Marc H. wrote: > > 3. Scores are computed as captured points *minus* points still > > in your territory. > This strikes me as a huge change to the game. Yeah. I didn't completely evaluate this idea for its kingmaking potential. Bleah. > I see the distinction you're making. I use mistake to mean more > than "screwed up and did something obviously stupid", though. I think I understand you now. > I think there's a fuzzy line here between screwing up and just > not playing as well. I think the difference is information. Martian Chess (like Chess) is supposed to be a game of perfect and open information. Failing to properly pick between available moves is a matter of skill, failing to *see* available moves is a screw-up. > How would the structure used for the Icehouse tournament work? Well, again like Chess, MChess is about winning and not about points. Points have a much larger role in Icehouse in general than in MChess. I like the MChess tournament being win-based. > A tournament structure which discourages somebody with a commanding > lead from going ahead and winning because they can increase their > tournament standing by dragging the game out would be annoying. I think we all agree on that one. > I think choosing any structure which allows the tie for a fractional > win would help immensely. Although it would be annoying if a losing > player forced the tie when the tied players had both decided they > wanted to fight it out. The main problem is that this tends to take more time to determine finalists. If the participants were up for it this would be OK, but if somebody only has two hours to play there could be trouble. Also, how do you determine who gets the medallion if there's a tie in the finals game? Maybe do like the Icehouse tourney where we compute a full-tournament score to break the tie? -- Elliott C. "Eeyore" Evans eeyore@xxxxxxxx