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

[Daniel Lepage <dpl33@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sunday, September 14, 2003, at 08:31 PM, Rob Speer wrote:

> On Sun, Sep 14, 2003 at 07:48:08PM -0400, Rob Speer wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I'm slightly wrong here - you would have to be allied with someone. In
> that case, if you allied with Iain, then the middle stone would be a
> dragon of you and Iain and be captured by your surrounding stones.

I still don't see how either of our interpretations would result in 
this... my interpretation is that a dragon is a set of stones s.t. 
every stone in it is owned by one of some group of allied players, and 
no adjacent stone is owned by a player who isn't a mutual ally of said 
group. The center square in the above is not a dragon, because no 
matter what set of allies you choose, I must be in it; and thus the 
surrounding squares are also owned by a member of the group (me). Now, 
if the situation were something like this:

G G G
G R G
G G G

and you had an ally that Glotmorf didn't, then you'd lose your piece 
because the surrounding pieces would not belong to a member of the set 
of allies.

> And I'm not saying this interpretation is valid. I'm trying to show 
> that
> it makes no sense.
> --
> Rob Speer
>
> _______________________________________________
> spoon-discuss mailing list
> spoon-discuss@xxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-discuss

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