Single Comment

Peter,

Regarding game design, I agree with Michael Nelson's last comment, but after your last comment I understand your position much better. I now see this as a question, not of logic, but of taste. And it's not my game, so I'll shut up about that.

I'm glad to see that the rules have been revised to reflect your intentions (although I had hoped that the tournament issue would be resolved first), and I believe that the revised rules are equivalent to what you have indicated in recent comments. But, if you're interested, I have a few suggestions as to how I think they could be written better, so as to avoid future misunderstandings.

The sentence that was most controversial in the original rules was this one:

Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square.

Before the revision this sentence threatened to break the game; now I think it's just unnecessary and possibly confusing.

The section labeled 'Rules' seems unnecessarily complex and extremely redundant. The same statement is made at least four times, and if I were unfamiliar with Rococo, I would have to read this section three or four times to be sure I had it right.

You've now included a precise mathematical definition of the term 'capturing move'. This is good, because I now understand what you mean by the term, but I'm not sure that this is the best term for this definition. To see what I mean, consider this example: A Long Leaper on a4 could capture an opposing piece on a3 by moving to a2 or a1 (assuming both of these squares are vacant). In the absence of a definition of the term 'capturing move', I would regard these as two distinct capturing moves, since they are two distinct moves. But it seems natural to say that they result in the same capture. The rules would be clearer (to me, at least) if the term 'capturing move' were replaced everywhere with 'capture'.

The inclusion of the clarifying example is perhaps helpful, but it is not the best possible example, since it does not fully distinguish between the three interpretations of the original rules. A better example can be formed by placing the piece to be captured on x3 rather than x2, so that under the revised rules the Long Leaper can capture by moving to x2, but not to x1 or x0. Also, the example breaks up the flow of the redundant rules; perhaps it could be moved to its own paragraph. And if the rules refer to the square x9, the ASCII diagram should be modified to refer to the last rank as 9, rather than 00.

The formal statement of the edge-square rules is unambiguous, but statement 4 is completely unnecessary. It follows from the first three statements, and should therefore be treated as a theorem rather than a rule. If I'm not mistaken, the entirety of the edge-square rules could be stated in one sentence, something like:

A piece p capturing a set P of opposing pieces may land on or pass over only the minimal number of edge squares necessary for p to capture all the pieces in P.

The piece descriptions of the Long Leaper and the Withdrawer should include statements that these pieces, when moving along an edge, may move only the shortest possible distance for a particular capture. In fact, since each piece description contains the edge-square rules applying to that piece, I wonder whether it would be better for the 'Rules' section simply to introduce the general concept of edge squares, and leave the details to the individual piece descriptions.

Finally, I've noticed some typos: 'mininal', 'Moves that captures', and 'fewist'.