Looney Labs Icehouse Mailing list Archive

Re: [Icehouse] [Martian Chess] End of Tournament Games

  • From"Elliott C. Evans" <eeyore@xxxxxxxx>
  • DateThu, 6 Jul 2006 08:51:50 -0700 (PDT)
Marc H. wrote:
> Ryan wrote:
> > The ad hoc rule I made was that the game continues until there is an
> > empty sector AND there is a lone player with the most points.
> [...] I see two possibilities:
> 1. Having an empty quadrant breaks ties. [...]
> 2. Having at least one piece left breaks ties. [...]

3. Scores are computed as captured points *minus* points still in your

This does not completely remove the possibility of ties from the game,
but it does create an opportunity for someone *not* tied for the lead
to win the game. =^> Of course, it opens up a new way to create ties.
Maybe combine this with possibility #1?

> There could be a problem, though, where players are simply unwilling
> to move the game toward an end if they're not in a winning position.

Here's where we hit on why games I was playing in did not have any
problem ending in reasonable time. I tend to push games to conclusion
even if I'm losing, if I think somebody else is in a strong enough
position that they've demonstrated superiority in that game even if
they can't win decisively. (I am aware this makes me frustrating and
annoying to 2 out of 3 opponents. =^)

> Especially if they're within one player mistake of obtaining the
> lead, this might even be reasonable.

I don't want to get this discussion off on a tangent, but, I'm am
*strongly* against games of strategy being played as games of "gotcha".
Do you want to beat somebody because they screwed up, or because you
outplayed them?

> We might simply need a secondary end condition in which the game is
> prematurely terminated if the players are unwilling to make moves
> which move it toward completion (say three times around the table
> with no pieces changing hands or being captured?) That could
> actually result in an unresolvable tie, though.

We could just say that a game with no clear winner has no winner.
I would have rather played a 3-player final than the 5-player final
we had.

> Perhaps we just need to accept the possibility of ties and structure
> the tournament to accomodate them?  We're talking about two related
> problems here...a sometimes unsatisfying endgame, and a difficulty
> in resolving tournament scoring.

I agree. I am not in favor of changing the rules of established games.
I would like to figure out a good tournament structure, though.

Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans