HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dagibbs@quantum.on.ca (David Gibbs)
Subject: Re: Chase (TM): rules and description
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 92 03:20:45 GMT
Organization: Quantum Software Systems
Keywords: chase rules

In article <1992Nov14.081522.23502@cs.UAlberta.CA> darse@cs.UAlberta.CA (Darse Billings) writes:
>
>In article <darse.714370337@silver-vly>, I wrote:
>> Chase (TM) is a chess-like game played on a hexagonal board, using two
>> colours of six-sided dice for men.  The range of mobility of the men is
>> defined by the value on each die, and certain moves allow you to change
>> those values during the game.  Thus the nature of the playing pieces may
>> vary, and this must be taken into account when computing moves and
>> strategies.

This reminds me of another "board + dice" type game, where the values
on the dice represent mobility.  Basic description and rules follow,
but I can't give the exact setup or size because this is from memory
of playing the game only once or twice.

Game is played on an (8x8) square board.  Each player gets (8) pieces
that are setup along his back rank with different values showing on
the top sides (depending on position) and specific values showing on
the front (or back) sides, thus fully determining orientation.  (This
is important.)

Pieces are moved by 'rolling' them along the board, such that in moving
one square, the piece will also rotate 90 degrees, putting a new face
on top.  So if a piece starts with the 1 on top, and the 4 facing
you and you move it 1 square away from yourself, it will finish
with the 4 on top and the 6 facing you.  (They are proper dice in that
opposite faces add to 7.)

A piece may be moved as many squares as the number on top of the
piece at the start of its movement, and may change direction at will
as long as it never reverses it travel.  Ie a piece with a 5 on top
could travel: forward, right, right, forward, right; or f, f, f, r, r;
or b, r, r, b, b; or l, b, l, b, b; but not: b, r, r, f, r; or:
f, r, f, l, f.

A piece captures another piece if it lands on the other piece at the
end of its movement -- ie it has to land exactly.

There is (also) one special piece with only ones on it; effectively a
'king'.

The winner is the first person to eliminate the opponents king.

The game is interesting in that the mobility, and hence, strength
of the pieces varies depending on what path they take; and two 
different paths to the same square can give different values for
the piece.

-David
(dagibbs@quantum.qnx.com)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Think 2nd Small
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 17:20:20 EST

Think Small seems to have dynamics similar to Radio Call-in contests 
where the Nth caller with the answer is the winner.  I'd like to
try this out.  

I am starting another contest.  The winner of this contest is the one
who sends me the 2nd-smallest real number between, but not including,
3 and pi.  For the sake of revealing game dynamics, _please_ Cc: me
any scheming that you do over e-mail.  Also inform me as to any other
actions that you take regarding this game.  (i.e. Using the phone,
seeing the last time someone read mail, &c...)  I am not a contestant.
Neither, to my knowledge, is anyone who knows me.  No one will receive
any help from me.  I am _very_ curious as to what this might turn out
like.

If only one person answers, there will be no winner.  Scheming is strongly
encouraged.  Back-stab all you want.  It's all a part of the game.  
I will compile everything and post what happens to this group.

Send all entries by e-mail.  You may post your entry, but the entry
must be emailed to be considered official.  Notation for the number
must be explicit enough so that I could write a computer program to
reproduce it exactly in finite time, then HALT.  (i.e. Nothing like 3.0 + 
10E-[number of atoms in the universe])  

Entries must include: "Contest, Think 2nd" in the subject line.  

Entries too large to fit into a single e-mail message will be 
disqualified.  All disqualified entries will be notified & given 
at least one chance for correction.

Cut-off postmark time is Midnight on Dec. 1, 1992.  Corrections may be
sent in afterwards, provided that the initial entry was sent in before
the first deadline.  The legality of all entries is at the discretion
of the judge.  (Me)

	--Peter Kwangjun Suk
	  <pksuk@mailbox.syr.edu>
From: ahanysz@spam.ua.oz (Alexander Hanysz)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Checkers (was Re: World Othello Championships).
Summary: It's not been solved.
Keywords: Checkers
Date: 16 Nov 92 04:20:27 GMT
Organization: Statistics, Pure & Applied Mathematics, University of Adelaide

In article <1e2rkeINNeqn@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider) writes:
>Speaking of checkers, I heard (recently) that quite a number of the positions
>had been solved and that someone (somewhere) was getting pretty close
>to the end.  Hmm... is checkers a finite game?  Anyone know anything
>about any of the preliminary results?  Have there been any good articles
>written on computer Othello or checkers recently?

Checkers has not been solved.  Earlier this year there was a match
between a computer program and the (human) world champion.  The human
won fairly convincingly.

								Alex.

Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil (Dan Hoey)
Subject: Re: Sprouts -- a topological game
Keywords: sprout, sprouts
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:40:23 GMT

neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers) writes:

> One book says sprouts was invented at "Cambridge University a couple of
> decades ago".  Does anyone have any more details on sprouts? Strategies?

It was invented by M.S. Paterson and J.H. Conway.  The latter is also
known as the inventor of Life and Surreal Numbers.

For more information see:

Martin Gardner's _Mathematical_Carnival_.  Basic stuff from Scientific
    American from the 70s.

Berlekamp, Conway, and Guy's _Winning_Ways_.  Does anyone know if they
    have new sprouts results in the second printing?

Applegate, Jacobson, and Sleator's ``Computer Analysis of Sprouts,''
   tech report CMU-CS-91-144, available by FTP in file
   /usr/sleator/public/sprouts.ps.Z on host spade.pc.cs.cmu.edu,
   128.2.209.226.  Extends winners for misere play up to 9 dots
   and normal play up to 11 dots.

Dan Hoey
Hoey@AIC.NRL.Navy.Mil
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Subject: Checkers
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 13:38:51 GMT

>In article <1e2rkeINNeqn@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Sc
   hneider) writes:
>>Speaking of checkers, I heard (recently) that quite a number of the positions
>>had been solved and that someone (somewhere) was getting pretty close
>>to the end.

We have solved roughly 70 billion checkers positions.  This is not quite enough
to solve the game yet, but we believe it is possible in a few years given
sufficient computer resources.

>Checkers has not been solved.  Earlier this year there was a match
>between a computer program and the (human) world champion.  The human
>won fairly convincingly.

Tinsley won 4 games, lost 2 and drew 33 against my program Chinook.
One of Tinsley's wins was on forfeit and another was the last game
of the match (Chinook's last chance to tie the match).  This is not
quite as convincing as you portray.

                                                Jonathan Schaeffer
                                                Chinook team
                                                (visiting in the Netherlands)

Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Subject: PENTE: rules
Originator: neilb@csparc2
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:24:23 GMT

Since the rules for Pente haven't been posted yet, I'll include the rules
sent to me by Bill Shubert.  I have edited Bill's rules, and put them
on agora.scs.leeds.ac.uk, in /pub/rec.games.abstract/games/pente.
Comments are welcome --- does anyone have any more background info on Pente?

Neil

------------8<-------------------------------------8<--------------------
GAME
	Pente

BACKGROUND

	Unknown.  Professionally marketed by an unknown company.

RULES

	Pente is played on a 19x19 grid (a go board) with players taking black
	or white stones (yellow and red in some sets).  Players take turns,
	placing stones at any unoccupied point on the grid.  A player wins by
	placing five stones of their color in a row (either horizontally,
	vertically, or diagonally) or capturing five pairs of the opponent's
	stones.  Captures are made when a pair of stones are sandwiched on
	opposite sides.  For example:

		.......
		.OXX*..  <- Moving at the "*" will give O a capture.
		.......

		.......
		.XO*X..  <- Moving at the "*" is safe for O.  You cannot move
		.......     into a capture.

		.......
		.OXXX*.  <- Moving at the "*" will not cause a capture.  Only
		.......     pairs of stones may be captured.

		.......
		.OXX*..  <- Moving at this "*" will give O two captures at once.
		...X...
		..X....
		.O.....
		.......

	When a pair of stones are captured, they are removed from the board.

	OPTIONAL RULE

	Moving first tends to be a bit of an advantage.  To compensate for
	this, the folloing rule is sometimes added: The first player must
	begin play in the center of the board.  The second stone of the first
	player must be at least 3 space from the first.  For example:

		.......
		.xxxxx.
		.xxxxx.
		.xxOxx.  <- "x"s are illegal moves for O's second stone.
		.xxxxx.		"."s are OK.
		.xxxxx.
		.......

	After the second move play continues normally.  The player who moves
	second can always play at any unoccupied space.

BASIC STRATEGY

	This is basically a variant of go-moku.  Because of the capture rule
	it is no longer necessary to prohibit moves that get multiple
	three-in-a-row combinations at once.  If you can continuously keep
	your opponent blocking your double open three in a rows or single open
	four in a rows, you can typically finally get two three in a rows with
	both sides open and force a win.

CONTRIBUTORS
	Bill Shubert (wms@com.intel.iWarp)
From: tomf@gte.com (Tom Fawcett)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Othello search space (Was: World Othello Championships)
Date: 16 Nov 92 20:30:36 GMT
	<STARBACK.92Nov15121935@Minsk.docs.uu.se> <cpD=yd+@engin.umich.edu>
	<1992Nov16.163832.2313@infodev.cam.ac.uk>
Reply-To: tomf@gte.com
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Inc.
In-reply-to: cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk's message of 16 Nov 92 16:38:32 GMT

cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) writes:
> In article <cpD=yd+@engin.umich.edu>, positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
> writes:
> |> In article <STARBACK.92Nov15121935@Minsk.docs.uu.se> starback@student.docs.uu.se
> |> (Per Starb{ck) writes:
> |> >Tom Fawcett <tomf@gte.com> wrote:
> |> >> No, it [Othello] hasn't been solved, and probably won't be.  The
> |> >> search space is estimated to have about 10^60 nodes, [...]
> |> >
> |> >What kind of fancy combinatorics do you need to get to that number?
> |> 
> |> Well, a game of Othello is about 60 moves, and there's about 10 choices
> |> for each move...
> 
> I would have thought that 10 was a substantial overestimate for the average
> number of legal moves in a typical position during a game. 

I seem to remember 7.5 as an average, from Rosenbloom.  This would give
~10^50 instead of 10^60.

> But in any case, this is estimating the number of legal games, while "nodes"
> suggests to me the number of legal *positions*. This is trivially bounded by
> 3^64 (each square is empty, white, or black) < 3.5*10^30.

You're right about the bound.  My original statement was misleading.  But
"search space" usually refers to the space through which a program searches as
defined by its operators (in this case, the Othello move), rather than the
graph of unique legal positions.

In any case, the original conclusion still holds: even at 10^30 nodes, it
probably won't be solved.

-Tom
From: acid+@cs.cmu.edu (Christopher Colby)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: The Biggest Number Game
Date: 19 Nov 92 00:26:09 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

In article <1e821sINNolv@uni-paderborn.de> jerry@uni-paderborn.de (Gerald Siek) writes:
>"The smallest number that cannot be described by 20 or [fewer] words"

In article <1992Nov18.165142.11504@wam.umd.edu> warren@wam.umd.edu (the stupid one) writes:
>"the largest number that can be desribed in twenty words or [fewer] plus one"

It has been claimed that these sentences "make no sense".  I disagree.  To
explain why, let's first look at a formalization of the problem.

For some string S, define the Komolgorov complexity of S (denoted K(S)) be
the length of the shortest pair of a turing machine and a string <M,S'>
s.t. M(S')=S.  (Pick your favorite encoding for TMs and pairs.)  E.g., K(S)
<= |<M_id,S>| = |S|+c for all strings S, where M_id is the identity
function and c is the associated overhead of pairing a string with it.

Now, assume an alphabet of {0,1} and interpret strings as binary encodings
of natural numbers (written as the number itself).  We can interpret these
English sentences as denoting TMs that take the empty string (e) as input
and search for a number that satisfies some condition involving the
(recursively enumerable) lexicographic ordering of all TMs M_1,M_2,... and
the (recursively enumerable) lexicographic ordering of natural numbers
0,1,....

For instance, Gerald's sentence (replacing 20 with k) would be a TM M s.t.
M(x) = `the smallest i such that K(i) > k'.  And if k > |<M,e>|, there is
an inconsistency because K(M(e)) would be > |<M,e>|.  Contradiction!!

How exactly did this contradiction creep in?  It's actually an illusion!
We've cheated by including the uncomputable computation K(i) in the "code"
for M.  In fact, the function that we want M to perform is not computable,
and so there really is no such M.  Therefore, there is no inconsistency.

How does all this relate back to English sentences?  The notion of an
English sentence "describing" a number is analogous to a program that
outputs a number.  So, a sentence describes a number iff there is an
"effective procedure" (a philosophical notion in the loosest sense) that
extracts that number from the sentence.  However, if one uses the
commonly-accepted Church-Turing notion for "effective procedure", then
Gerald's sentence above DESCRIBES NO NUMBER since it is in general not
effectively computable to determine the smallest number described by a
sentence of bounded size.  This is precisely analogous to the machine M
that we tried to define above, but could not.  Therefore, there is no
contradiction in sentences of the form of the examples that Gerald or
Warren provide.  Since they do not qualify as descriptions of numbers
themselves, there is no paradoxical self-reference.  They are
"meta-descriptions" if you will, or descriptions equipped with Oracles.
Either way, they are drawn from a different class from
effectively-computable descriptions, and so there is no contradiction.  It
is this structure that the informality of English hides.

-chris
From: keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Schneider)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Checkers
Date: 18 Nov 1992 09:39:05 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
NNTP-Posting-Host: punisher.caltech.edu

breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker) writes:

>>In article <1e2rkeINNeqn@gap.caltech.edu> keith@cco.caltech.edu (Keith Allan Sc
>   hneider) writes:
>>>Speaking of checkers, I heard (recently) that quite a number of the positions
>>>had been solved and that someone (somewhere) was getting pretty close
>>>to the end.

>We have solved roughly 70 billion checkers positions.  This is not quite enough
>to solve the game yet, but we believe it is possible in a few years given
>sufficient computer resources.

>>Checkers has not been solved.  Earlier this year there was a match
>>between a computer program and the (human) world champion.  The human
>>won fairly convincingly.

>Tinsley won 4 games, lost 2 and drew 33 against my program Chinook.
>One of Tinsley's wins was on forfeit and another was the last game
>of the match (Chinook's last chance to tie the match).  This is not
>quite as convincing as you portray.

Just curious, you *are* using the official checkers rules, aren't you?  That
is, if you are in a position to jump, you *have* to do it.  I have seen
many checkers programs, but few of them actually implement this rule, which
is very important to the strategy of the offical game.  At least, I *think*
it is an official rule, but having never actually seen the official rules
(where are they anyway), I can't be certain.  Oh well...

I just remember playing checkers and having people think I was crazy when
I said they had to jump...

keith
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: jewett@ils.nwu.edu (Jim Jewett)
Subject: Re: Think 2nd Small
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 1992 01:09:34 GMT

In article <23NOV199218014053@zeus.tamu.edu>, dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu (RING, DAVID WAYNE) writes:
> am001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Shark) writes...
> >Send me e-mail with an integer.  The winner of this game is the person who
> >sent me the lowest integer that nobody else has sent.  The deadline for this
> >game will be December 4 at noon EST.  Send your numbers to: 
> >am001b@uhura.cc.rochester.edu
> 
> This time I sent the number 5
> 
> Dave Ring
> dwr2560@zeus.tamu.edu

Drat.  So did I.  How many people are going to send it anyway, in case
only one of us is lying?

-- 

-jJ				

Take only memories.			jewett@ils.nwu.edu
Leave not even footprints.		jimj@eecs.umich.edu
From: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au (Warwick Allison)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Ramsey Theory Games (Was: New Old Paper and Pencil Game (Sim))
Date: 17 Nov 92 04:44:28 GMT
Reply-To: warwick@cs.uq.oz.au

mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] Fan of the Efts") writes:

>	van der Waerden's Theorem:  For any positive integers C and L,
>	there exists a number N such that no matter how the integers
>	[1..N] are partitioned into C sets, at least one set contains an
>	aritmetic progression of length L. 

>    When C=2 and S=3, we have N=9.  (vdW's result gives an upper bound
                  ^- you mean L, right?
>of 325, but really the answer is 9.)  So when (C) two players take turns
>choosing the numbers 1 through 9, and no number may be chosen more than
>once, and the player who choses three numbers in arithmetic sequence
>loses, there can be no draws.

>This game has no name yet, so far I know,
>so let's call it `van'.

No, let's call it misere tic-tac-toe, numbered:

	1 2 3
	4 5 6
	7 8 9

Eot cat cit.

--
Warwick
--
  _-_|\      warwick@cs.uq.oz.au            /Disclaimer:
 /     * <-- Computer Science Department,  /  
 \_.-._/     University of Queensland,    /   C references are NULL && void*
      v      Brisbane, Australia.        /  
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: pksuk@mothra.syr.EDU (Peter K. Suk)
Subject: Re: Think 2nd Small
Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 92 17:26:58 EST

And, of course, only one entry per person.

	--PKS
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: guckes@math.fu-berlin.de (Sven Guckes)
Subject: Re: Othello search space (Was: World Othello Championships)
Originator: guckes@medusa
Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:37:29 GMT

cet1@cus.cam.ac.uk (C.E. Thompson) writes:

>I would have thought that 10 was a substantial overestimate for the average
>number of legal moves in a typical position during a game. But in any case,
>this is estimating the number of legal games, while "nodes" suggests to me
>the number of legal *positions*. This is trivially bounded by 3^64 (each
>square is empty, white, or black) < 3.5*10^30.

I *love* simple estimates! :)

Hey, how about finding the number of games for the first 5 or 10 moves
with a stupid and simple computer program ?
(Anyone near a CRAY with access ? ;)
Then we might proceed with "average mobility" estimates, anyway.
(Sorry, I missed the whole thread.)

Again I ask: What's the maximum number of possible moves for Othello ?
Of course it would be nice to see a proof that a sample situation is
actually part of a legal game.

NOP         := "Number Of Plays" function
                Number of plays of a game according to it's rules
NOP(Othello) =  number of moves of the game "Othello"

NOP(Othello) < 3^64 = 3433683820292512484657849089281 < 3.5 * 10^30

You ask where I got that number ? Well, see below.

$ math
Mathematica 2.0 for SPARC
Copyright 1988-91 Wolfram Research, Inc.
 -- Terminal graphics initialized --

In[1]:= 3^64

Out[1]= 3433683820292512484657849089281

If it's wrong - please tell Wolfram Research. ;)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: guckes@math.fu-berlin.de (Sven Guckes)
Subject: Re: Othello (Maximum moves)
Summary: What's the maximum in possible moves with Othello ?
Originator: guckes@medusa
Organization: Free University of Berlin, Germany
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 18:07:40 GMT

hship@sw.stratus.com (Howard Ship) writes:

>It seems to me that computers should be completely unbeatable at
>Othello/Reversi, since the depth is finite (about 60) and the
>ply is small (maybe 5 or so?), so a deep alpha-beta search is possible
>and should lead to unbeatable play.

Well, the width of the search tree for Othello can be up to 22 from a node.

Has anyone calculated how many games there are up to the first n moves ?
Did anyone find a situation with more than 22 possible moves ?
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 00:24:44 -0500 
From: "Jonathan R. Ferro" <jf41+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Twixt - rule correction

jonboy@nadia.stgt.sub.org (Jonathan Welton) writes:
> The descriptions of Twixt posted so far have all been incomplete.
> A move consists of 3 parts -
>  1. Place a peg in any free hole,
>  2. Remove any of your own bridges,
>  3. Place bridges between any two of your own pegs which are a knights
>     move apart.

From the Avalon Hill (Leisure Time) rules: "Before placing a peg, a
player may, if he desires, carefully remove any pegs and links he has
previously placed on the board."  I.e., The order should be:
 1. Remove any of your own structure that you wish.
 2. Place one peg.
 3. Link any of your pegs that are a knight's move apart.

> Twixt was invented by Alex Randolph, a prolific inventor of games
> (see Sid Sackson's "Gamut of Games"), who introduced it to a group
> of artist freinds who used to frequent a Vienese cafe. It has been
> produced by several manufacturers, all of whom are required to credit
> the inventor (what a good practice).

This is very interesting.  It is also apparently ignored in the
aformentioned Avalon Hill/Leisure Time edition.  I couldn't even find
a copyright date on the rules, much less an inventor's credit.

The other games you mentioned also sound very interesting.  I'll try
them out with some friends next weekend.

-- Jon Ferro               Einsprachigkeit ist heilbar
From: desj@ccr-p.ida.org (David desJardins)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Othello Puzzle #3
Date: 17 Nov 92 23:34:19 GMT
Organization: IDA Center for Communications Research, Princeton

Colin Springer <cmspring@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu> writes:
> Note: it has been suggested that there be a "silent period" during
> which solutions are not posted.  I suggest that in future I will post
> a puzzle each weekend, and that people can begin posting their solutions
> on the Wednesday of that week.

I think that this is a terrible idea and will really diminish discussion
of the problems.

I have a not particularly novel suggestion: Don't read followups if you
don't want to see them!!!  It's not like this is a test, and if we give
the answers away then we will distort the scoring.  We are supposed to
be grown-ups who can judge for ourselves what we do or don't want to
see.

I personally am not going to be bound by such silly restrictions.  Fair
warning if you want to put me into your kill file.  (Your loss!)

                                        David desJardins
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract