RE: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] Tafl anyone?

["Craig" <ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx>]

>> > I propose a rule, to be called "Political Tafl":
>>
>> > The game is played on a board 13 spaces on a side, which is initially
>> > empty.
>>
>> What about the other side? Is it assumed to be square?

>Well, 'a' can mean 'one' or 'all' in English, and here it's clear it
>means all, but the number of sides needs to be specified (Hexfl, anyone?)

The movement rules as currently such that making it hexagonal would be hard,
but not impossible. Ditto for PGo.

>> > [[This rule is deliberately written to make a multidimensional
>> > extension of
>> > Tafl possible; so far, however, the gameboard is two-dimensional.]]
>> >
>> > Each player has a Tafl Score, which is a quantity of Tafl Points
>> > (possibly
>> > negative), which begins at 0. A player's Tafl Score may only be
>> > changed as
>> > defined in this rule. Tafl Score is a quantity independent from the
>> > "Score"
>> > and "Points" referred to elsewhere in the ruleset.
>>
>> That's an interesting way of defining 'score' - you phrase it as a
>> "quantity of Tafl Points", so that my 'score' object isn't a number,
>> but more like a purse full of points.
>>
>> I don't know if that's good or bad.

Regardless, it's how PGo does it.

>> > Players may place and move Tafl Pieces on the board in accordance with
>> > the
>> > rules of this subgame. To "place" a Tafl Piece means to create a Tafl
>> > Piece
>> > in a certain position on the board. Tafl Pieces do not exist when they
>> > are
>> > not on the board.
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, why forbid that? At the moment it's impossible
>> to create Pieces off the board or to move them there regardless of
>> whether you state it or not; but someday we may want Tafl Pieces to
>> exist in some other content (say, if you have a bag of captured pieces,
>> or something).
>>
>> > B. Alliances
>> > For the purposes of this rule, a Player is either a Player as defined
>> > in the
>> > rest of the Nomic, or the Admin.
>>
>> For clarity's sake, it might be better to put this at the beginning of
>> the rule.
>>
>> > Every Player has a set of Allies, who are other Players.
>> >
>> > Anyone who is not an Ally to a given player is considered an Opponent
>> > of
>> > that player.
>>
>> It doesn't come up in this or in PGo, but under both, each player is
>> technically an Opponent of emself - Allies are 'other players', and
>> anyone who isn't an Ally is an Opponent.
>>
>> This doesn't affect PGo since PGo never mentions Opponents except when
>> it defines what they are; nonetheless, it bugs me.
>>
>> > Alliances are not necessarily transitive. Player A can be allied with
>> > player
>> > B, and player B with player C, while player A remains an opponent of
>> > player
>> > C.
>> >
>> > C. Moving
>> > A Move consists of doing one of the following:
>> >
>> > 1. Placing a Tafl Piece on the board. A player who does this has eir
>> > Tafl
>> > Score decreased by three. If the player has no Hnefi currently on the
>> > board,
>> > then eir piece is a Hnefi. Otherwise, it is a Pawn. Tafl Pieces may
>> > not be
>> > placed adjacent to other Tafl Pieces, nor may any of their coordinates
>> > be 1
>> > or 13.

>You actually don't state the numbering of the coordinates. I take it they
>start at one?

Yes. I amend my proposal by replacing the text
{{
The game is played on a board 13 spaces on a side, which is initially empty.
At any given time, every position on the board is either empty, or occupied
by a Tafl Piece, either a Pawn or a Hnefi, belonging to a certain player.
The gameboard has two dimensions, so every position may be represented by an
ordered pair of numbers.
}}

with

{{
The game is played on a board 13 spaces on a side, which is initially empty.
At any given time, every position on the board is either empty, or occupied
by a Tafl Piece, either a Pawn or a Hnefi, belonging to a certain player.
The gameboard has two dimensions, so every position may be represented by an
ordered pair of numbers. In every dimension, the lowest legal value is 1 and
the highest legal value is 13.
}}

>> > 2. Moving an existing Tafl Piece belonging to that player. Tafl Pieces
>> > move

>It doesn't specify who the Pieces belong to here. I think we want any
>piece I create to belong to me. "All your piece are belong to us!"

That's true. I further amend my proposal by replacing the text

{{
1. Placing a Tafl Piece on the board. A player who does this has eir Tafl
Score decreased by three. If the player has no Hnefi currently on the board,
then eir piece is a Hnefi. Otherwise, it is a Pawn. Tafl Pieces may not be
placed adjacent to other Tafl Pieces, nor may any of their coordinates be 1
or 13.
}}

with

{{
1. Placing a Tafl Piece on the board. A player who does this has eir Tafl
Score decreased by three. If the player has no Hnefi currently on the board,
then eir piece is a Hnefi. Otherwise, it is a Pawn. Tafl Pieces may not be
placed adjacent to other Tafl Pieces, nor may any of their coordinates be 1
or 13. Any piece a player places is considered to belong to em.
}}

>> > in a single dimension during each move, and are considered to pass
>> > through
>> > all of the spaces between their original space and their destination,
>> > inclusive. There are two limits on the distance a Tafl Piece may move.
>> > It
>> > may not move off of the edge of the board, and it may not pass through
>> > a
>> > space containing another Tafl Piece.
>>
>> Any piece can move like this? It seems that the rapid placement and
>> rescue of Hnefis is then the best way to go...

Yes, but your Hnefi cannot be used in a capture.

In real forms of Tafl, only one player has a Hnefi at all. It starts at the
center of the board, as do all that player's pieces. Eir opponent has about
twice as many pieces, which start closer to the edges. I'm not 100% sure how
to capture that spirit in a balanced form of the game.

>> > To form an Alliance, both players must publically consent to do so.
>> > (The
>> > first player consenting does not count as a move; the second player
>> > consents
>> > by actually forming the Alliance, which counts as a move.) The two
>> > players
>> > then add each other to their list of Allies.
>>
>> 'add each other to their list of Allies'? You mean, they become allies.
>>
>> > Anyone in an Alliance with another player can break the Alliance at any
>> > time. In that case, the two players remove each other from their list
>> > of
>> > Allies.
>> >
>> > A player may move at most once per Checking Period, and may not place a
>> > Stone if one of eir Allies has made the most recent move.

>You nowhere define a Stone.

That's because, in rewriting this from a copy-and-paste of the PGo rules, I
messed up and didn't change this part. I amend my proposal to replace the
text

{{
A player may move at most once per Checking Period, and may not place a
Stone if one of eir Allies has made the most recent move.
}}

with

{{
A player may move at most once per Checking Period, and may not make any
move if one of eir Allies has made the most recent move.
}}

>> One could argue that this should refer to PGo Allies and Moves as well,
>> so that an ally in PGo who was an enemy in PTafl could lock you down by
>> moving in PGo a lot.

>Or that the games should be completely separate: If A is allied with B and
C
>in Go, at any time they could decide to prevent A from moving in Tafl ever.
>Although then A would break the alliance, so the net effect is to make
>alliances trickier. Which is interesting politically--this is a good idea,
>actually. We could abstract this by defining a Game System, where allies in
>game A affect game B if A and B are in the same System.

The latter is clearly preferable. I amend my proposal by inserting the
following text at the end of section C:

{{
An alliance in Political Tafl and an alliance in Political Go have no
relation to one another. Two players may be allies in one game and opponents
in another.
}}

>> > D. Capturing
>> > Two positions on the board are considered adjacent to each other if
>> > one, and
>> > only one, of their dimensions differ by one. In other words,
>> > "adjacent" is
>> > taken to mean "horizontally or vertically adjacent", and diagonal
>> > adjacence
>> > does not count.
>> >
>> > When the following rules refer to Tafl Pieces being adjacent, it means
>> > the
>> > same thing as the positions of those stones being adjacent.

>stone again.

Right. I amend the proposal yet again, replacing the second paragraph of
section D with

{{
When this rule refers to Tafl Pieces being adjacent, it means the same thing
as the positions of those Pieces being adjacent.
}}

>> > If a Tafl Piece has two Pawns which are adjacent to it and whose
>> > positions
>> > differ from it in the same dimension, it is captured.
>>
>> Even if those Pawns are owned by the same player?

>Here is where we'd want to use (and first fix) the Opponent definition.
>Also, you didn't capitalize "captured" here--I think we're case sensitive.
>Though that can just be rectified.

I make the following replacements.

{{
Anyone who is not an Ally to a given player is considered an Opponent of
that player.
}}

becomes

{{
Anyone who is not an Ally to a given player is considered an Opponent of
that player, except for the player emself.
}}

and

{{
If a Tafl Piece has two Pawns which are adjacent to it and whose positions
differ from it in the same dimension, it is captured.
}}

becomes

{{
If a Tafl Piece has two Pawns which are adjacent to it and whose positions
differ from it in the same dimension, it is captured. This does not occur
unless the two Pawns in question belong to one or more Opponents of the
player who owns the captured piece.
}}

>> > In the event of a Tafl Piece being Captured, the players having Pieces
>> > whose
>> > presence was part of the Piece's capture are considered the Capturers.
>> > The
>> > Capturers each receive one Tafl Point per Tafl Piece of theirs
>> > involved in
>> > the capture. Each player whose Tafl Pieces are being Captured loses
>> > two Tafl
>> > Points for each Piece that e loses. When a Tafl Piece is captured, it
>> > ceases
>> > to exist.
>> >
>> > You may not play a Piece in a position where it would be immediately
>> > Captured.
>>
>> By 'play', do you mean 'place', or just 'put'? I.e., can I move an
>> existing piece to where it would be immediately captured?

Gosh, I could have sworn I wrote in a rule about how if you move it in to
such a position, it is simply not captured. Guess not.

I replace the text

{{
You may not play a Piece in a position where it would be immediately
Captured.
}}

with

{{
A player may not place a Piece in a position where it would be immediately
Captured. [[Note that that's illegal anyway, as it would be adjacent to some
pieces.]] A player may move a Piece into such a position; if e does so, the
Capture does not occur.
}}

in my proposed rule.

>> > Multiple Tafl pieces may be Captured in one turn, and these Captures
>> > occur
>> > simultaneously.
>>
>> So ABABABAB would simultaneously capture all but the outer two pieces?

>That's an impossible position--some pieces should have been captured
>before the last move. But moving into AB_BA removes all 3 middle ones,
>which I think is good.

If we make the change above, then A moving into AB_BA results in A_A_A.

>> > E. Ko
>> > Two states of the board are considered "equivalent" if the only
>> > difference
>> > between them is that, at any number of given positions, a Piece
>> > belonging to
>> > one player is replaced by a Piece belonging to another, and those two
>> > players are allied in either state. Only the positions of pieces on the
>> > board are considered when checking for equivalence; differences in the
>> > state
>> > of alliances or in who made the most recent move are not considered.
>> >
>> > A player may not make a move if that move would change the board
>> > position so
>> > that it is equivalent to a previous board position.
>> >
>> > [[Tafl does not traditionally have a Ko rule, but it is being
>> > incorporated
>> > into Political Tafl because the game does not automatically end when a
>> > Hnefi
>> > escapes.]]
>>
>> Ko works in Go because the number of stones is in general rising. This
>> is not true of Tafl, and I don't think anyone wants to be responsible
>> for comparing each move to all previous board states.

>Chess has a similar "repeated position" rule. Actually, in chess it's a
draw,
>but here there is no way of ending the game (if people keep playing) until
it
>grinds to a halt from any move being a ko violation--which will take at
least
>2^169 moves.
>I actually think a Ko rule is needed here, or someone could
>move A, then eir opponent B, then A^-1, then B^-1, ad nauseum.
>Some other way of ending the game would be nice--e.g., permit each player
to
>only place one Hnefi, and once eir Hnefi escapes, e retires from the game.

Hrm, I like that. That also adds an incentive to not rescue your Hnefi right
away... you stop gaining points from captures if you have retired. Any
suggested implementations?

>> > F. Escaping
>> > If a player makes a move such that a Hnefi of eirs has as any of its
>> > coordinates either 1 or 13, that Hnefi is considered to have Escaped.
>> >
>> > When a Hnefi escapes, it ceases to exist and the player who controlled
>> > it
>> > gains ten Tafl Points.
>> >
>> > [[The size of this bonus may need to be tinkered with a bit.]]
>> >
>> > G. Ending the Game.
>> > The game ends during a Checkpoint when the most recent move was to
>> > Pass, and
>> > nobody has made any other move for more than an nweek.
>>
>> Uh... you might want to specify *the game of Political Tafl*; I'd
>> rather not have B Nomic end when this game does.

Gee, this flaw exists in PGo also. In my proposed Tafl rule, I replace the
first paragraph of section G with

{{
The subgame of Political Tafl ends during a Checkpoint when the most recent
move was to Pass, and nobody has made any other move for more than an nweek.
}}

I also submit a proposal, titled "Fixing Go Endgames", as follows:

{{
In the first paragraph of the section of the Political Go rule titled
"Ending the Game", replace the word "game" with the phrase "subgame of
Political Go".
}}

>>> > [[If this ever happens, it indicates that the current game has become
>>> > boring. If this occurs, one possibility is to add a dimension or
simply
>>> > clear the board.]]

>We could automatically add a dimension if this happens-we only need to
change
>one sentence.

Yeah, but once there are enough, we might want to make other changes
instead.

>> Political Go, IIRC, has a bit here about how people get points for
>> having Go points... is it your intent to make Tafl completely
>> independent from the main B Nomic Scores? In that case, you can do this
>> as a society.

>I don't really like the idea of having a million societies with different
games
>each. It could just be another Attribute that non-Tafl players could
ignore.

It was a conscious decision. Not everyone plays PGo; I don't expect them to
care, just as I don't care about style. I'm assuming that those who don't
care about Tafl would rather it not affect them by changing other people's
scores.

>> > H. Displaying the Game
>> > When a player makes a Move, e does so by posting a message to a Public
>> > Forum
>> > describing the move and displaying the state of the game in an
>> > agreed-upon
>> > format. Such a message may look like the contents of the following
>> > comment.
>>
>> Y'know, it's debatable what happens when you say that. Since Comment
>> Text can have no influence on the implementation of the rule, the rule
>> should behave in exactly the same way if you remove all the comments...
>> so one could interpret this to implicitly define the rest of the rule
>> to be a comment.

>I actually think rules are not allowed to look inside comments and act on
them,
>but this is just using the comment as a text. "The message may look like
>page X from Kernighan & Ritchie" would be fine as well (with respect to
that
>issue), even though K&R does not yet have the force of Rule in B Nomic.
>And the rule says "may look like", which doesn't have any force anyway.

I had, in fact, considered changing that part, but it does not mandate any
more than that the current state of the subgame be listed. It merely offers
a suggestion.

>> > [[
>> > I move my pawn from (5,13) to (10,13).
>> >
>> > Teucer               0 points   Allies: Someone Else
>> > Hnefi: (5,12) Pawns: (10,13) (6,7)
>> >
>> > Rob the Voting Fish  0 points   Allies: none
>> > Hnefi: (2,4) Pawns: (3,8) (10,8) (8,5) (11,3)
>> >
>> > Someone Else         0 points   Allies: Teucer
>> > Hnefi: (5,2) Pawns: (8,9) (7,5) (6,4)
>> > ]]

>Eris! Do we really want these kind of posts? I can't tell anything from the
>numbers unless I draw the grid myself, personally.
>And we don't have a Ministry whose job it is to display this otherwise.

I'm assuming that, like Go, this will get a Wiki page. And, in grand PGo
tradition, some of us *cough*me*cough* will forget to update it upon moving.

>> Award Wonko a Win.

No.

 -- Teucer

"Deep down inside, today still thinks it's June 2."
 -clsn

ragnarok@xxxxxxxxx
teucer@xxxxxxxxxx


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