wed, Nov 19, 2008 07:29 AM UTC:Poor ★
After not having looked at this page for years, I'm gratified that some
people have been generous enough to squander their time on it, and even to
rate it better than Poor.
As best I can tell from a two-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation,
Jonathan Weissman is right, and the game is fatally flawed. That relieves
us all of the tedium of actually trying to play it.
Mr. Hutnik, I'm not quite sure I understand your attempted repair. I
think you're just saying that each board remembers whose turn it is to
move, and that you can only make a move on a board where it's your turn.
May we assume that only splitting moves allowed, and not the transfer
moves in the original rules?
If I've got it right, then starting at board 0-W (that is, board zero
with White to move), boards get created in a sequence looking something
like this (assuming that no identical ones are created and merged):
W: 0-W => 1-B 2-B
B: 1-B => 3-W 4-W, resulting in the set of boards {2-B 3-W 4-W}
(White now has just two boards to choose from, 3-W and 4-W)
W: 3-W => 5-B 6-B {2-B 4-W 5-B 6-B}
B: 2-B => 7-W 8-W {4-W 5-B 6-B 7-W 8-W}
W: 8-W => 9-W 10-W {4-W 5-B 6-B 7-W 9-W 10-W}
That is, on move n, White has n boards to choose from (if there have been
no merges), and Black n + 1 boards.
At least initially, it sounds better-behaved than my original. However, I
still have strong reservations about anyone actually attempting this (and
do please count me out). The most concrete worry I have is that the weaker
player will refuse to move on any board where he/she is starting to lose,
and instead concentrate on the boards where less progress has been made --
so that you wind up playing through all possible openings without ever
reaching a midgame.
But I'd still be interested in hearing the outcome if anyone ever does
come up with a version of this idea that actually works.
After not having looked at this page for years, I'm gratified that some people have been generous enough to squander their time on it, and even to rate it better than Poor. As best I can tell from a two-minute back-of-the-envelope calculation, Jonathan Weissman is right, and the game is fatally flawed. That relieves us all of the tedium of actually trying to play it. Mr. Hutnik, I'm not quite sure I understand your attempted repair. I think you're just saying that each board remembers whose turn it is to move, and that you can only make a move on a board where it's your turn. May we assume that only splitting moves allowed, and not the transfer moves in the original rules? If I've got it right, then starting at board 0-W (that is, board zero with White to move), boards get created in a sequence looking something like this (assuming that no identical ones are created and merged): W: 0-W => 1-B 2-B B: 1-B => 3-W 4-W, resulting in the set of boards {2-B 3-W 4-W} (White now has just two boards to choose from, 3-W and 4-W) W: 3-W => 5-B 6-B {2-B 4-W 5-B 6-B} B: 2-B => 7-W 8-W {4-W 5-B 6-B 7-W 8-W} W: 8-W => 9-W 10-W {4-W 5-B 6-B 7-W 9-W 10-W} That is, on move n, White has n boards to choose from (if there have been no merges), and Black n + 1 boards. At least initially, it sounds better-behaved than my original. However, I still have strong reservations about anyone actually attempting this (and do please count me out). The most concrete worry I have is that the weaker player will refuse to move on any board where he/she is starting to lose, and instead concentrate on the boards where less progress has been made -- so that you wind up playing through all possible openings without ever reaching a midgame. But I'd still be interested in hearing the outcome if anyone ever does come up with a version of this idea that actually works.