From: cjs@phy.duke.edu (Carl Schnurr)
Newsgroups: rec.games.board
Subject: Re: Whom do you pound? (was: Re: An interesting question (any game)
Date: 11 Jan 93 18:19:14 GMT
Organization: Duke University Physics Dept.; Durham, N.C.

In article <1993Jan8.220848.11269@netcom.com> fred_s@netcom.com (Frederick Scott) writes:
>fierkelab@bchm.biochem.duke.edu writes: 

>>We discussed this game at some lenght afterword, and I've been thinking about
>>it for a while.  I am of the opinion that, in general, whenever you have a
>>situation where 1--2-3:4,(where -- and : indicate relative position of place),
>>it is in the best interest of 2,3 and 4 to attack 1, trying to bring him back
>>to the pack.  When player 2 jumps out ahead, then attack him.  Player #3 was of
>>the opinion that, given the above situation, it pays to attack #2, bringing him
>>back to 3 and 4.  Then all players will have common cause to attack #1.  I
>>disagreed with this, because it seems to me that this tactic can allow #1 to
>>cement his lead and presumes an awful lot on the good nature and forbearance of
>>player #2.

>Your rationale is much better.  The obvious question I have for #3 is, why
>doesn't the 2nd place player *already* have a good incentive to attack the
>1st place player, assuming all are playing for the win?  In short, the
>common cause already existed - I can't understand why he believed he had to
>attack you "create" it.
>Fred


Being the player #3 in question, I'll go ahead and answer.  First off,
I was definitely playing for the win.  I felt that if I attacked player
#1, the lead would shift to player #2, who would be attacked by everyone
else, making #1 the leader again...and so on.  I didn't think that I (#3)
or the #4 player would ever enter the contest and have a true shot at
winning, or even placing second.  I guess I felt the ranking was more
like 1-2--3-4.  Here's what I did.  By attacking player #2 and bringing
him into the pack with #3 and #4, we were all at about the same level
and had a clear adversary in #1.  Something like 1---2:3:4.  Theoretically,
#1 gets beat up pretty bad since he's so far in front, and continues to
be pounded until he's brought into the pack as well.  This pretty much 
makes it an open game, with anyone winning.  By my thinking, by attacking
player #2 I at least had a *chance* for placing first whereas otherwise
I saw myself stuck in third, maybe second if I was lucky.  Of course, what 
happened was #2 attacked me the next turn instead of #1 making it 
1---------2:3:4 and we mutually agreed to end the game.  I guess that's
the flaw in my strategy.  

To answer the question at the beginning of the post:  Sure, player #2
had cause to attack #1 already--I certainly didn't attack #2 to "create"
a need for #2 to attack #1.  I attacked #2 to try and give myself a shot
at winning.

Certainly if the situation was something like 1-2:3--4.  I would have 
attacked player 1, because that would place 3 of us in the running for
first.  But with the set up (in my opinion) of 1-2--3-4, I think my
move was a sound one, even though it didn't work.  

-Carl
-- 
	Carl J. Schnurr					1-919-684-8256
	Duke University Dept. of Physics        	cjs@phy.duke.edu
	Durham, N.C.      27706			
Newsgroups: rec.games.board