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

[Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx>]

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.

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.

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.

-- 
Rob Speer

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