HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: boman@sccm.stanford.edu (Erik Boman)
Subject: Re: hnefatafl and tablut
Organization: Scientific Computing/Computational Mathematics, Stanford
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 92 04:54:06 GMT

In article <kleber.725702553@husc.harvard.edu>, kleber@husc11.harvard.edu (Gwydden) writes:

|> OK, a question about hnefetafl and Tablut-- what prevents the swedes
|> from making a shape like
|>                           Ss
|>                           ss
|>                               which is completely invincible according
|> to the rules as I've seen them?  (Now how do you explain *that* in terms
|> of a simulation of real combat??)
|> 
|> --Michael Kleber                 I don't have an overactive imagination...
|>   kleber@husc.harvard.edu        I have an underactive reality...   --EG

It is correct that the attackers (Muscovites) cannot capture any of the defenders (Swedes)
in this situation. Capture is by interception, i.e. one piece on each side of the enemy 
piece. So if the Swedes hold on to this position, the game ends in a draw.
Recall that the goal for the Swedes is to let the king flee off the board,
i.e. the defending player wins if there is an open row or column to the edge of the
board for the king on his/hers turn.

I do not know how likely this tie situation is to occur in a real game. It could
be difficult for the Swedes to keep the draw if all their other pieces are captured,
since they then would be forced to move one of the pieces in the 'invincible' square. 

BTW, does anybody know if there is a stalemate rule in tafl games? None of my
sources address this issue. 

I refrain from discussing the analogy to real combat...

Erik
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: SUSAN (a game)
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 15:22:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.065549.12627@risky.ecs.umass.edu> trodrigu@ganzer.ecs.umass.edu () writes:
>SUSAN is a game of my own design with extremely simple rules and
>considerable depth of play. The rules are as follows:
> 
>  S U S A N (tm)
>  Copyright (c) 1991 by Stephen Linhart
>  All Rights Reserved
...[]...
>  around it - _a stone may be surrounded by any combination of your
>  stones, your opponent's stones and the edge of the board_. But be
>  careful; if one of your stones is surrounded on your own turn
>  (even if you surround one of your opponent's stones at the same
>  time), you lose the game!....
>The second half of the second to last sentence confuses some
>people, so I include diagrams to explain it when I print the rules
>on paper....

could you say that this is the reverse of Go?  in Go you kill first,
then breath, as for example in a ko.  so in SUSAN you try to breath
first, then kill.  thus, if you cant breath, you die before you kill?
> 
>... The key point is that the game ends as soon as ANY stone
>has no empty spaces around it. Neighboring stones of your own are
>just as much of a threat as your opponent's stones. Every stone is
>both a benefit and a liability.
>The most significant weakness that I am aware of is that it is
>possible to get into a draw situation.

how can this happen?  there a finite number (61) of places to go - oh,
okay, the sliding option could lead to repeated positions - just
disallow repeated positions...the 4-6 consecutive slides idea just
sounds messy.

> 
>SUSAN is currently available by modem from the Dragon's Eye BBS at
>(512) 343-7727.
>A Macintosh version is available by ftp from
>sumex-aim.stanford.edu
>The Mac version 2.0 has an opponent intelligence that uses neural-
>net techniques, and learns by playing.

hey, this is great.  hope the learning goes well.
> 
>  - Stephen

sounds like a nice game.  how did you come up with SUSAN?  is it an
acronym?  the end of a bad relationship?  :-)
> 
>  S U S A N (tm)
>  Copyright (c) 1991 by Stephen Linhart
>  All Rights Reserved

 got a question here...if i tell somebody else about this game and we play
 it on one my hexgrid boards (i seem to have all these remnants of games
 lying around from failed ideas), is that ok?  as long as i dont make any
 money or let anyone else make money off this?  what's the official word
 on copyrighted games?  i'd like to know, because i have a copyrighted
 game myself.  i know you cant copyright an idea.  you also got a trade-
 mark.  i think the sad thing for us game designer types is that we need
 all 3 things - copyright, trademark and patent.  the last is expensive.

- nate
From: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Shogi, Xiangqi etc. games
Date: 3 Jan 1993 06:03:11 GMT
Organization: The Sinister Icy Black Hand of Death Club
Reply-To: goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu (David Goldfarb)
NNTP-Posting-Host: whirlwind.berkeley.edu
Originator: goldfarb@whirlwind.berkeley.edu

	The BITNET listserv has an archive with records of shogi games.
Most are uncommented, but a few have annotations. To get a list of the
files available, send mail to listserv@technion.technion.ac.il or 
listserv@technion.bitnet with the body
GET SHOGI-L FILELIST

	You retrieve the files with the same command; e. g. 
GET OI MATCH-92
to get the newly-added listing of the games in the 1902 match for
the Oi title.

-- 
   David Goldfarb          | 
goldfarb@ocf.berkeley.edu  |      "Hey, mister! Your ninja's dragging!" 
goldfarb@UCBOCF.BITNET     | 
goldfarb@soda.berkeley.edu |
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: sos@oz.plymouth.edu (Steffan O'Sullivan)
Subject: Hneftafl (was Re: defects in abstract games)
Organization: Plymouth State College - Plymouth, NH.
	<1992Dec22.143005.11060@ll.mit.edu> <kleber.725061503@husc.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 92 22:55:15 GMT

>Ed Dengler proposes Hnefatafl (sp?) (that's NEF-tof-ul, sort of) as an
>abstract game with no flaws, and Nate Smith asks for details on what
>it is.

No comment on it, but it is available commercially in a package of six
games called _The Best of Dragon Games_ from TSR.  It was published in
Dragon #128 (Dec, 87), for those who just want to hunt up the back
issue and find the rules.  It's called _King's Table_, which I believe
is a translation of Hneftafl - not sure.

-- 
  - Steffan O'Sullivan		         sos@oz.plymouth.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: jstodola@boi.hp.com (Jane Stodola)
Subject: Re: Request: Pen and paper games
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 23:10:23 GMT
Organization: Hewlett-Packard / Boise, Idaho
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

My sister taught me a variation of Mastermind that uses
four-letter words.  Each player has a piece of paper on which
he/she writes his/her four-letter word which the other person
has to guess.  The word may not contain double letters.

We alternate taking turns.  I ask you the word "fish", for
example, and you reply "Two" if two of the letters in "fish"
match letters in your word.

I am hoping to present to you as many words as I can that
will cause you to answer "Zero" because then I can cross out
those four letters in my helpful list of the alphabet.

The winner is the first one to guess the other's word.

You can determine for yourself whether finding the four
letters is good enough (like "pots") or whether the guesser
has to say the word exactly (like "stop").  

It's fun to choose words like "onyx" or "gyms" which seem
unlikely in a jumble of leftover letters.

We've played this in a hike in the mountains, having only 
to pull out a scrap of paper and a pencil from our packs.

=========
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Timber Chess
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 92 18:39:16 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <1992Dec21.190907.26083@ll.mit.edu> nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith) writes:
>
>(the "ko" rule in Go is its
>"defect" and has had an accidental side effect of creating a very nice
>feature, the ko-fight.  

I vehemently deny that the ko rule is a defect. Without it, a "ko fight"
would consist of hour upon hour of replaying the exact same moves over
and over until one of the players got bored, tired, or fell over dead.
All the ko rule states is that a move which exactly recreates a previous
position is illegal... is that wrong? Do you also disagree with the
"three repetitions and a draw" rule of chess?

>some "defects" in some games have absolutely no
>function otherwise, such as "en-passant" pawn capture - now how in- what
>was the circumstance that led to that rule??  i'd like to go back in time
>and see where they came up with that one...:-))

It dates back to the time when pawns weren't allowed to move forward two
spaces on their first move. When they allowed the pawn to move forward
two spaces on its first move, they didn't allow it to escape a threatened
capture by an enemy pawn that way, by allowing the enemy pawn to capture
as if the pawn had only moved one square.

-- 
__/\__  Jonathan S. Haas         | Jake liked his women the way he liked
\    /  University of Michigan   | his kiwi fruit: sweet yet tart, firm-
/_  _\  positron@engin.umich.edu | fleshed yet yielding to the touch, and
  \/                             | covered with short brown fuzzy hair.
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: rob@hoster.eng.ohio-state.edu (Rob Carriere)
Subject: Re: defects in abstract games
Organization: The Ohio State University Dept of Electrical Engineering
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 22:32:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.163214.3190@ll.mit.edu> nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
writes: 
>when the "no repeat" rule is regarded as a "defect" patch,  [...]
>the elegance (and elegance is certainly a goal of good abstract game design)
>of the Chinese Go rules versus the Japanese is persuasive.  indeed, it may be
>that you have to add a defect in the name of elegance.

I agree about the elegance bit.  However, the Chinese rules do not _add_ a
defect with the no-repeat rule: the Japanese rules instead have a ko-rule
which is also stateful, and therefore also a defect according to the sacred
definition :-)  (as well as being a significantly more ugly patch.)

SR
---
From: dseal@armltd.co.uk (David Seal)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Timber Chess
Date: 22 Dec 92 16:58:11 GMT
Distribution: rec
Organization: A.R.M. Ltd, Swaffham Bulbeck, Cambs, UK

In article <1992Dec21.190907.26083@ll.mit.edu> nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate
Smith) writes:

>the rule of the double-three is part of Go-Moku.  it is a "defect" in my
>view, a necessary blemish on its purity.  (the "ko" rule in Go is its
>"defect" and has had an accidental side effect of creating a very nice
>feature, the ko-fight.  some "defects" in some games have absolutely no
>function otherwise, such as "en-passant" pawn capture - now how in- what
>was the circumstance that led to that rule??  i'd like to go back in time
>and see where they came up with that one...:-))

I believe the origins were:

  Pawns could originally only move a single step forward (as they still can
  e.g. in Shogi, which comes from the same origins).

  To speed up the start of the game, the double pawn move was introduced.

  However, the double pawn move was only intended to speed up the game, not
  to allow a pawn to escape inevitable capture. So the en-passant rule was
  introduced.

  A similar thing happened with castling, which was intended as a speed-up
  rather than a way for the king to escape check or mate. Hence the rules
  about castling not being allowed in you're in check or the square the king
  is going to pass over is in check.

I've no evidence to quote on this, but I've read it in a number of places in
the past. So it's either the truth or a widespread legend :-).

David Seal
dseal@armltd.co.uk

All opinions are mine only...
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl (Dennis Breuker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Chinese checkers: rules REQ
Date: 28 Dec 92 14:59:31 GMT
Organization: University of Limburg, Maastricht

Hi there!

Does anyone have the rules for chinese checkers ('Halma' in Dutch I think)?
Thanks in advance,

+---------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
| Dennis Breuker                                    | breuker@cs.rulimburg.nl |
| Dept. of computer science, University of Limburg  | Voice: +31 43 883379    |
| P.O. Box 616, 6200 MD Maastricht, The Netherlands | Fax  : +31 43 252392    |
+---------------------------------------------------+-------------------------+
From: nates@ll.mit.edu ( Nate Smith)
Subject: Re: defects in abstract games
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 92 14:59:16 GMT

In article <kleber.725061503@husc.harvard.edu> kleber@husc11.harvard.edu (Gwydden) writes:
>
>Ed Dengler proposes Hnefatafl (sp?) (that's NEF-tof-ul, sort of) as an
>abstract game with no flaws, and Nate Smith asks for details on what
>it is.
>
>Now, why I don't think this is an unblemished game.  First, it has a
>nontrivial starting position, though I can get over that one.  Second,
>the rules exceptions I mentioned above:  (1) no "attacker" piece can
           ^^^^^^^^^^\
                      \a tipoff that there may be a defect or 2

>ever land *on* the center square where the King starts (I've never
>understood the reason for this rule); (2) as a result, the King could
>stand adjacent to this square and be immune from capture, so if he's
>adjacent to that square, you only need to surround him on three sides;

"immune from capture" and "only need to surround him on 3 sides" ????
which is correct?  is it that if it werent for this rule the king
would have been immune, so this rule takes that away?  boy, that is a
defect.

>(3) similarly, if the king is adjacent to one of his own men, you
>can surround the pair of them (with six guys) and win.  This rule
>really needs to be generalized, in something like a go-type way.
>
>Nope, this one has too many impurities for me.  I second the nomination
>of Go for the most perfect abstract game, with "mental jujitsu"
>(the perfect-knowledge bidding card game) pretty high up there too.
>
>--Michael Kleber                 I don't have an overactive imagination...
>  kleber@husc.harvard.edu        I have an underactive reality...   --EG

a game without defects isnt necessarily good.  tic-tac-toe has no defects,
but is hardly a "great abstract game".

i have created a variation of the 5-in-a-row family of games that is
played on a hexagonal grid of dots.  you cover each dot with one of
your stones.  because there are only 3 ways to make 5-in-a-row, instead
of the 4 on the square board, i threw away the double-3 rule with a grin.
after trying this game out with several friends, the missing double-3
defect rule seemed to be truly unneeded anymore.  however, the complexity
- while still quite high enough for me - is still so far below go or chess
that this defectless game wont make my "great abstract game" list either.
fun though.  i have another game using the same setup that could be much
more complex....someday maybe.

- nate
From: kleber@husc11.harvard.edu (Gwydden)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: defects in abstract games
Date: 22 Dec 92 21:58:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc.kleber.725061503
 <BzMrHE.At3@watcgl.uwaterloo.ca> <1992Dec22.143005.11060@ll.mit.edu>


Ed Dengler proposes Hnefatafl (sp?) (that's NEF-tof-ul, sort of) as an
abstract game with no flaws, and Nate Smith asks for details on what
it is.

In reverse order:  Hnefatafl is a Viking board game; don't remember what
century, but old.  There are two players, one attacking, one "defending",
or more accurately trying to escape.  Players start with lots of
pieces in a specific arrangement on a large square board-- sizes and
placement of pieces vary; in the 23x23ish range; with the defending pieces
mostly towards the center of the board (but a few on the outsides), and
the attacking pieces genearlly surrounding them.

Players alternate moving a piece; all pieces move like chess rooks.
Captue is by placing two pieces of yours on either side of a single
enemy piece, all in one line (XOX captures the O).  The one special
piece is the "defender" king, which starts in the center, and must be
surrounded on all four sides to capture-- with certain exceptions.
See below, on why I don't think this is a perfect game.

The goal of the attackers os, of course, to get the king; the goal of the
defender is to get his king to an edge of the board.

Now, why I don't think this is an unblemished game.  First, it has a
nontrivial starting position, though I can get over that one.  Second,
the rules exceptions I mentioned above:  (1) no "attacker" piece can
ever land *on* the center square where the King starts (I've never
understood the reason for this rule); (2) as a result, the King could
stand adjacent to this square and be immune from capture, so if he's
adjacent to that square, you only need to surround him on three sides;
(3) similarly, if the king is adjacent to one of his own men, you
can surround the pair of them (with six guys) and win.  This rule
really needs to be generalized, in something like a go-type way.

Nope, this one has too many impurities for me.  I second the nomination
of Go for the most perfect abstract game, with "mental jujitsu"
(the perfect-knowledge bidding card game) pretty high up there too.

--Michael Kleber                 I don't have an overactive imagination...
  kleber@husc.harvard.edu        I have an underactive reality...   --EG
From: tchaboud@ens-lyon.fr (Thomas Chaboud)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: defects in abstract games
Date: 31 Dec 92 14:50:13 GMT
Reply-To: tchaboud@ens-lyon.fr
Organization: Ecole Normale Superieure de Lyon


		Hello.

	
Though I lost the post, I remember somebody mentioning
the fact that Abalone and Reversi fit a few criteria for 
being defect-free games, namely the conciseness of rules,  
not having a no-repeat rule...

I like Abalone  very much, so I'm sorry to say that
this game _lacks_ this no-repeat rule, as perpetuals can
occur in a game - or I missed something. In short,
Abalone's rules are not complete.


As for Reversi, I always found it a bit poor in complexity
- not that I'm strong at playing it, but just consider the 
fact that any not too dumb Reversi program beats any human, 
to overstate things a little.

This 'easily computerizable' aspect does seem like a defect
to me, to add my little stone to this thread (in case you didn't
guess, my favourite game is Go, way ahead).


And now for another weird fact about Go :

In the (finite) universe of all possible legal Go games, there exists 
one of maximal length. Has anyone ever considered that this length is
monstrous ? Of course, it is quite an 'abnormal' game (with a lot of
self-ataries), but it contains a fair deal of all the possible 'normal' 
games, for instance. 
I wouldn't dare trying to calculate its length, but I'd welcome any
pointer or idea in that field.

Just compare this with the bare 60-move length of a maximal Reversi
game... :-)

By the way, I also remember the fact that 11x11 Go is enough to 
reach both the (logical) complexity and the playing difficultness 
(if this word exists) of Chess. I got that from an expert in both games...



Sorry for my English.
("Of course I'm French ! Where should I have got this outrageous accent ?"
				--Monty Python & the Holy Grail	)

	Regards, happy new year, et tout ca.

				Tom.
From: kleber@husc11.harvard.edu (Gwydden)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Recommend these game, from Game Top 100?
Date: 24 Dec 92 17:14:02 GMT

ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy) writes:

> Terrace - looks and sounds cool. I really like Abalone, and this
>   seems very similar. Anyone play it? :D

This one didn't impress me-- it has Abalone's elegant look, until you
actually touch the pieces, and the game itself isn't helped much by the
board and pieces-- would work almost as well with graph paper and a pencil.
Definitely know what's in the box before buying.

> Octiles - Looks neat, but far to expensive... No matter how good it 
>   is, I'd have to play it first.
>  
> Quintillions - In the list for 7 years. Based on Pentominoes from 
>   Clarke's book. Isn't there an actuly "Pentominoes" game? If so, is
>   this better? Either way, how fun IS this game??

Come to the Maryland Renaissance Festival!  Kadon enterprizes (which is
a group of really neat people, from talking to them at the RenFest) has
a booth there where, in addition to selling games, they let you play them
all for a casino fee ($.50-$1).  Octiles really is cute, especially
4-player games, and the game just *feels* nice, in addition to everything 
else.  These are also the people who make the gorgeous laser-cut wooden
pentominoes, and accompanying 3-d versions, and a matching hexominoes
set (2-d and 3-d).  They'll do a 7's set on order, but it gets awfully
expensive, though the 2-d plastic verison of the 7's is reasonable.
(I asked about special-ordering a 4-dimensional pentominoes set
(pop quiz: how many 4-d pentominoes are there?), and she said she'd do it
for me if I provided the sets of 5 hypercubes to make them out of.)

Incidentally, these people are also very sensitive to the "purity of 
abstract games" concept; for example, in octiles, the set of tiles isn't
arbitrary, it's one each of all possible types (up to rotation, of course).

Hmm-- and looking back, no, really, I *don't* have any official connection
with these people; I just like them...

--Michael Kleber                 I don't have an overactive imagination...
  kleber@husc.harvard.edu        I have an underactive reality...   --EG
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: rbr@well.sf.ca.us (Bob Rossney)
Subject: Re: Trax anyone?
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 17:12:18 GMT

In <BzrBzL.164@comp.vuw.ac.nz> Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:

>Trax is a nice game developed in New Zealand with a very abstract
>design and (dare I say it? :-) no flaws....

>Has anyone outside of New Zealand ever heard of it? If no-one has,
>I'll even post a description of it as a Christmas present.. :-)

>Michael.

Trax is available in the US.  It's published, believe it or not, by the US
Playing Card Company.  It's a surpassingly elegant and interesting game
of the tile-laying, path-building variety.  It's sort of like Kaliko only
much less confusing and open-ended (and not at all dependent on luck).

Bob Rossney
rbr@well.sf.ca.us
From: elascurn@daimi.aau.dk (Lars R{der Clausen)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Win/Win Games
Date: 25 Dec 92 15:38:02 GMT
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark

mdm@bnr.ca (Diane MacMartin) writes:

>I've played a couple of games of this type.
>---------------------
>Crossed/uncrossed - people are sitting in (more or less) a circle or
>ring, some people with their legs crossed.  (this can be either 
>Indian-style on the floor, or on chairs with their legs crossed)

>A pair of scissors is passed from one person to the next, with the
>passing person saying "crossed" or "uncrossed".  Those who are "in" on
>it say "wrong" when the person is wrong.

>The key is, you say "crossed" if the scissors are in the closed
>position, "uncrossed" if you pass them in the open position, i.e.:

>0 0                    0  0              
> V  crossed             \/    uncrossed  
> V                     /  \              
> V                                       

>Use the legs to distract people.  (this may also be used with
>eyeglasses, or anything of that type)
>---------------------

No, no, no, it's the other way around. It's too simple to hand the scissors
around and let them be the rule for when to say crossed/uncrossed. Instead,
hand the scissors around and let whether the person handing the scissors have
his/her legs crossed be the rule. It's frigtheningly easy to change position
when everybody have their attention on the scissors. Took me half an hour to
guess the first time.

Yours, Lars Clausen
--
The most dreaded comment:
   This only works because...
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract