Daniel Lepage on 15 Sep 2003 00:21:31 -0000


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] [PGo] Alliance



On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 07:48 PM, Rob Speer wrote:

On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 06:16:47PM -0400, Daniel Lepage wrote:
Your move fails, because you didn't correctly represent the gamesate.

Your stone at G3 should die - it now constitutes a surrounded Dragon,
as every piece in it belongs either to you or your Ally the Baron, but
none of the pieces around it are owned by a mutual ally of the two of
you (since Glotmorf and BvS aren't allied). In order for you to ally
with the Baron without losing anything, Glotmorf has to do it first.

Okay. I see how you're interpreting the rule, and I think that's a
completely bizarre interpretation.

"A Dragon is a set of adjacent Stones that belong to players who are all
Allied with each other".

You are saying that a set of stones (in particular, a set of one stone)
owned by me is also a set of stones owned by me and BvS. This is not how
English works - if I solely own a couch, it would be false to say that
the couch belongs to me and George Bush.

That's not what I'm claiming; in fact, I'm claiming the opposite - that the sentence means a Dragon is a set of stones *each of which* is owned by one of a set of allied players. Otherwise, RRGG isn't a dragon at all unless all four stones belong to both of you, which isn't possible.

Also, with your interpretation, _any_ stone surrounded by _any_ other
stones dies. For example, if your stones ended up like this:

W W W
W W W
W W W

The middle one would die, because it is in a set of one stone belonging
to you and, say, Iain, surrounded by stones that are not in mutual
alliances with you and Iain.

Okay, you lost me there. How does this follow from what I said?

In short: when I wrote the rule, I intended "a set of adjacent stones
that belong to multiple players" to necessitate that each player owns at
least one stone in the set. I believe that based on English usage, this
is the most valid interpretation.

"A set of stones that belong to players who..." taken out of context best means a set of stones all of which are owned by the players who... But since no stone can be owned by more than one player, that'd be ridiculous. So the next best thing would be "A set of stones that each belong to a player in the set of players who..."; this puts your R in a dragon, and kills it.

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-discuss mailing list
spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss