Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register.
Jun 6th, 2020, 12:48pm

Home Home Help Help Search Search Members Members Login Login Register Register
Arimaa Forum Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)


   Arimaa Forum
   Arimaa
   Off Topic Discussion
(Moderators: christianF, supersamu)
   Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« No topic | Next topic »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  ...  11 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print
   Author  Topic: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)  (Read 159773 times)
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #30 on: Oct 7th, 2013, 1:40pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Reposted from BGG:
 
I feel I'm occasionally praised into the grave here, a revered relic of the past, well beyond the expiration date. But as far as I'm concerned I'm not quite dead yet. Here are some 20 games I invented or co-invented in the past three years. Most of them are what I'd call collateral damage: they're good games, but amongst the multitude of games competing in this niche they will have little chance to stand out. I'm not in the lobbying business, I'm an inventor, art for art's sake, and so be it.
 
There are a few exceptions, games of which I feel their quality will eventually tip the balance: Symple, Sygo and Inertia are all simple, homogeneous games that follow one governing principle both in mechanics and object. Among them they introduce a new generic move protocol and a new generic opening protocol, the first with an embedded turn-order balacing mechanism, the second as an implicit turn-order balacing mechanism. They adapt to the plain square- and hexgrid alike and allow almost any size or shape (though they provide no reason to deviate from the usual ones). They're natural and organic: remove the edges after the opening phase of Inertia and proceed on an endless grid, and you will find the game plays just as well - how much closer can it get to being a natural organism?
 
I didn't exactly make a secret of how I invented Inertia. You were all able to see it emerge via a failed Ayu clone. This may have caused some posters to disconnect (how original can it be?) and if so, I'm sorry for them. Fortunately there's no roadmap for inventing an original abstract game, and any road that eventually leads to the right result can hardly be the wrong road. I was a bit surprised that the strategical and tactical implications of the generic restriction rule weren't recognized all that well. It's the kind of rule that makes a game. But then, I think in principles, protocols, mechanisms, trying to find new ones or to merge existing ones in new ways. I don't think in (or ever use) boards and pieces or a notion of what the game should be: I'll know what it is when I've found it, even if others may be slow to recognize it.  
 
I'm a bit surprised however by the obvious lack of response to Tampertown Cemetery. Did I tamper too little I wonder? Did I put it together too fast? Am I making fun of inventors? Since the whole process of invention was public I'll let you be the judge of that. I got reactions of three posters, and the first one was rather characteristic:
 
Quote:
Sounds like Focus with a bigger board, variable setup, and more fiddly capture/reserve criteria. I'm not saying it's bad, this is just my initial impressions upon having just read the rules.

How far is that from "It's like Focus with a bigger board", I wonder? Inertia revisited? May I remind the community that initial impressions, though unavoidable and often very useful, can be misleading? I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees.
 
I didn't build on Focus, I reflected on the terminating principle of Focus, based on simultaneous 'capture' of both colors, whereby the opponent's men are permanently removed from the game, while friendly men return as 'reserves' that may re-enter the game one by one at the cost of a turn. The mechanism is to move columns on top of columns, removing every man above 5 from the bottom. Since colomns may be (and usually are) mixed, men of both sides may thus be collected. Small differences in material tend to amplify towards the endgame, thus toppling the game one side or the other. A very good undercurrent towards decisiveness.
 
Partial capture
Focus uses partial capture of a column. At the end of the move, the square on wich the capture took place still holds a column of 5 under your control, still stuck in the tube through which the remainder was purged, so to say.
 
Total capture
Tampertown Cemetery uses total capture: all men coming from the departure square (or the one man coming out of hand) and all men on the target square disappear simultaneously. If you combine with two pieces under your own control, and you leave an opponent's man behind on the departure square, then you will have two pieces less at the end of the move while your opponent has gained one. In endgames it is possible to combine yourself to oblivion this way. For anyone with no particular lack of imagination, it should be clear from this alone that the implications are radically different from those of partial capture. Forget "Focus with a bigger board" (quite apart from the fact that TC actually has a smaller board).
 
The Tampertown Assembly Line revisited
The idea of using the number of adjacent squares for 'capacity' as in Crossfire suddenly merged with making that number variable by removing squares where a capture had taken place. It's not hard to foresee a new kind of tactics emerging there. From that point on it was assembly all the way, with rules that would appear logical without being less arbitrary for it. Initial capacities were distributed over twelve squares (c-2), sixteen squares (c-3) and twenty squares (c-4) by truncating corners and adding the chapel. I decided that:
 
* Capture would concern mixed columns, so players can't capture a mono-colored column with a man or a mono-colored column of their own. It implies that the number of graves cannot surpass the number of men.
* A mono-colored opponent's piece could not be captured by entering.
* The win/lose criterion would be one's presence or lack thereof on the board, disregarding men in hand.
 
All arbitrary, but giving rise to new and surprising tactical consequences and a solid basis for strategical considerations. If that's what you're looking for, there's little I can do to stop you. We've got the rules and a fully functional applet. If not, then I don't quite understand the basis of this forum. There are certainly many related areas of interest, but aren't new abstracts what fuels it?
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #31 on: Oct 8th, 2013, 4:50am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Here's a game between Jos Dekker, a first time player, and me:

Since it is by all accounts a rookie game, the commentary may suit beginners.
 
Ed and I have played several games and as I write, we're at the beginning of the movement stage of the current one.  
This will likely be somewhat trickier now:

 
Enjoy Smiley
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #32 on: Oct 11th, 2013, 8:33am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

In this thread started by LG's Richard Malaschitz, you'll find this post and I quote:
 
Quote:
One (if only one) interesting thing about the game is the generic rule of diminishing powers of re-entered pieces. My first thought was: "You could build a game around that". In case that might materialize (not in a chess game though), try to beat me to it.
 Smiley
 
P.S. You might consider starting with weak pieces and then incrementally increase their power on re-entering. Seems more logical.

That was yesterday, I've slept over it. So what about "Traxion":
 
Material
Easiest would be to use generic material, a Chess board and a sufficient number of draughtsmen. It makes the recycling of pieces easy. There are three pieces in the game:
 
* A Shogi pawn, represented by 1 man.
* A Chess pawn, represented by 2 stacked men.
* A 'forward knight' represented by 3 stacked men.
 
Initial position
Shogi pawns on the 3rd rank, Chess pawns on the 2nd, back rank vacant.
 
Movement
Both type of pawns move as usual, knights can only jump forward.  
 
Capture and its consequences
Pieces capture by replacement.  
If a Shogi pawn is captured, the capturing side gets a Chess pawn 'in hand'.
If a Chess pawn is captured the capturing side gets a knight 'in hand'.
Pieces in hand may be dropped on the player's back rank at the cost of a turn.
If a knight is captured, it is removed from the game.
 
Object
The first player to move a piece onto the opponent's back rank wins.
 
Traxion Mindsports
 
Commentary
One might use a Jump Sturdy board, since Traxion resides in that general area. It's not a natural organism but an assembled mechanism, so there quite a lot to tinker with (I did follow Richard's suggestion to replace Tampertown by Tinkertown). I considerd pieces that would fit a logical framework, but decided against it because players are familiar with Shogi- and Chess pawns, and it also seemed a nice idea to have them cooperate. Moreover, the forward knight also sort of keeps the middle between Shogi and Chess.
 
Regarding decisiveness, I considered having captured knights demote to Shogi pawns, to keep it fully cyclic and let decisions follow the general inclination of the system to topple one way or the other. But to not make a meal of it, captured knights are out and the game eventually topples by a shift in the material balance.
 
More than anything, it seemed fun to embrace the principle Richard posted and have a game the next morning.  
To remind everyone at BGG that  
 
"I'm still standing better than I ever did
Looking like a true survivor, feeling like a little kid"

 Cool
« Last Edit: Oct 11th, 2013, 10:40am by christianF » IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #33 on: Oct 11th, 2013, 3:39pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify


Here's a board, the knights reperesenting the stack from which they are entered. The side columns can inherently only be 'activated' by knights.
Not much has changed in Tinkertown over the years. If you know your way around a little, it can be a fun place.
Wink
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #34 on: Oct 12th, 2013, 10:04am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

So here are the rules. There are more important things in the pipeline than an applet, but with a Chess board and bag of draughtsmen it should not be too difficult to play. In the material sense.
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #35 on: Oct 19th, 2013, 11:50am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

It's not that I'm here to convince anyone of anything, but I think the community here might benefit from a closer look at something quite new. Of course there's a catch. You'd have to let the rules of of Tinkertown Cemetery sink in for a while, in particular the rule that the criterion for winning is the opponent's absence on the board, disregarding reserves and even disregarding whether or not the initiating player's last group disappears in the process, leaving only an empty cemetery.  
 
The rule was established because it felt right and in any case would speed up the game, avoiding the possibility of dragged out endgames (a fear that may not have been justified, but nevertheless) and reducing the possibility of draws. In the above posts I already touched on the phenomenon that players in endgames will likely come in a position where they cannot capture, even if tasty groups are on offer, because in a capture both the capturing group (or reserve) and the captured group disappear. And they may both belong to the capturing player, because ownership doesn't matter in TC.
 
The image below is the endgame of the example game that you can find in the rules. Note that the material balance both off and on the board is even: both have 6 buried, 4 in hand and 3 on the board. There's a red/white and a white/red, both on sub-capacity on c-3 graves, and there's a red/white on capacity on G3.
 

 
Of course it's white to move, otherwise red would simply cap B3 with a reserve and win. If white captures by entering on G3 he loses for the same reason. White needs two groups to survive (if he weren't dead already). So he enters on E6 and red replies by entering on B3 and now all groups are on capacity and entering on one is suicide. Both have 3 reserves, so if white enters one, red can simply cap it - three times in a row. So white must split his group, but to make a short story even shorter: to no avail. Ed said he thought he had me around move 19.
 
There's some similarity here with having "the move" in checkers. The fact that red could bring the last piece on capacity left white with only the wrong moves.
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #36 on: Oct 21st, 2013, 7:28am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Joe Joyce started an interesting thread at BGG about a generic idea regarding 'activators'. I'd give you a definition, but we're in the process of finding that out. To give you a very basic implementation, have a look at Chess with Batteries by Roberto Lavieri.
 
Anyway, in the context of a possible contest in inventing an 'activator game', I've made an "Activator Checkers" game, in the same line, although its activators behave differently. I can't publish it now of course, but I've made sure that it will satisfy even the stricktest definition of an activator, and also that its activators will play a significant role throughout the game.  
It's very pleasant to have a generic concept with considerable potential appear in the right season. Smiley
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #37 on: Oct 24th, 2013, 9:36am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Barring Ray Alicea and Joe Joyce there isn't a lot of response to the contest challenge at BGG yet, more like Bored Game Geek actually. So if at all, it may take some time to get it up and running. Time enough to invent a new game and publish the entry I made on the fly.
 
Medea
Medea is based on Ljuban Dedic's Croda but employs an initial position taken from Dameo.
 

 
The game has no linear movement like Dameo, but instead introduces the Transmitter featured in Chakra to the world of Draughts. The image shows the board and the pieces in their initial position. Pieces move one square straight or diagonally forward and capture omni-directional, but orthogonally only, by the short leap. Kings move along unobstructed lines as the Queen in Chess, and capture orthogonally only, by the long leap. Witin this framework, all capture conventions of International Draughts apply, so ...
 
* Capture is compulsory
* Majority capture precedes (the king counting as 1 piece)
* A capture must be completed before the captured pieces are taken off the board
* In the course of a capture a square may be visited more than once, but a piece may not be captured twice
* A capturing man is only promoted if it ends its move on the back row
 
The Transmitter
The Transmitter consists of two parts called chakra's. In one respect a chakra is a piece: on his turn a player may move a vacant chakra, just as any other piece. A chakra moves like a king in Chess, but it can only move if it is vacant itself, and the target square is vacant too. A chakra may never move onto another chakra of either color.
 
In all other respects the chakra is a square, so any piece may move onto a vacant chakra as if it weren't there, and kings may move over chakras as if they weren't there. A piece occupying a chakra may be captured like any other piece, while a chakra itself cannot be captured.
 
Basic property
The basic property of the Transmitter is this: if a piece makes a non-capturing move onto a vacant chakra of it's own color, and the other chakra is either vacant or occupied by an opponent's piece, then the piece is transmitted to the other chakra, capturing the opponent's piece as the case may be. If the second chakra is occupied by a piece of like color, the Transmitter doesn't work and the result of the move will be that the player occupies both his chakra's. Note that a man can be promoted instantly by having one chakra in front of it, and the other on the backrow.
 
Capture using the Transmitter
New is that not all capture is by the short and long jump. If a piece captures using the transmitter, it captures by replacement. Capture by replacement is inherently restricted to one piece at the time, so any multiple capture precedes over it.
In case of a choice between a capture of a single piece by a jump, or capture through the Transmitter by replacement, the player is free to choose.
If capture by replacement is the only available capture, then it is compulsory, like all capture.
 
Object
Barring the Transmitter, if a player loses all his pieces he has lost. Draws may occur, but a 2 versus 1 kings' endgame can be won by the majority player.
 
 
Medea MindSports
« Last Edit: Nov 4th, 2013, 9:04am by christianF » IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #38 on: Oct 24th, 2013, 9:41am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

And yes, Tinkertown Cemetery becomes more and more interesting.
I haven't seen a game before with such a curious yet structural endgame dilemma.
christian freeling (nl) - Jos Dekker (GE) 0-1

 
And a new one:
Jos Dekker (GE) - christian freeling (nl) (running ...)
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #39 on: Oct 28th, 2013, 9:49am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

How about a serious game based on Tinkertown's method of capture? It's a possible entry in a possible contest to create an "activator based" game.  
 
Quote:
Pit of Pillars
Pit of Pillars is an elimination game. There are two players, Red and White. Each has a sufficient number of men and a sufficient number of pillars at his disposal. The board is 8x8 with the cornersquares omitted.
 

 
Definitions
 
* The "capacity" of a square equals the number of its orthogonal neighbors. The board initially has 8 c2 squares, 16 c3 squares and 36 c4 squares.
* Men move in stacked "groups". A single man is a group of one. Groups may have any composition and are controlled by the color on top.
* A "pillar" is a piece that, if it occupies a square, reduces the capacity of the adjacent squares by one.
 
Rules
There are two stages, the entering- and the movement stage.
 
The entering stage
The game starts with the board empty. White starts by entering one man on a square he chooses. From that point on players take turns to:
 
* Enter a man next to the man just entered by the opponent, and ...
* ... enter a man so that it has only vacant squares next to it.
 
Both placements are compulsory. When the player to move can no longer enter the second man, then his turn ends and his opponent may start the movement stage. The number of white and red men will always be equal, although the 'density' of the position may vary and either player may end up being the one to start the next phase, depending on whether the number of full turns was even or odd.
 
The movement stage
On his turn a player must either move one of his groups or enter a man from his stack of reserves.
 
* A group moves horizontally or vertically, based on the number of men to be moved (e.g. one man moves 1 square and a group of three moves 3 squares). Groups may be split in the process: a player may choose for instance to move only the top man (1 square) or the top two men (2 squares) of a larger group. Groups may move over or onto any square, whether vacant or occupied, but they may not move over or onto a pillar.
* Instead of moving a group, a player may choose to enter a man on any square, whether vacant or occupied.
* After this compulsory part, a player may move one of his pillars. Pillars move like queens in chess, but cannot move onto or over pieces or pillars. The emergence or movement of a pillar affects the capacity of the squares involved, and of their adjacent squares.
 
Capture
* If moving or entering causes a bi-colored group to surpass the capacity of its square (or to heighten it, if it is already above capacity), then the moving player's men in it return to his stock of reserves, while the opponent's men are removed from the game. At the same time a pillar of the capturing player's color is put on the square. There is one exception to this: a mono-colored group cannot be captured by entering, though it may be captured by a move on the board. Entering on a mono-colored group is nevertheless legal, it just does not result in a capture. The group may (or may not) be captured by the opponent on his next turn.
* The emergence or movement of a pillar may cause a group on an adjacent square to surpass capacity. Such a group remains above capacity and may (or may not) be captured by the opponent on his next turn.
 
Object
A player wins by leaving the opponent without any group on the board, regardless of how many reserves remain in either stock, or whether his own last group has disappeared from the board in the process.
 
Pit of Pillars Mindsports
IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #40 on: Oct 30th, 2013, 11:14am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

Pit of Pillars leads the method of capture of Tinkertown Cemetery to a logical conclusion. I definitely feel I should have gotten the idea to make the capture tokens (i.e. the graves in Tinkertown) mobile, without having the generic activator concept literally blowing it into my face. But I don't know if I would have. Thanks again Joe!
 
Tinkertown Cemetery was an ad hoc implementation that needed some tinkering indeed. On a regular square board capture implicitly starts on squares with lower capacity, that is in corners and along the edges, before creeping inward to the large capacity-4 center. To get a more even distribution of squares with different capacities I made arbitrary decisions regarding board shape, and they work out fine. But the mobile capture tokens in Pit of Pillars change the whole landscape. Their infiltration of the center changes the distribution: squares along the edges regain lost capacity, while squares in the center may lose capacity, without any guarantee of permanency. Mobile pillars also allow for an almost square board, but doubling the number of c2 squares by omitting the corner squares would seem a well motivated decision.
 
Here are some very basic observations about the implications of the capture mechanism in both games:
 
* Most of the time, but not all of the time, players would like to capture.
* Most of the time, but not all of the time, players will have reserves.
 
Reserves can only be entered one at the time, so they can only capture groups that are on capacity. That's why most of the time, but not all of the time, it is wise to keep groups "sub-critical", that is: one below capacity.
 
On the board, things are different because double and triples can cooperate to capture, using two sub-capacity groups. In the examples below, both are willing to capture but both do only have reserves to do so. The groups are doubles at a two-square distance. It's white's turn.
 
Two c4 squares

Both A and B are c4 squares, so white can't jump with B, but he can safely prepare a capture by entering on A. Not on B of course because then Red can jump and capture. He cannot afford to wait because then Red will enter on B.

Here White is screwed.

Here he can afford to wait because Red cannot enter without being captured next move. Alternatively, he can enter on either group.
 
 
A c4 and a c3 square

Here White must capture B to A. Entering on either column would give Red the opportunity to do so.

Here White is screwed.

Here White must enter on B.

Here he can afford to wait or enter on B.
 
 
Two c3 squares

Here White must capture B to A.

Here he's screwed.

Here he may capture either way, but can afford to wait.
 
 
The attack dilemma
Here's a basic truth:
 
* Capture cannot increase the number of one's groups and will quite often decrease it by one or even two groups.
 
One might think that capture will always pay off, because opponent's men are removed, and own men return as reserves, so what can go wrong? This can go wrong: the object of the game is to remove all opponent's groups from the board, even regardless of whether the moving player uses his own last group to that end.  
Now consider one is full swing on attack. One gets lots of reserves in hand but at the cost of losing groups in the process. With lots of reserves in hand, and a couple of men buried in the opponent's groups, the number of one's groups on the board can fast drop to a critical level. A level that forbids one to capture because one cannot afford to lose another group! The opponent thus gets the option to raise existing groups to capacity and exploit their increased range and vulnerability. On the edge of the choice between attacking- or defensive moves, this can be a difficult judgement call. Investing too many groups in an agressive strategy can totally backfire.
 
In time
Pit of Pillars may turn out to be a great game. I'm very satisfied with it and I feel it may be good enough to fit in the ArenA. It is also the last game of this season's harvest. At my age one cannot afford to close a season with a mediocre game, lest it should be one's last!
 Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: Oct 30th, 2013, 11:18am by christianF » IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #41 on: Nov 18th, 2013, 4:43pm »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

After several weeks of playing Tinkertown Cemetery (rules) it's time to give an update on strategy and tactics. But first a few definitions.
 
* A piece is "critical" if its size equals the capacity of its square, "sub-critical" if its size is one less.
* "Capping" a piece means entering a zombie on it.
* A player has "the move" if he manages to be the one to move first after the placement stage.
 
Usually you'd want your pieces to be sub-critical. It means the opponent can't cap the piece without exposing it to capture. So on a c2 square you'd like a piece of height 1, on a c3 square a piece of height 2, and on a c4 square a piece of height 3 (or 1 for that matter, but not 2 because then the opponent can raise it to sub-critical).
 
Reserves can only be entered one at the time, so they can only capture groups that are critical. On the board, things are different because doubles and triples can cooperate to capture. In the examples below, both are willing to capture but both do only have reserves to do so. The pieces are doubles at a two-square distance, one on a c3 square and the other on a c4. It's white's turn.
Here White must capture B to A.  
Entering on either column would give Red the opportunity to capture (on A by capping the triple).
Here White is screwed.
Here White must enter on B.
Here he can afford to wait or he can enter on B.
 
Please remember this:
* Mixed pieces can be captured by both sides, regardless of who is on top.  
* Usually a capture will reduce the number of the captor's own pieces by one, sometimes by two pieces.
* The object is to capture all the opponent's pieces on the board, regardless of how many reserves he may still have in hand.  
 
A short analysis
The game below will hopefully give a basic insight in the unusual consequences this has for attacks in the endgame. The actual game can be found here. The "one-bound-one-free" placement stage is characterized by avoiding c3 squares as much as possible, and setting up some knight's move placements to prepare for building mutually safe stacks.
 
1 F6 F7-H6  
2 G6-C7 C6-B3
3 C3-A6 B6-F3
4 G3-F1 F2-C1
5 C2-A4 A3-E8
6 E7-H4 G4

White has managed to get the move. One of the first things to achieve is to get a couple of reserves in hand. 7.HG4 removes a single from a vulnarable c3 square, prevents HG6 and sets up an attack on G7. Red cannot prevent this so he sets up his own mutually safe pieces on E7 and C7. Next White captures G47, moving a 3-piece to an empty c2 square and Red solidifies the E7-C7 couple by moving E87, preparing CE7. White cannot prevent this so he prepares to get a 3-piece on F6.
 
7 H4-G4 F7-E7
8 G3-G4 C6-C7
9 G4-G7 E8-E7
10 G6-H6 C7-E7
11 H6-F6 ...

Red is now a reserve up and White is a zombie down. But White has a sub-critical 3-piece with a corresponding range. Red sets up a new target at A6 by moving A34. White flees to A5 and B5 but cannot prevent the capture that brings Red on 5 reserves, but with dwindling numbers on the board. White is another zombie down and moves 14.FC6 to bring the 3-piece to the action.
 
11 ...     A3-A4
12 A6-A5 B6-A6
13 A5-B5 A4-A6
14 F6-C6   ...

Red has no good moves on the board. C3 is covered by C6 and C12 is met by C32 while F21 is captured by capping F1 and F23 is simply capped while reducing Red to 2 pieces. So Red enters a zombie on A3 as a bait. A capture there makes B3 a c3 square, allowing Red to raise it safely and jump from there to another c3 square at D3 to make raising F3 possible.
14 ...   A3
15 C2-C3 C1-C2
16 C3-A3 B3
17 B5-B4 B3-D3

However, White comes with 18.C63! and thus also attacks F3 (while still being safe on a c4 square). It forces Red to detour via D31 to attack F1. On move 20 White prepares the capture, but is not yet forced to take it. With 20...F3, counterattacking C3, Red forces White's hand to get to a 2x2 endgame with initiative.
18 C6-C3 D3-D1
19 D2 D1-F1
20 F3 F3

Or maybe White should have entered elsewhere, because a red capture (FC3) would leave Red with only two pieces. But White takes the capture because it is quite substantial, burying 3 reds and adding 3 reserves. Red next enters on D2 and now we have an interesting and characteristic endgame position.
21 C3-F3 D2

If White enters on D2 here, Red follows suit and raises it to critical, and now White cannot capture. It would leave him with only one piece, which is simply capped, so a fifth zombie on D2 would lose! There you are, with a handful of reserves and a lost game. This is the typical TC endgame attack dilemma! So White enters on F2 (now a c2 square) and invites a capture, hoping to turn the tables and bring Red in a similar predicament.
22 F2 F2
23 C2 B4

But the strategy gets refuted: both now have 5 buried and 3 reserves, with three mixed 2-pieces on the board, two of which are Red. Every capture leads to the captor's loss, and Red has a piece majority and can simply keep it by capping where White enters. White played on a few moves that can be seen in the game.
   
Finally...
For me it's time to leave Tinkertown Cemetery to do its own business. So far as raising interest in this new method of capture and its consequences goes, we've followed introductory etiquette, that is we've made it available for turnbased play and I have commented on strategy and tactics. What more can we do? The essential if not quintessential game based on the capture mechanism is of course Pit of Pillars for which an applet will shortly be available. The experience we now have with TC will be invaluable in getting to grips with that game.  
 
Meanwhile, you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it take off its "inverse strategy" glasses!

 Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: Nov 19th, 2013, 3:28am by christianF » IP Logged
christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #42 on: Nov 28th, 2013, 7:17am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify


Check out Pit of Pillars
- (rules)
 
Note: It's clear that white's reserves should be stocked on H8 rather than on H1 - we'll change that shortly.
IP Logged
chessandgo
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #1889

   


Gender: male
Posts: 1244
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #43 on: Nov 28th, 2013, 9:31am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

I hope it's ok for me to post here, sorry if it's kind of off-topic. I haven't read the whole "Christian Freeling on inventing games" two threads (far from it), so maybe this has been adressed before. I don't know much about communication media, but it looks to me like this thread has more of a blog feel to it than a forum thread.
 
Anyway, keep up with the good job Christian, inventing cool games!
 
All the best.
Jean
IP Logged

christianF
Forum Moderator
Forum Guru
*****



Arimaa player #4019

   


Gender: male
Posts: 803
Re: Christian Freeling on inventing games (part 2)
« Reply #44 on: Nov 28th, 2013, 9:53am »
Quote Quote Modify Modify

on Nov 28th, 2013, 9:31am, chessandgo wrote:
I hope it's ok for me to post here, sorry if it's kind of off-topic. I haven't read the whole "Christian Freeling on inventing games" two threads (far from it), so maybe this has been adressed before. I don't know much about communication media, but it looks to me like this thread has more of a blog feel to it than a forum thread.
 
Anyway, keep up with the good job Christian, inventing cool games!
 
All the best.
Jean

Thanks Jean, and you're right of course, it's more like a blog, courtesy of Omar Syed, the owner of the site. But anyone is free to post opinions or replies.
 Smiley
IP Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5  ...  11 Reply Reply Notify of replies Notify of replies Send Topic Send Topic Print Print

« No topic | Next topic »

Arimaa Forum » Powered by YaBB 1 Gold - SP 1.3.1!
YaBB 2000-2003. All Rights Reserved.