On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 23:58:04 -0800, Kory Heath wrote: > When someone calls Mondo, you may answer with a black or white stone, or > secretly abstain by putting neither stone in your fist. When you > abstain, you get nothing either way. If you answer correctly, you get > one guessing stone. If you answer incorrectly, you lose all your > guessing stones. Oh, that sounds great! I can't wait to try this out. I'll definitely let you know how it goes with my group(s) here. -Carl PS. Thanks so much for inventing Zendo. I hadn't realized how compelling I find inductive games, (nor even considered them as a class) until I read about Eleusis, Bongard problems, and finally Zendo and felt compelled to go get some pyramids. For me, the childhood encounter I had with an inductive game that left a lifelong impression was a game we played as a family on long car trips. The keeper of the secret rule would begin with "I'm taking a trip to the moon and I'm going to take <some item>". Rule guessers would in turn say "I'd like to go to the moon, and I'm going to take <another item>. Can I go?". The rule keeper would permit people to travel to the moon or keep them earthbound, and the rule keeper would continue to pronounce acceptable items whenever his/her turn came around. Players would generally not pronounce the rule when they guessed it, but just demonstrate their expertise by successfully traveling to the moon each turn. And the game would continue until everyone figured out the rule or just gave up. The game is rather primitive compared to Jewels in the Sand or Zendo, (no disproofs were offered by the rule keeper), and it was quite biased to rules with a small subset of "affirmative" items. But I think it still planted a seed in me which Zendo really brought to fruition. So, thanks again!
Description: PGP signature