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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

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