From: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca (Nick Fitzpatrick)
Subject: Diplomacy - EP Chapter 2 - Issue 296
Originator: nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 03:45:29 GMT

Issue #296 of Chapter Two of the Electronic Protocol
By Nicholas Fitzpatrick (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca)
October 6, 1992                      (1992 10 06)
Distributed via: rec.games.pbm rec.games.board bit.listserv.dipl-l
-------------------------------------------------------------
Electronic Protocol Games played on the Diplomacy Adjudicator
-------------------------------------------------------------

**** TABLE OF CONTENTS ****
PART ONE - Opinions, Letters, and Editorials:
    The Value of a Kill
    New Hall of Fame
    Letter from Mark Nelson 
    Letter from Dan H|rning 
    CFV for rec.games.diplomacy
PART TWO - Summary of all moderated games on the Judge:
 - See issue 295
PART THREE - Report from the Battle Front
    Furlong EOG Report
    Dppd EOG Report  (First Standard Non-press Gunboat Draw ever on judge)


***** PART ONE *****

*** THE VALUE OF A KILL ***

From: jjfink@skcla.monsanto.com (Joel Finkle)


One of the guidelines often listed regarding attacks and stabs is never to
stab for just one center.  One exception to that can be if in making the
stab, you destroy the unit.

Destroying a unit has the following benefits:
     1) One less unit to counter-attack.
     2) Even if it's fall, and your victim gains new units, they'll be way
        behind the lines.
     3) If a counter-attack succeeds, the center is occupied, and the new
        build can't be there.

The last item is the one I want to emphasize:  If you can destroy a fleet in a
home center, odds are a fleet won't be built there for a loooooong time.

An example:
     Turkey:  Army Armenia -> Sevastopol
         Fleet Black Sea Supports Armenia -> Sevastopol
         Army Bulgaria -> Rumania (bounce)
     Russia: Army Rumania Supports Sevastopol (cut)
         Fleet Sevastopol Supports Rumania (cut, dislodged)

There is no place for the Russian fleet to retreat, so it is destroyed.
Let's say that happened in spring, and in fall, a russian counter-attack
succeeds (say, Rumania and Ukraine support Moscow to Sevastopol, while the
Turkish units are distracted).  There is now an army in Sevastopol.  With an
ongoing war with Turkey, it's highly unlikely the Russians will manage to EVER
get Sevastopol open when a build is available, and the Black Sea region will be
lost to Russia forever.

Sevastopol is one of a few very vulnerable points, where there are no other
nearby coastal home centers to help retake it.  Similar results can probably be
gotten with St. Petersburg, Trieste, Marseilles (if the Italian is asleep at
the wheel and lets the French build a fleet there to begin with), and Brest.

England, Italy, Turkey and Germany do not have this problem so severely, as
they each have multiple centers on the same seas.  This allows eventual
replacement of a lost fleet position in a more roundabout way.  For example,
while Kiel and Berlin have very different strategic values as ports, a fleet in
Berlin can retake Kiel rather easily.


*** NEW HALL OF FAME ***

A new Hall of Fame was released this week, if you want a copy, E-mail
me (nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca)

The top players have been invited to play in the Hall of Fame game
hall92, on the judge.  The game is created, and all have signed on
except Andre.  (Scott declined, and Sandy could not play, as he was
at the same site as Matt Ender).  The game is presently unlisted, but all
are invited to observe.

Below are the top 60 players, and a list of completed game from the
Hall of Fame, if you have any corrections or additional info, please
tell me.

Top 60 Player List From Hall of Fame

#   Name                       E-mail Address                          Points
-   ----                       --------------                          ------
 1  Dave Cebula                cebulad@physics.orst.edu                 26.11
 2  Jamie Dreier               PL436000@brownvm.brown.edu               14.99
 3  Andre Verweij              andre@duteinh.et.tudelft.nl              11.47
 4  Matt Ender                 ender2@husc.harvard.edu                  10.58
 5  Sean Pfeiffer              highlndr@cs.bu.edu                       10.15
 6  Sandy Kutin                kutin@husc.harvard.edu                    9.00
 7  Scott Boland               scottb@cs.utexas.edu                      7.83
 8  Dan H|rning                d91-dho@nada.kth.se                       7.50
 9  Bill Dunlevy               dunlevy@erim.org                          7.38
 10 Niklas Persson             niklasp@minsk.docs.uu.se                  7.33
 11 Brian Sullivan             brians@hpcljms.cup.hp.com                 7.06
 12 James Codik                Jim.Codik@EBay.Sun.COM                    6.67
 13 J.J. Lehett                JJL101@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                      6.58
 14 Richard Sullivan           sullivan@erim.org                         6.32
 15 Anders Dessmark            Anders.Dessmark@dna.lth.se                6.00
 16 Ben Lotto                  lotto@math.berkeley.edu                   6.00
 17 Brian Bacher               bacherb@physics.orst.edu                  6.00
 18 Chuck Shotton              cshotton@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu              6.00
 19 David Wiseman              dwiseman@spsd4330a.erim.org               6.00
 20 Donald Kerr                DKERR@CC-VMS1.MASSEY.AC.NZ                6.00
 21 Ethan Solomita             es1@cunixb.cc.columbia.edu                6.00
 22 Grant Kalinowski           grant@leland.stanford.edu                 6.00
 23 Ingolf Markhof             markhof@ls12x.informatik.uni-dortmund.de  6.00
 24 John McCarthy              mccarthy@jezebel.wustl.edu                6.00
 25 Jonathan Amsterdam         jba@ai.mit.edu                            6.00
 26 Jonathan Tan                                                         6.00
 27 Lorenzo Sadun              sadun@math.utexas.edu                     6.00
 28 Matt McLeod                mjmcleod@maria.wustl.edu                  6.00
 29 Steve J Fatula             76106.1640@CompuServe.COM                 6.00
 30 Thomas Anthony Bohman      bohman@math.rutgers.edu                   6.00
 31 Yawar Ali                  YALI@BNR.CA                               6.00
 32 Eric Hunter                hunter@oswego.Oswego.EDU                  5.87
 33 Tony Dugdale               cxad@musica.mcgill.ca                     5.69
 34 Nicholas Fitzpatrick       nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca                 5.15
 35 Eric Shafto                shafto@ils.nwu.edu                        4.66
 36 Robert Jentz               jentz@erim.org                            4.61
 37 Rick Desper                desper@math.rutgers.edu                   4.41
 38 Brian R. Landwehr          RENEGADE@VAX1.Mankato.MSUS.EDU            4.38
 39 Kevin Quinlan              quinlan@erim.org                          4.33
 40 MIKE MAGNUSON              S9IK9@starburst.uscolo.edu                4.33
 41 Al Petterson               calsci!al%gvgpsa.gvg.tek.com@RELAY.CS.    4.19
 42 Michael Rawdon             rawdon@cs.wisc.edu                        4.00
 43 David Owens                owens@b.cambridge.ibm.com                 3.85
 44 Bill Stamos                stamos@suna0.cs.uiuc.edu                  3.75
 45 Geoff Kent                 gpk8571@dijkstra.UnivNorthCo.EDU          3.75
 46 Pete Rauch                 pcrauch@Athena.MIT.EDU                    3.49
 47 Fred Scott                 pei!moody!fred_s@sgi.sgi.com              3.47
 48 Paul Kidd                  WISEMAN@phvax.physics.uq.oz.au            3.41
 49 Ken Lo                     lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu                   3.20
 50 Mauri Krouse               mauri%psych@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU         2.86
 51 John Aidan O'Regan         J_ORegan@csvax1.UCC.IE                    2.78
 52 Larry Farkas               LNF@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                         2.72
 53 Karl Dotzek                karl@adler.philosophie.uni-stuttgart.de   2.66
 54 Ben Kowing                 as610@cleveland.Freenet.Edu               2.57
 55 Anand Sinha                SINHAA@SSCvax.CIS.McMaster.CA             2.50
 56 Gudmundur Bjarni Josepsson gummi@rhi.hi.is                           2.50
 57 Karen Litten               KLL3@PSUVM.PSU.EDU                        2.50
 58 Patrick Plaisted           pat@kcgl1.eng.ohio-state.edu              2.50
 59 Paul Glenn                 PGLENN@loyola.edu                         2.50
 60 Scott C. Best              nsc!gpo.nsc.com!sbest%clasic.dnet@sun.c   2.50

List of Completed Games

Name        EP#   Result
----        ---   ------
Standard Games
100andup          G won in 1907
apple        87   EFI drew in F1913
aust         71   EFT drew in F1914
banditos     149  AFG drew in F1907
berezina     95   EI drew in F1916
blind             G won in 1914
boadicea     147  AGIT survived F1913
cannon            AET survived F1910
check        89   EG drew in F1906
cubit        158  E won in 1908
diamond           EFGRT survived S1911
dove              EFR drew in F1914
dragons      75   T won in 1908
dram         159  G won in 1912
emerald           A won in 1905
evolt        160  ERT drew in F1912
flip              AGIR survived F1908
gallon       162  R won in 1912
guadal       111  GIT drew in F1907
hector       165  F won in 1910
horse        51   ART drew in S1908
inch              AI drew in F1913
jade              FGT drew in F1914
jugful       184  G won in 1909
juteland          F won in 1916
jutland      112  A won in 1908
koursk            T won in 1909
land              EFGIRT survived F1907
lot          186  R won in 1908
mercury           A won in 1912
mod          97   EFT drew in F1911
munk              I won in 1910
nifty             AEFGR survived S1907
normandy     226  EFGIRT drew in S1908
orange            G won in 1909
osijek       137  GR drew in F1910
ounce        189  R won in 1909
paris        134  AR drew in F1907
portnoy      125  AEGRT drew in S1917
purple            R won in 1912
quartz            EG drew in F1910
quebec       154  R won in 1908
radar             AEGI drew in F1907
rose              E won in 1913
snake             EGIT survived F1908
spam              R won in 1905
sparrow      133  E won in 1918
stockhol          A won in 1910
sugar             G won in 1914
swift             R won in 1911
tiberius     83   AIR drew in F1915
topple            EFIT drew in F1910
turbo             T won in 1907
under             A won in 1911
vittle            FGIR drew in F1908
walouf            A won in 1906
water             A won in 1911
whip              EFT drew in S1919
xenon             EF drew in F1909
xray              E won in 1910
yank              AEI survived F1909
zounds            F won in 1909
zulu         77   R won in 1907

Standard Gunboat Games
ajax         115  A won in 1912
fast              R won in 1912
leipzig      128  AEFR drew in S1909
mystery           E won in 1913
snorri       126  ET drew in F1912
tuba              EFT drew in F1908
warp         127  EFT drew in F1912

Standard No-press Gunboat Games
bach              I won in 1913
conan        163  T won in 1914
dppa         167  G won in 1908
dppb         168  A won in 1907
dppc              T won in 1908
dppd         238  EFT drew in S1914
khafji       138  R won in 1911
mess              G won in 1912

1898 Games
agincour     120  F won in 1914
bataan       152  EG drew in F1907
lepanto           EIT drew in S1909

1898 Gunboat Games
hide              AEFT drew in S1914
sinai             EGT drew in S1909

Crowded Games
7senuf            FINR drew in F1909
emu               BLR drew in S1907

Loeb9 Games
eylau        153  I won in 1915

Youngstown Games
berlin            CFJNT drew in F1915

Youngstown No-press Gunboat Games
iowa              T won in 1913
speed             FIJ drew in S1922


*** LETTER FROM MARK NELSON ***

MN The longest every postal game was a game run in a German zine which ended
in 1936 in a win (can't remember who by).  There is a currently a British
game being run in Dolchstoss which has reached 1932, or so, and still has
some life left in it.  

NF  Per Westling also wrote me, to say:
     
     From: Per Westling <c85perwe@und.ida.liu.se>

     The longest known game according to the European BNC ended in the game
     year of 1936 with an Italian Win.  After that 1930 is the next oldest.
     Both these are games by regular mail.  

     /Per


MN   I Suspect that Jim's comments on the strength of email players is 
correct, you don't need to have as much commitment to sign up for an email
game which I think would encourage more bunnies to play.  

MN   One way in which we could get some evidence to examine Jim's claim is
to look at how long games last.  In what year does the average email
game finish?  How does this compare to the average postal game?

NF   I can provide this information easily, if anyone wants to make
a correlation!

MN   Jim mentions that in the game in which he played he built up his 
2 center Italy to 13 units.  In a game played in the British zine 
Fall of Eagles, about ten years ago, the German player was reduced to 
two centers but fought his way back into the game.  He ended up 
winning it!  Anyone know which is the biggest come back in an email
game?

MN   There are many, many, different rating systems.  Furthermore it's very 
easy to supply the raw data on finished electronic games.  I'd be 
happy to see Karl maintain his own rating system and distribute it to 
email fans.  Calhamer based systems (such as the one Nick) uses don't 
reward players who survive to the end but who are not eliminated.  There is
some justification for this.  Games should be DIAS, but frequently 
players agree a draw because they don't want to continue playing the game and
eliminating the remaining non-draw players.  The question is then, should 
players who survive only because the players in the draw don't want to 
carry on playing receive any credit?

NF   To me insisting on DIAS is like insisting that in the game of chess, that
a game must be played to completion.  I am not sure I have ever seen a listing
of a high-calibre chess game that was not ended when someone resigned.

MN   In the rating system I devised for postal games in 1987/88 the answer 
was yes.  I gave players who survived (but who weren't in the draw) 
some pts.  Nowadays I have come to the conclusion that people who agree 
to draws without being included in the draw should receive no credit. 
So I would now rate these players as being eliminated in the year after the 
draw was agreed.

NF   I agree (surprise, surprise)

MN   Rating systems which use "average" sc count are pointless.  It doesn't 
matter at the path you use to arrive at the final result, it's only the final
result that counts.  A win is a win, regardless how you achieved it.
Ditto draw.  Ditto elimination (although I would separate eliminatees 
based on the year of elimination).

MN   GMs who refuse to recognize draws agreed by the players are guilty of
misconduct and (a) shouldn't be GMing and (b) certainly shouldn't GM
games in the future.  My question is this: since Ken feels that he has the 
right to decide the result of the game without consulting the players, 
what is the point of having players in his games?

NF   I have published an extensive conversation on this incident in this
issue of EP.

MN   There have been two books written on diplomacy.  Rod Walker's 
"Gamer's Guide To Diplomacy" is still (I believe) available from 
Avalon Hill.  Richard Sharp's "The Game of Diplomacy" is long out of 
print (it was published in 1978/79).  You may be able to get it through
inter-library loan.  Failing that you can order a photocopy of it from 
either Richard Sharp (in the UK) or Fred C. Davis Jnr (in the States).

MN   There are a couple of novice-packages produced by postal fans which 
are worth a look.  Supernova is distributed by American Bruce Linsey, 
I'm not sure if the other American package (Masters of Deceit) is still 
available --- Ken Peel (who is on CompuServe) used to distribute it.

MN   In the UK there are two novice packages.  One called "The Novice Package"
has articles on many different games, the other is distributed by Danny
Collman but I think Danny refuses to mail it outside the UK.

MN   Finally, there is the DIPLOMACY AZ which is available on all good judges.
This doesn't give you advice on how to play diplomacy but contains a wealth
of fascinating tidbits about the game of diplomacy.  Recommended!


*** LETTER FROM DAN H|RNING ***

     From: d91-dho@nada.kth.se

     Regarding the end game comment on game Lot, which I won.
      
     I read EP but I disagree with your opinion. There is such a thing as a 
     strong second in Diplomacy. Not in the point system (by the way, you can 
     quote this in EP if you like) used in the hall of fame, but in the game. 
     Many other point systems give points for second place.  Every system used 
     here in Sweden does.
      
     Even Calhammer himself acknowledges this style of playing in an article
     I read in Lepanto 4ever recently. He does not like it very much, though.
      
     I believe that one of the charms of the game of diplomacy is the vast
     amount of playing styles possible 
        (and the vast amount of diplomatic tricks).
     I do not think anybody should restrict that.
      
     Dan H|rning

NF There has been extensive discussion of similar type play recently in the
game ounce, and it appears the majority is on your side (although people
may not like it!).  Read the last issue of EP for more info!


*** CFV FOR rec.games.diplomacy ***

A call for votes for the creation of the Usenet Newsgroup
rec.games.diplomacy had been issued, here is a copy of the CFV

All votes should be sent to me AT nick@watfrost.uwaterloo.ca
                                  --------------------------

                   CALL FOR VOTES: rec.games.diplomacy


PROPOSED CHARTER:
----------------
The newsgroup would be for the discussion and organization of the game
Diplomacy.  Both regular (ie face to face) and play by mail would
be discussed.


HOW TO VOTE
-----------

To register a vote, send an email message to:

nick@watfrost.uwaterloo.ca  

To vote against the group, send a message similar to:

        I vote NO for rec.games.diplomacy as proposed

To vote for the group, send a message similar to:

        I vote YES for rec.games.diplomacy as proposed

The voting will close at midnight (EDT), 31st Oct. 1992  (1992 11 01 04:00 GMT)

Shortly after the CFV period ends, the vote will be summarized to all relevant 
newsgroups.  If the group receives 100 more YES votes than NO votes, and there 
is a majority of at least 2/3 in favour of the group, the group will be 
created, in accordance with net guidelines.


RATIONALE:
---------

Diplomacy is a very popular board game, that has also been adapted to
play by mail (snail and E).  There are presently over 120 games ongoing
over the Internet, being played by people across the world.  There are
five automated Diplomacy programs (in four continents) connected to
the Internet processing games.  There is much discussion of the game in
the groups rec.games.pbm, rec.games.board and bit.listserv.dipl-l 
(DIPL-L@mitvma.mit.edu).  The problem is that diplomacy is split
between too many places, and its bitnet list does not get a wide enough
distribution.

rec.games.diplomacy would provide a focus for discussion which
currently appears in a number of groups, often to the annoyance
of readers.

There are no plans at the present time to link rec.games.diplomacy to
the DIPL-L discussion list, however this may be reconsidered at a later date.


FOLLOW-UPS:
----------
Follow-ups are directed to news.groups




***** PART TWO *****

See issue 295


***** PART THREE *****

*** FURLONG EOG REPORT ***

Summary of game furlong through F1910R.

  Master:        Ken Lowe             jdr@u.washington.edu
  Austria:       Kris Zierhut         PLV@VAX5.CIT.CORNELL.EDU
   from S1903M:  Daniel C. Tellez     tellez_d@merlin.nmhu.edu
   from F1903M:  King Jon             S2BW7@starburst.uscolo.edu
   from S1905M:  Sean Starkey         starkey@netcom.com
   from F1908M:  Keith T. Bowen       kbowen@unp4861.cc.unp.ac.za
  England:       Stephen Clancy       CLANCY@ITHACA.BITNET
  France:        Dan H|rning          d91-dho@nada.kth.se
  Germany:       John Carr            JRCARR@grove.iup.edu
  Italy:         Andrew S. Goldstein  ac024@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
   from F1903R:  John O'Regan         J_ORegan@csvax1.ucc.IE
   from F1909R:  Kendrick Lo          lokendr@ecf.toronto.edu
  Russia:        Eric Knight          knight@gnu.ai.mit.edu
   from S1902M:  Joakim Spangberg     NDB026@nov.hb.se
  Turkey:        Bill Dunlevy         dunlevy@erim.org
   from S1906M:  Benjamin Canning     bcanning@reed.edu


Game parameters are/were as follows:
  Move    clock 1410 min 12.00 next  72.00 grace 168.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Retreat clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Adjust  clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Access:  Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated.
  Variant: Standard.
  Flags:   NoNMR, NoProxy.
  Press:   White, No Fake Broadcast.


Historical Supply Center Summary
--------------------------------
    Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie
Year  Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri
1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A
1901 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G . E R R R R T T T T . A A A A I
1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G G E E E R R R T T T T R T T A A I
1903 I I I I E E E F F F F F G G G G G G E E E R R R T T T T R T T A A A
1904 T I I I E E E F F F F F F G G G G E E E R R R R T T T T A T T A A T
1905 T G T I E E E F F F F F F G G E G E E E R R R R T T T T T T A T A A
1906 T T T I E E E F F F F F F F F E G E E E E R R T T T T A T T T A T A
1907 T T T I E E E F F F F F F F G E E E E E E R E T T T T T T T A A T T
1908 T T T I E E E F F F F F F F F E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T
1909 T T T T E E E E F F F F F E F E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T
1910 T T T T E E E E F T F T E E T E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T


History of Supply Center Counts
-------------------------------
Power    1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08 '09   Player
Austria     3   4   2 \                             Kris Zierhut
                        3   3 \                     King Jon
                                3   3   2 \         Sean Starkey
                                                    Keith T. Bowen
England     3   4   6   6   6   7   8  10  11  13   Stephen Clancy
France      3   6   6   5   6   6   8   7   8   6   Dan H|rning
Germany     3   5   5   6   4   4   1   1           John Carr
Italy       3   5   5 \                             Andrew S. Goldstein
                        4   3   1   1   1   1 \     John O'Regan
                                                    Kendrick Lo
Russia      4   4 \                                 Eric Knight
                    4   4   4   4   2   1           Joakim Spangberg
Turkey      3   4   6   6   8   9 \                 Bill Dunlevy
                                   11  12  14  15   Benjamin Canning
Index:     10  21  25  24  26  29  37  42  54  61

Power    1910                                       Player
England    14                                       Stephen Clancy
France      2                                       Dan H|rning
Turkey     18                                       Benjamin Canning
Index:     74


Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the
number of players.  It is a measure of how far the game has progressed.


Broadcast message from d91-dho@nada.kth.se as France in furlong:

I wish to congratulate Turkey on a victory well-earned. His play and
manipulation of England is a great example of how to play the game when
you are cornered by a two-power alliance, especially when you are playing
Turkey. You have to get them to stab each other! There is no other way!!
And Turkey did in this game. When faced with the choice between slowly
dying and perhaps letting the one who betrayed me (very foolishly) win
or die quickly (better to burn out than to fade away) and let my honest
enemy (who even tried to help me once) win, the choice was simple.
Once again, my congratulations!
 
Dan H|rning, France, Furlong

Hope to see you all in some other game!


Broadcast message from CLANCY@ITHACA.BITNET as England in furlong:

I also wish to congratulate Turkey, although I disagree with France in at
least one important respect.  The alliance between France and England was
torpedoed not by Turkish intervention (in fact, I had actually betrayed an
agreement with Turkey when I moved into War), but instead by France's own
distrust of England, which caused him, at one point, to demand that I give
up a center so that we could be equal in numbers.  To me, that distrust was
not a good basis for further cooperation, so I gambled on a quick stab of
France, and hoped that Turkey would have difficulty making headway while I
swept up a few French centers to make it a real contest.  Unfortunately,
France chose to abandon centers to Turkey, and commit suicide against me, which
made the Turkish victory easy.

Again, congratulations to Turkey, and best of luck to both of you in the
future.
--Stephen Clancy, England in Furlong


Broadcast message from bcanning@reed.edu as Turkey in furlong:

Well, thank you both. It was an enjoyable game all around. Although I
can't take full credit for the win, seeing as I came with 9 centers
already, I must say I am quite pleased. It's my first victory with the
judge (actually first completed game, none of my others have finished
yet.) It was good playing with you both, and I wish you luck in the
future.
                  -Ben

*** DPPD EOG REPORT ***

Summary of game dppd through S1914M.

  Master:        Danny Loeb            loeb@geocub.greco-prog.fr
  Austria:       David Maymudes        microsoft!davidmay@cs.washington.edu
  England:       Dave Cebula           cebulad@physics.orst.edu
  France:        Nicholas Fitzpatrick  nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca
  Germany:       Constantin Staykov    staykov@geocub.greco-prog.fr
   from F1904M:  Eiji Hirai            hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu
  Italy:         Andrew Brennan        BRENNAAA@DUVM.OCS.DREXEL.EDU
   from S1905M:  Eiji Hirai            hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu
  Russia:        Everett Boyer         boyer@ready.eng.ready.com
   from S1906M:  Justin Knoll          U8155653@NMSUVM1.BITNET
  Turkey:        Richard Bourgeois     ringo@buengf.bu.edu
   from S1906M:  Arkoff, Gary          larryw@lclark.edu
   from F1909M:  Eiji Hirai            hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu


Game parameters are/were as follows:
  Move    clock 1410 min 12.00 next  72.00 grace 168.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Retreat clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Adjust  clock   -1 min  0.00 next  24.00 grace  72.00 delay 0.50 days --TWTF-
  Access:  Different-site, Level: Any, Moderated.
  Variant: Standard, Gunboat.
  Flags:   NoNMR, NoProxy.
  Press:   None, No Partial.
EP 238, completed October 1992.  EFT Draw.
This was one of Danny Loeb's dpp games, to test the Boardeux Diplomat.

Historical Supply Center Summary
--------------------------------
    Ven Nap Edi Lvp Par Por Bel Mun Ber Swe Stp Mos Con Smy Rum Ser Vie
Year  Rom Tun Lon Bre Mar Spa Hol Kie Den Nor War Sev Ank Bul Gre Bud Tri
1900 I I I . E E E F F F . . . . G G G . . . R R R R T T T . . . . A A A
1901 I I I I E E E F F F F . E G G G G . . E R R R R T T T T R . A A A A
1902 I I I I E E E F F F F F E G G G G E R E R R R T T T T T T A R A A A
1903 I I I I E E E F F F F F E E G E R E R E R R R T T T T T T A T A I I
1904 I I I F E E E F F F F F E E R E R E R E R R R T T T T T T T T T I A
1905 I I F F E E E F F F F F E E R E R E E E R R R T T T T T T T T T I T
1906 T F I F E E E F F F F F E E R E R E E E E R R T T T T T T T T T I T
1907 T F F F E E E F F F F F E E E E E E E E E R R T T T T T T T T T T T
1909 F F F F E E E F F F F F E E E E E E E E E E R T T T T T T T T T T T
1910 F F F F E E E E F F F F E E E E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T
1911 T F F F E E E E E F F F E E E E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T T
1912 T F F F E E E E E F F F E E E E E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T T
1913 T F F F E E E E E F F F E E E E E E E E E E E T T T T T T T T T E T


History of Supply Center Counts
-------------------------------
Power    1900 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '09 '10   Player
Austria     3   4   4   2   1                       David Maymudes
England     3   5   6   8   8   9  10  12  13  15   Dave Cebula
France      3   4   5   5   6   7   7   8   9   8   Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Germany     3   4   4   1 \                         Constantin Staykov
                                                    Eiji Hirai
Italy       3   4   4   6   4 \                     Andrew Brennan
                                3   2               Eiji Hirai
Russia      4   5   5   5   6   5 \                 Everett Boyer
                                    4   2   1       Justin Knoll
Turkey      3   4   6   7   9  10 \                 Richard Bourgeois
                                   11  12 \         Arkoff, Gary
                                           11  11   Eiji Hirai
Index:     10  18  24  29  33  37  41  50  53  58

Power    1911 '12 '13                               Player
England    16  17  17                               Dave Cebula
France      6   6   6                               Nicholas Fitzpatrick
Turkey     12  11  11                               Eiji Hirai
Index:     62  63  63


Index is the sum of squares of the number of supply centers divided by the
number of players.  It is a measure of how far the game has progressed.
-------------

Turkey wrote:

From: hirai@cc.swarthmore.edu (Eiji Hirai)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 14:23:42 -0400

> by the way I am in DPPD, (France), I think
> that was a pretty nice block of England we pulled off!

Oh my, you were France?  Wow.

When I came into the game, I didn't check the history of the game.  I
quickly realized that I was doomed from the start since I couldn't fend off
the combined forces of Both England and France unless one person backstabbed
the other.  I may have played poorly in some of the turns but all my hopes
were on a quick stab by you or England.

However, it seems like I overestimated how much I could strike back.  I
couldn't break out of the Russian/German lands and taking over your supply
centers would've meant a quicker victory for England.

Oh well.  I guess I should've realized that I could maintain a stalemate
line on my end and gone for a stable configuration instead of trying to
break through the English armies in Russia.  I didn't realize that until the
Spring turn.  Oh well.

I feel sort of sorry for England since he/she was soooo close to winning but
I guess that's life. :-)

Next time, I'll be on the lookout for possible stalemate lines.  I learned
something this game.


France writes:

I guess I probably should have stabbed England before he stabbed me, I 
knew it was coming, but I guess we still pulled it off in the end.  My
philosophy after the stab was to move all my units against England, and
let Turkey walk through me, if necessary.  Basically I would hand the game
to Turkey, rather than let England win.  However Turkey was wise, and did
not move into my undefended centres, for fear it would weaken me in my
battle against England.  I knew if worse came to worse, I could end
up with one unit in Portugal, and still insist on being part of the draw!
(remember sinai?)

Congratulations to all for a good game.

Nick

From: loeb@organon.greco-prog.fr (Daniel LOEB)

Here is ENGLAND's summary
>From cebulad@physics.orst.edu (David Cebula) [England]
>Thanks for an excellent game.  Its just too bad that I could not get an
>outright win, oh well maybe next time.  Nick, sorry about the stab but
>I needed a few of your centers to try for the win.  Perhaps I should have
>waited another year to stab, but hindsight is 20/20.  You and Turkey did
>a fine job of stopping me.  I had forgoten about the Tri-Bud-Rum-Sev line.
>The timing was awfully close though.  Its always good to actually
>finish one of these.

Here are the DIPLOMAT's comments to the game DPPD:

Spring 1901 - Based on experience in DPPA,B,C, moves are computed
using an algorithm taking into according Supply centers, and distance
to unowned supply centers, and various other factors. However, moves
are still computed without supports, and by assuming that the other
players will play badly.
        ENGLAND discovers diplomat based on unusual opening
The move to the Baltic Sea is quite unusual. (Only used in one other
game so far on the JUDGE "King".) However, the algorithm described
above was quite new at the time, and because this was a Spring phase
not enough weight was given to new supply centers. The current
algorithm (taking into account good play by opponents) finds classic
openings for all countries, especially when joined to the diplomatic
module (not in use for DPPD).

Fall 1901 - Diplomat covers Munich not because he assumes it will be
under attack. (He thinks opponents will play badly, but as a response
to the Italian move to Tyrolia, and regain his "control of the
south".) 
Similarly, the diplomat assumes he can get either Sweden or Denmark,
and chooses to get Sweden which would also place him in good shape to
take Denmark later. However, as it is, Russia is not as cooperative as
the Diplomat would like, and the Diplomat gets nothing up North as a
result of one mistake compounding on another.

Winter 1901 - FRANCE discovers diplomat since no support used to date.

Spring 1902 - Diplomat becomes abandonned and is taken over by a
human. The diplomat was reinstated, and the human's moves were NOT used
The bounce in Kiel is an unusual move. I'm surprised none of you
noticed it. The current diplomat would have (when considering this
move) replaced it with a supported move to Kiel, and then probably
rejected it as a senseless retreat.  

Fall 1902 -  TURKEY thinks that AUSTRIA is computer... weird support in RUM

Autumn 1903 - We didn't have any retreats due, but I ran the program
        anyways to examine how well it retreats.
        Italy has 4 units and controls ITALY + Tunis.
        He forced his way into TRIESTE (5th center), while
        the Turk forced his way into IONIAN SEA and SERBIA.
        Austria must retreat to GRE
        Italy must retreat to TUN/TYS/APU/ADR/GRE
        (1) Does our program consider the consequences of the double
        retreat to Greece... (annhilation of both units)....[No.] If so,
        that would explain why the program doesn't suggest the retreat
        to Greece, which otherwise would be a good move.
        (2) In the end our program suggests a retreat to NAPLES. This
        leaves  TUNIS in the total control of the Turks.
        A human would have retreated to TUNIS, and then built in NAPLES. 
        However, for the moment our program doesn't think ahead, so it
        could not come up with such a strategy. 
        Once it does, (and Chowjonowski's build module is installed),
        then we  should recalculate this season to see if the
        suggested move improves. 

Spring 1904 - New algorithm used. Computes moves with supports, and
assumes other players will play well. However, the position is too bad
to recover from. The next turn in my absence the diplomat goes CD, and
is replaced by a human who is eliminated.


Broadcast message from France in dppd:

As an aside, I was compiling the new Hall of Fame the other day, and
I noticed an interesting statistic, dppd is the only non-press Standard
gunboat to finish in a draw!  So I guess Turkey and I can both pat
ourselves on the back for being the first to pull of this feat

(Though a draw was pulled off in the non-press Youngstown game speed, but
it is a lot easier to get a draw in a Youngstown game . . . )

France, 
Nicholas Fitzpatrick
nick@sunburn.uwaterloo.ca