HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: mbrockma@bank.ecn.purdue.edu (Matt Brockman)
Subject: Re: What???
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:51:58 GMT

In article <1dn4ikINN94q@bigboote.WPI.EDU> bdsm@fermat.WPI.EDU (Billy Don McConnell) writes:
>
>In article <lfu3daINN6if@cash.cs.utexas.edu>, jadair@cs.utexas.edu 
>(John S. Adair) writes:
>|> In article <1992Nov9.223226.5300> 
>Jeff Sobotka@dvorak.amd.com writes
>
>|> >(Is there anybody out there???)
>|> Yes, there are others asking What...
>
>You know, if you think about it, maybe we're playing the game already!

I think you just scored!


===============================================================================
Matt Brockman                                           mbrockma@ecn.purdue.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "While a llama may produce some of the world's finest of wools, prized
        around the world, their breath, on the other hand, could only 
            be prized somewhere in the far reaches of llama hell."
===============================================================================
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: boutell@isis.cshl.org (Tom Boutell)
Subject: Nomic Game Full!
Organization: Cold Spring Harbor Labs
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 21:07:18 GMT

Well, the Nomic game is *already* full. Happened quick. We have 12 players,
which I think is more than enough. (I won't be playing, just moderating.
Hopefully someone will reciprocate the favor eventually.)

So please stop sending requests to join, and thanks for all the interest.

BTW, the MUD that was posted about is interesting, but how do I find
a list of the current rules (Not just the original ones) that are
in effect on it? I wandered around a bit there.

-T

-- 
Tom Boutell, boutell@cshl.org

Clausthaler is the best non - alcoholic beer in the known universe.
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: positron@engin.umich.edu (Jonathan Scott Haas)
Subject: Re: Politics Game
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 92 14:28:41 EST
Organization: University of Michigan Engineering, Ann Arbor

In article <MJD.92Nov10123732@saul.cis.upenn.edu> mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu ("[*] The One True Cross") writes:
>
>A friend of mine told me about a Politics Game which sounds exciting.
>
> [rules deleted]

This sounds a lot like the "Dollar Bill Auction" described by William
Poundstone in his book, "Prisoner's Dilemma".

-- 
__/\__  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: cb@wixer.cactus.org (Cyberspace Buddha)
Subject: Re: Chess in non-euclidian space 
Organization: Real/Time Communications
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 06:33:52 GMT

royd@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roy Daniel) writes:
>For my part, I am currently working on a 4D chess. Any other ideas?
>

Eh?  the board is 2d, the height of the pieces is 3d, the time elapsed is 4d.

;)

cb
-- 
 Cyberspace Buddha { Why are you looking for more knowledge when you  } /(o\
cb@wixer.cactus.org } do not pay attention to what you already know? {  \o)/
 Is this thing on? { Just say no to war, Bush, NSA, CIA, IRS, etc...  } fnord
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers)
Subject: Re: Abstract games & Chess
Originator: neilb@csparc2
Organization: The University of Leeds, School of Computer Studies
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:25:21 GMT

In rec.games.abstract, sbp5893@tamsun.tamu.edu (Suresh Peram) writes:
>
>Does chess come under the classification of
>abstract games ?  Is abstract something that you
>think mostly and do little physical stuff ?

Yes, chess can be classified as an `abstract' game (using the definition
of abstract given in the charter).  I don't envisage chess getting much
coverage here, since there is a separate group dedicated to chess,
as there is for go, backgammon, diplomacy and a number of other games.
See the FAQ for rec.games.board for details of other groups.

One definition for abstract games might be: those which are not directly
based on `real life', but perhaps abstract representations thereof.
Chess is an abstract war game, whereas Diplomacy is not so abstract,
being played on a map of the world (and my Diplomacy knowledge ends there).
It's all a matter of degree.

Much more fun to argue about whether particular games can be discussed here!

Neil
From: jeffs@dvorak.amd.com (Jeff Sobotka)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: What???
Date: 13 Nov 92 19:01:22 GMT
Organization: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.; Austin, Texas

>Everyone chant with me:  Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!
>                         Ph-nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!



Tyuiwe Qfeoskt ir dosichiv ch'ayuk anrdiof?

(erifdui aswiqy erf donavenn -:)

Cheers,

-Jeff-
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: What???
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 04:18:38 GMT

There's probably some discussion of exactly what this group is supposed
to contain in groups like rec.games.go, rec.games.chess and so on. I'm
sure I remember seeing something of the sort a month ago or thereabouts.

Anyway, if my recollection of what was said is correct, this group is
intended for discussion of games which are "abstract" in the sense that
they don't represent anything in the real world, and that they don't
depend in a fundamental way on any real objects; thus chess, go and
tic-tac-toe are abstract games, but Diplomacy and football are not.
(Diplomacy is of course much closer than football.)

In response to 

> Conventionally, use of the fingers as a memory aid is frowned upon.
> For the advanced player, 3-D tic-tac-toe is an option, using a 3x3x3
> cube with the same rules.  4-D tic-tac-toe has been invented, but
> never played. It is a *truly* abstract game (-:

four-d tic-tac-toe has been played, although it wouldn't be too much
fun trying to do it blindfold as suggested by the poster just quoted
for the two-d version.

Actually, three-dimensional tic-tac-toe is an easy first-player win,
with the following strategy:
  1. Play your first move in the centre.
  2. There are three 3x3 "planes" through the centre; your opponent's
     first move cannot lie on all of them.
  3. So, make your next move in a corner of that "plane".
  4. This threatens an immediate win, so your opponent must counter it.
  5. Now you win in the obvious way on that "plane", unless your
     opponent's moves so far threaten an instant win for him.
  6. For this to be the case, his first move must lie on one of the
     three "planes" which contain his (forced) second move.
  7. But remember that you had a lot of choice as to what your second
     move was, and that when you exercised that choice you knew about
     his first move. All you have to do is to pick a "corner" (not a
     corner of the cube, note) whose "opposite corner" isn't on any of
     the same "planes" as your opponent's first move. This is easy,
     since that first move cannot exclude all of them.

Incidentally, the above was done blindfold, without counting on fingers
or drawing pictures. Therefore 3-d tic-tac-toe can be played blindfold.
I wouldn't fancy doing so if I were the second player, though.

Errm, a corresponding argument proves that 4-d (or higher) tic-tac-toe
is a win for the first player too. But I wouldn't like to have to play
it blindfold if we had to number the spaces 1-81; I'd get too confused.
In fact, I think I'd get too confused however we numbered the spaces.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: dbh@doc.ic.ac.uk (Denis Howe)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Nomic (was Game)
Date: 10 Nov 92 18:30:47 GMT
	<1992Nov10.051709.14175@news.acns.nwu.edu>
Organization: Computing Department, Imperial College, London, UK
NNTP-Posting-Host: wombat.doc.ic.ac.uk
In-reply-to: jcc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu's message of Tue, 10 Nov 1992 05:17:09

In article <1992Nov10.051709.14175@news.acns.nwu.edu>
jcc@casbah.acns.nwu.edu (Jeremy Caplan) wrote:

>There is a totally awesome game invented by Douglass Hofstadter
>called NOMIC where the game consists of making the rules for the game
>itself.
>
>Can be VERY amusing or VERY syupid, depending on who plays and what
>kind of mood you're in.

I've never played by Hofstadter's rules but I have played several
times using home-brewed rules.  We started off playing a simple card
game.  Each time a player won a round he was able to propose a rule
change.  That got a bit silly until someone changed the rule-changing
rule so that all other players proposed rule changes and the winner
chose which one would become law.  That worked very well.  We evolved
such a fun card game that on subsequent occasions we just played the
game with no changes.  The best rule we came up with was this: When
you play a heart you say "throb, throb, throb", when you play a club
you say "bonk, bonk, bonk", when you play a diamond you say "twinkle,
twinkle, twinkle" and when you play a spade you say "dig, dig, dig".
You can tell what sort of mentality the players had!
--
Denis Howe <dbh@doc.ic.ac.uk>
So Biggs, you're the idiot who bought all these IBM PCs.  You're fired!
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: nicholso@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Melvin H. Nicholson YBH)
Subject: Re: Abalone.
Organization: NASA Ames Res. Ctr. Mtn Vw CA 94035
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 21:36:54 GMT


Yep.  I've played Abalone.  I even tried an e-mail game or two, and here
is the notation we used.

     x x x x x
    x x x x x x
   . . x x x . .
  . . . . . . . .
 . . . . . . . . .
  . . . . . . . .
   . . o o o . .
    o o o o o o
     o o o o o

Directions are west, northwest, northeast, east, southeast, southwest
(abbreviated w nw ne e se sw)

The rows are numbered from 1 at the bottom to 9 at the top.
The space in row 5 are numbered 1-9 left to right.
A space in another odd numbered row gets the same number as the space in
row 5 it shares a vertical line with.
A space in an even row gets the same number as a space northwest would.
Space are identified by concatenating the row number and space number.

For example, 23, 55, and 97 would be:

      . . . . .
     . * . . . .
    . . . . . . .
   . . . . . . . .
  . . . . * . . . .
   . . . . . . . .
    . . . . . . .
     . . . . . .
      . . . . *

The two types of moves (push and roll) are noted by:

p <space of rearmost marble> <direction>

r <space of endpoint1> <space of endpoint2> <direction>

(where "direction" is the direction a marble moves)

Example: Black starts with "p97nw" and white moves "r3436se"

      o o o o o
     o o o o o o
    . . . . . . .
   . . . o o o . . 
  . . . . . . . . .
   . . . . x . . .
    . . x x x . .
     x x x x x x
      x x x x .

Mel
 
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: elascurn@daimi.aau.dk (Lars R{der Clausen)
Subject: Re: What???
Organization: DAIMI: Computer Science Department, Aarhus University, Denmark
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 92 09:28:46 GMT

gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) writes:
[...]
>Actually, three-dimensional tic-tac-toe is an easy first-player win,
>with the following strategy:
[...]
>Errm, a corresponding argument proves that 4-d (or higher) tic-tac-toe
>is a win for the first player too. But I wouldn't like to have to play
>it blindfold if we had to number the spaces 1-81; I'd get too confused.
>In fact, I think I'd get too confused however we numbered the spaces.

Three-on-a-row in a 3^x space is rather easy to prove things about. That game
has (as far as playing something on a sheet of paper during lessons) long
been dead for me. 4-on-a-row in 2-d space is a bit more fun, but I seem to
have proved the the starter wins. How about 5-on-a-row? How about 3-player
4-on-a-row? Has anyone tried to prove who wins there?

>-- 
>Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
>gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]

-Lars Clausen
From: dak@messua.informatik.rwth-aachen.de (David Kastrup)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Tic-Tac-Toe
Date: 13 Nov 92 01:36:49 GMT
Organization: Rechnerbetrieb Informatik  /  RWTH Aachen

blom@husc15.harvard.edu writes:


>For any game, let us call [p,d,s,l] the parameter vector.
>Let us define some terms:

>     trivial:       Player 1 can always force a win.
>     non-trivial:   Player 1 can not always force a win.
>     solvable:      There exists an algorithm by which Player 1
>                    will never lose.
>     insoluble:     There does not exist a finite algorithm by
>                    which Player 1 will never lose.
Bad terminology:

trivial you would call a game with a unique win, that is, every move of
the second player is forced to avoid immediate loss, but first player wins.

A mathematician would call a play trivial presumably if there is one
square, so that even the first move is a forced one and decides the game.

solvable does mean that the maximum gain for both players is fixed, that
is, if the best player 1 can reach under all countermoves of his opponent,
the opponent can not do better than a draw in turn. If someone can win
for all reactions of his opponent, the opponent has a losing situation.

A play is solvable, if you can determine beforehand if the initial
situation is a win, draw, or loss.

All TicTacToe variants have a finite number of possible moves on a finite
board and are thus solvable. There exists a finite algorithm (backtracking
all possible moves, guaranteed less than N! possibilities) for any
variant. REASONABLE solvability is a different piece of cake though.
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: cmspring@undergrad.math.waterloo.edu (Colin Springer)
Subject: World Othello Championships
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 23:57:40 GMT

The World Othello Championships took place last week, Wednesday November 4th
until Saturday November 7th.  After a 13-round Swiss tournament, four
players continued on to the semi-finals.  David Shaman of Great Britain
and Marc Tastet of France advanced to the Finals, and Tastet beat Shaman
2-0 in the best of 3 match.

This is only the third time a non-Japanese has won the World Championships!

The team competition was won by Great Britain.

I'll post more results and game transcripts when I get them (unless someone
else is able to post them first).

Congratulations to Marc and all the participants!

Colin Springer
From: ath@linkoping.trab.se (Anders Thulin)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Tic-Tac-Toe
Date: 12 Nov 92 09:50:55 GMT
Organization: Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden

In article <1992Nov10.162826.17312@husc15.harvard.edu> blom@husc15.harvard.edu writes:
>Tic-Tac-Toe has gotten somewhat trite, but some of its generaliza-
>tions are very interesting. [ ... ]

>     A game in d dimensions on an a hypercubic board board s units
>     on a side, in which p players take turn claiming empty cells
>     until l squares in a line all belong to the same player.
>
>For any game, let us call [p,d,s,l] the parameter vector.
[ ... ]

>[2,3,4,4] is non-trivial, according to TicTactics, from the
>     Microsoft Entertainment Pack for Windows (c) Microsoft Co.

This is also known as Qubic. I vaguely recollect reading that a number
of game programs were no longer allowed at the Computer Games Olympiad
(or whatever it's called), mainly because they had been shown to have
a known solution. Wasn't Qubic among those?

-- 
Anders Thulin       ath@linkoping.trab.se 	013-23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: c89mikho@IDA.LiU.SE (Mikael Hovmoller)
Subject: Re: Awari Strategies
Organization: CIS Dept, University of Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 11:38:03 GMT

In article <BxK09A.2L8@rice.edu> amitp@owlnet.rice.edu (Amit J Patel) writes:

[ Stuff deleted ... ]

>   When you drop beans, you include the cups on the end as part of your
>   move; if your last bean falls into your kalaha (?), you get one extra
>   move.  (You can't keep getting moves -- you get at most one extra.)

In the version I had as a kid (a boardgame from Swedish game
manufacturer ALGA), the rules said you could get several free moves.
That meant from this position:

    X X X X X 6
  K             K
    X X X 3 2 1
          a b c

you could get 12 beans. (Play c, b, c, a, c, b)

[ More stuff deleted ]

>   Here is the 'capture' move; if your last bean falls in an empty cup,
>   you get your bean and the beans in the cup opposite the one you landed
>   in (even if the one you landed in was on the opponent's side), and put
>   them into your kalaha (?).

In my version, you only captured the beans in the opponent's cup if
your last bean was dropped in one of your own cups. However,
'wrap-around' was allowed, as in:
    
    3 X X X X X
  K             K
    0 X X X X 8

By playing c, you add 6 beans to your kalaha. Note that you don't ever
put a bean in your opponent's kalaha.

>   Sorry if I'm fuzzy on rules --- it's been a while since I played.  :)

Well, I'm not 100% sure myself...

/Micke Hovmoeller, Linkoeping Inst. of Tech.
 ( c89mikho@und.ida.lith.se )

--
     /                            \
    / Micke Hovmoeller             \    The best things in life are free -
   / c89mikho@und.ida.liu.se        \    The expensive part is paying for
  / Computer Science                 \ the dinner and movie that comes first
 / Linkoeping Institute of Technology \      - Alfred E. Neuman -
/                                      \
From: cam@nick.csh.rit.edu (Christopher A. Meaker)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Chess in non-euclidian space
Date: 12 Nov 92 00:17:15 GMT
Organization: Computer Science House @ RIT

In article <1992Nov11.205732.11648@panix.com> rpowers@panix.com (Richard Powers) writes:
>In <1992Nov11.161535.20791@cc.umontreal.ca> royd@ERE.UMontreal.CA (Roy Daniel) writes:
>
>>For my part, I am currently working on a 4D chess. Any other ideas?
>
>There already is a 4D chess.  It is called Timeline, and it is copyright
>1985 by Gearge Marino.  I don't have time to describe it now (if, in fact,
>I could do it right), but I do have the address for Geo Games (*if* it is
>still accurate.
>
>	Geo Games
>	24 Tupelo
>	Naperville, IL 60540
>	USA
>
>
>The same person came up with the only *playable* 3D chess I have ever seen.
>
>
>-- 
>rpowers@panix.com                .sig file...             ...just a .sig file.

Is that the one that is always seen on Star Trek The Next Generation?  I would
love to play that game.  I could never find it though.  If TImeline isn't the
one do you know what the one on Star Trek is called?  Thanks,

Chris  cam@nick.csh.rit.edu
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: ratava@maths.tcd.ie (Michael McCarthy)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Chess on spherical boards.
Date: 13 Nov 92 16:52:33 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland.

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

>    Any time you try to bend a chessboard into a funny shape some
>properties are going to change, to talking about an `only way' without
>first discussing the properties you want to preserve is a little silly.
>The board I've shown has some desirable properties (uniformity,
>diagonals are great circles) and some undesirable ones.  (Diagonals are
>each half black and half white.)  Yours has some good points and some
>weak points too. (Left `k' is adjacent to right `k' in two different
>directions, for example.)
>--

I don't take topology, but from what I know from analysis :
A sphere is isomorphic to the infinite Euclidean plane. Therefore you cannot
map a finite Euclidean plane (i.e. a chessboard) to a sphere. Which is also
why you can never get a map of the world right: you cannot preserve distances 
and area at the same time.
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
From: pquince@blacks.jpl.nasa.gov (Peter Quince)
Subject: Ok who can post a current version of rules for Eleusis?
Organization: Image Analysis Systems Group, JPL
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:01:07 GMT

Eleusis is a card/chess piece game about The Search For Truth,
first brought to my attention in Martin Gardner's Mathematical
Games column in the October 1977 issue of Scientific American.

Since that time I imagine that the game has either gone through
some revitalizing rules adjustments or else has faded into 
obscurity; if the former, are there any adherents out there who
would care to Eleucidate the rules for this group?

pq
--
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:26:24 EST
From: Jeff Raven <JAR129@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Kalah - Complete Rules
 <1992Nov13.182522.19415@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>

In article <1992Nov13.182522.19415@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
lapj_ltd@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Jason LaPierre) says:

>Another way I was told that the game could end, though this could be wrong,
>is if one player gets more than half the stones in his scoring pit. At this
>point the winner is already known, but maybe play continues in order to see
>how close a score can be achieved. Please correct me if this is incorrect.

This, I think, depends on who you are playing with. In light of the fact
that the KALAKH program uses coins instead of stones, and keeps track of
how much money you lose, it looks like there are a few people out there
who play for money. In that case, you might want to keep playing just to
lessen your loss. If the stakes aren't as high, though, I don't see why
you couldn't stop the game then.

>I do have one other rule question. If the last stone I place lands in an
>empty pit on my side (a capture normally) and there are no stones in the
>opposite pit, does my stone go into my scoring pit?

No. The only time the stone is removed is if it captures pieces on the
opposite side. Otherwise, it stays were it is.

Jeff Raven
jar129@psuvm.psu.edu
From: nate@cats.ucsc.edu (Nathaniel Douglas Renwick)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Re: Move
Date: 12 Nov 1992 01:42:18 GMT
Organization: University of California; Santa Cruz
NNTP-Posting-Host: am.ucsc.edu
Summary: This could get interesting...


neilb@scs.leeds.ac.uk (Neil Bowers) writes:
>boutell@isis.cshl.org (Tom Boutell) writes:
>>King's pawn to queen's duck thirteen. Soprano.
>Zebedee takes the staff car, with the candlestick!
>Do not collect $200.
Ahh... but having forfeited your right to pluck the chicken,
I have put sleeves on my vest.  Wrong number.
From: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu (Amit J Patel)
Newsgroups: rec.games.abstract
Subject: Awari Strategies
Date: 10 Nov 92 13:29:19 GMT
Reply-To: amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
Organization: Rice University


For those of you know Awari, can you give me some hints?  Is there a
way for the first or second player to always win?  (I suspect it isn't
obvious if there is a way.) 


	3 3 3 3 3 3
      0             0
        3 3 3 3 3 3

I've seen some opening moves such as:

        3 3 3 3 3 3
      0             1 
        3 3 3 0 4 4 
              ^

Plus with the free move:

        3 3 3 0 3 3
      0             5
        0 4 4 0 4 4
        ^

but then, of course, the opponent would do:

          v
        0 0 3 0 3 3
      6             5
        0 4 4 0 4 4

and get ahead, giving me a bad board.  Any advice for a clueless Awari
player?



			Amit

P.S.  I'm trying to write a semi-intelligent computer opponent

-- 
/\\ Amit J Patel, amitp@owlnet.rice.edu
\\/ I think I'm at Rice University