Re: [spoon-discuss] RE: [Spoon-business] Political Go

[Joel Uckelman <uckelman@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thus spake "Craig":
> >> >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.
> >>
> >> Can player A be an ally of player B without player B being an ally of
> player
> >> A?
> 
> >Nope. I think I made symmetry necessary in the processes for forming and
> >breaking alliances, but if I missed something let me know.
> 
> You can't break it one way and not the other, but I think if player A says
> "I consent to being player B's ally" and player B makes a move by announcing
> eir desire to have player A as an ally, then player A is player B's ally.
> But I'm not sure that the rules as written will mandate that player B then
> be an ally of player A.
> 
>  -- Teucer

There's nothing wrong in principle with alliances being asymmetric. That
way, if you break an alliance, your former ally's stones are "surprised"
for a move: your stones draw liberties from them, but they draw no liberties
from yours.

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