ZeN/NZ
marks...@gmail.com
> Isn't this ZeN? It's on page 100 in Cameron Browne's Connection games as a
> Quax variant invented by you in 2003.http://homepages.di.fc.ul.pt/~jpn/gv/zen_b.htm
It seems you are correct Mr. Anonymous. But . . . I still don't
care. The premise of mutually exclusive horizontal and vertical loops
on a torus is very obvious to anyone familiar with Hex and the 2D,
square depiction of a torus. It jumps out at you like Alien spawn.
With scant investigation, the helical component eagerly reveals itself
as well. It would be outlandish for either me or Bill to claim to be
the first to stumble onto these principles. A skilled researcher
could undoubtedly uncover a number of textual references to the
mutually exclusive vertical/horizontal loops principle, including
Torben Mogensen's Torex announced here in r.g.a. in January 2008. The
application of these principles to a game couldn't possibly be more
obvious to anyone involved in the art of connection game design.
The problem with ZeN/NZ is that being Quax based, it misses the boat
entirely. It depends on awkward, inelegant "bridge" rules to fill the
board. The order of filling the board must be observed and the bridge
rules applied throughout. Auto Quax, Quicky Quax and Quax Flambe all
suffer from this problem as well. Bill thrashed the Quax bush so
thoroughly that the only thing left standing was the stump of the
obvious: the octagon/square tessellation.
My version of the torus game, which uses the octagon/square
tessellation, is a true win loss complementary, equal goals game in
which all possible connections can be formed randomly, in any order,
without restriction. In fact in my version there simply *aren't* any
connection rules, except that you claim any unoccupied cell on your
turn. All adjacent cells are connected cells. There's no need for
awkward, inelegant bridges.
Because of the obviousness of the torus game principles, and because
of the monumental simplification represented by playing the game on an
octagon/square tessellation (eliminating all placement order/
connection rules), and because it achieves the coveted win loss
complementary property - with totally random, rule independent board
filling - I'm still claiming my version of the torus game as my own.
Bill Taylor
we might stop treating Mark Steere as an adult, and responding
to him as such. He seems to have little idea of adult behaviour.
"markste...@gmail.com" <markste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems you are correct Mr. Anonymous. But . . . I still don't care.
IN other words, `yah boo sucks to you, "Mr Anonymous" '.
Steere has obviously no concern for the feelings of others,
nor of their concerns, nor barely that they may have another
view worth considering.
"I don't care" is the watchword of such people.
He belongs in a kindergarten.
Please don't feed the troll.
-- B
steer...@yahoo.com
wrote:
> If I may humbly suggest to all reasonable group members,
I'm just here to talk about abstract games. Your last few posts, on
the other hand, have been entirely dedicated to name calling (a real
model of adult behavior) while making no mention of abstract games
whatsoever. This is rec.games.abstract, not bills.crybaby.problems.
If you really have nothing to contribute to the discussion of abstract
games, get the fuck out.
marks...@gmail.com
solve the long standing problem of the torus game and all you have to
say is "this is just a special case of NZ". Fuck you it's a special
case of NZ. Yeah, it's the only case of NZ that works!
And then of course the bizarre claim about Free Y... It's all about
Bill Taylor.
You made an ass of yourself and you got called on it. Deal with it.
Phil Carmody
> If I may humbly suggest to all reasonable group members,
> we might stop treating Mark Steere as an adult, and responding
> to him as such. He seems to have little idea of adult behaviour.
>
> "markste...@gmail.com" <markste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It seems you are correct Mr. Anonymous. But . . . I still don't care.
>
> IN other words, `yah boo sucks to you, "Mr Anonymous" '.
>
> Steere has obviously no concern for the feelings of others,
IMNSHO that's mostly irrelevant. I'd rather have someone who
had a good grasp of the history and evolution of board games to
post interesting, new and proven discoveries, and to attribute
to others that which was discovered and developed by others,
to be an insulting sweary-Mary but *right*, than someone who
takes into consideration other people's feelings but was ill-
versed in the field and wrong. (I could replace 'board games'
with any other field I'm interested in, it applies to them all.)
It seems the problem with Mark is that he doesn't satisfy all
the former criteria, the ones which would make an anti-social
attitude more forgivable, namely those about being well-
researched and giving attribution correctly.
Sure, his (re-)discoveries are interesting, but he really needs
work on the other components. (From my opinion, the thing he
needs to work most on is the 'proven' part, there are many
suggestions put forward, but none seem to be given more than
the most superficial testing to see whether they make sense at
all. I.e. I don't think he's ever actually played more than a
tiny fraction of his 'games'.)
> He belongs in a kindergarten.
Welcome to Usenet.
Phil
--
I tried the Vista speech recognition by running the tutorial. I was
amazed, it was awesome, recognised every word I said. Then I said the
wrong word ... and it typed the right one. It was actually just
detecting a sound and printing the expected word! -- pbhj on /.
an...@nowhere.org
I don't have a problem with that -- I don't think anyone does.
HOWEVER, as a practical matter, the moves on the squares of a 488 grid are
nearly, if not always, irrelevant. It isn't just that the squares are too
weak compared with the octagons -- in a game with alternating single moves
with no other special rules, they're *valuless*. Games will be played out
completely on the octagons to the point at which one player will have the
forced win without bothering to fill in the squares. So, for game *players*,
there's no good reason not to use the FCFC rule, *even when playing on a 488
board*.
ZeN is a fully functional game, but I agree with your subjective dislike of
the Quax method of making the diagonal connections. Requiring a player to
play in two diagonally placed cells before allowing her to play in-between
seems arbitrary. I also don't like the Crossway rule that makes certain
cells verboten.
In *my* opinion, there are only two ways to handle diagonal connections on a
4444 grid:
1) Use the "first come, first connect" rule. Any two cells belonging to one
player that share a single vertex are instantly connected so long as the do
not cross a previous connection. This works for grids with *any* valency.
2) As you suggest in your version -- convert the 4444 grid to a 488 and
allow players to play in any square or octagon without restriction. Works
for grids of valency 5 or less ONLY.
Both versions can be played on a 488 grid or a 4444 grid.
You think the FCFC rule is inelegant and/or requires additional pieces. I
disagree. In fact, the FCFC version can be played with whatever equipment
that your 488 version can be played -- whether tpaper and pen, an actual
board, or an ascii board as shown below.
X has won by connecting the right side to the left. The game could have been
played on a torus or not. It might have been your version on a 488 grid or a
game using the FCFC rule on a square grid.
.---.---.---.---.---.---.
| | | o | | | |
.---.---o---.---.---.---.
| | o | x | x | | |
.---.---x---.---x---.---.
| | x | o | | x | x |
.---x---.---.---.---.---.
| x | x | o | | | |
.---.---.---o---.---.---.
| | | | o | | |
.---.---.---.---o---.---.
| | | | | o | |
.---.---.---.---.---.---.
--- --- --- --- --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | | o | | | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- o --- --- --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | o | x | x | | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- x --- --- x --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | x | o | | x | x |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- x --- --- --- --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| x | x | o | | | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- --- o --- --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | | | o | | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- --- --- o --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | | | | o | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- --- --- --- ---
The FCFC method can be extended to grids that have 6-valent (or higher)
vertices -- conversion to a trivalent grids breaks down at this point.
For example, playing a generic connection game on a triangular (333333)
grid:
+---+---+
/ \ / \ / \
+---+---+---+
/ \ /O\X/ \ / \
+---+---+---+---+
\ / \ /O\X/ \ /
+---+---+---+
\ / \ / \ /
+---+---+
BOTH the O's AND the X's are connected as their respective lines of sight do
not intersect. The central vertex doesn't belong to either player
exclusively. If the vertices are replaced with hexagons making a trivalent
grid, the connectivity changes:
+---+ +---+
/ \ / \
+---+ +---+ +---+
/ \ / \ / \
+ +---+ +---+ +
\ / \ / \ /
+---+ +---+ +---+
/ \ / \ / \
+---+ +---+ X +---+ +---+
/ \ / \ / \ / \
+ +---+ O +---+ +---+ +
\ / \ / \ / \ /
+---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
/ \ / \ / \ / \
+ +---+ +---+ X +---+ +
\ / \ / \ / \ /
+---+ +---+ O +---+ +---+
\ / \ / \ /
+---+ +---+ +---+
/ \ / \ / \
+ +---+ +---+ +
\ / \ / \ /
+---+ +---+ +---+
\ / \ /
+---+ +---+
Now, neither the O's or the X's are connected. A different game results.
marks...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
> It seems the problem with Mark is that he doesn't satisfy all
> the former criteria, the ones which would make an anti-social
> attitude more forgivable, namely those about being well-
> researched and giving attribution correctly.
I give credit where credit is due. When I accidentally rediscovered
Hex, I removed it from my website and gave proper attribution. When I
found out my M-Torus was similar to Bill's unobvious Projex, I removed
it from my website and created a stub (http://www.marksteeregames.com/
M-Torus_rules.pdf) attributing Projex to Bill Taylor.
Nobody owns the torus game. It's just too damn obvious. As I said in
my earlier post, a skilled researcher could undoubtedly find a number
of textual references to the underlying concepts, and the application
of those concepts to a game is overwhelmingly obvious. If someone
wanted to implement the torus game with a weave pattern and call it
Herringbone Doughnut, they'd be well within their rights - no
attribution necessary.
>
> Sure, his (re-)discoveries are interesting, but he really needs
> work on the other components. (From my opinion, the thing he
> needs to work most on is the 'proven' part, there are many
> suggestions put forward, but none seem to be given more than
> the most superficial testing to see whether they make sense at
> all. I.e. I don't think he's ever actually played more than a
> tiny fraction of his 'games'.)
I don't really need to do *anything*. It's not like I'm getting paid
for this. For me the fun part is the design and, starting with
choosing a name and writing the rule sheet, it becomes work. I have a
lot more successful, flaw free, re-discovery free games than not
(http://www.marksteeregames.com/index.html). Yes, there's a chance
any one of my new games will have a problem. I make no secret of
that. Pop a big grain of salt and proceed at your own risk. Nobody's
forcing you.
-Mark
marks...@gmail.com
Mr. Anonymous, can you choose a name for yourself? Call yourself Rod
Blagojevich - I don't care. I just can't carry on conversations with
someone called Mr. Anonymous.
> ... as a practical matter, the moves on the squares of a 488 grid are
> nearly, if not always, irrelevant. It isn't just that the squares are too
> weak compared with the octagons -- in a game with alternating single moves
> with no other special rules, they're *valuless*.
I don't believe that. Without the squares, it's just Hex on a Go
board. Games between skilled, equally matched players will always end
in a draw with a number of stymies, not just one. Even if the squares
are valued less and played later, it won't be a game of Nim. Which
squares are played first depends on the surrounding positions of those
squares. To call them valueless doesn't make sense.
> Games will be played out
> completely on the octagons to the point at which one player will have the
> forced win without bothering to fill in the squares.
No. The stymies will form and the connections won't belong to either
player until the stymies are sorted out.
> So, for game *players*,
> there's no good reason not to use the FCFC rule, *even when playing on a 488
> board*.
The FCFC represents an aesthetic problem for me. It makes the
connections dependent upon the order in which the squares are
claimed. I don't like that.
>
> ZeN is a fully functional game, but I agree with your subjective dislike of
> the Quax method of making the diagonal connections. Requiring a player to
> play in two diagonally placed cells before allowing her to play in-between
> seems arbitrary. I also don't like the Crossway rule that makes certain
> cells verboten.
All these games are going to be a tad kludgy at best. You're
shoehorning a stymie prone game into a non-stymie prone form. Ouch.
I really never liked Quax though. (Sorry Bill. If I had to sugar
coat every comment on bad abstract games I'd be drowning in a mountain
of sugar.)
-Mark
Bill Taylor
> I'm just here to talk about abstract games.
> .....
> get the fuck out.
<snigger>
b
Bill Taylor
> I finally, finally solve the long standing problem of the torus game
WOW! YOU, little you, finally solved this age-old problem!
And you decided to share it with us all!
We are SOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooo lucky!!
> You made an ass of yourself
<snigger>
b
Bill Taylor
> > I'm still claiming my version of the torus game as my own.
>
> I don't have a problem with that -- I don't think anyone does.
No, it's just as well no-one has a problem with Mark's claims.
Otherwise they'd spend their lives dealing with problems and
little else! ;-)
Don't worry "an", his mummy will be along soon to take him home!
b
Bill Taylor
> I give credit where credit is due.
Heheheh! He obviously thinks a HUGE lot is due to himself!
> For me the fun part is
..... claiming to have discovered most of the games in the universe?
;-)
<snort>
b
marks...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "markste...@gmail.com" <markste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > You made an ass of yourself
>
> <snigger>
>
> b
It appears the "adult" has completely reverted to a childlike state.
How sad. :D
-Mark
an...@nowhere.org
> Mr. Anonymous, can you choose a name for yourself?
Call me Ishmael.
> > ... as a practical matter, the moves on the squares of a 488 grid are
> > nearly, if not always, irrelevant.
> I don't believe that. Without the squares, it's just Hex on a Go
> board. Games between skilled, equally matched players will always end
> in a draw with a number of stymies, not just one. Even if the squares
> are valued less and played later, it won't be a game of Nim. Which
> squares are played first depends on the surrounding positions of those
> squares. To call them valueless doesn't make sense.
I didn't suggest playing on the octagons alone -- obvioiusly that's the same
as playing on a square grid to begin with.
I was suggesting that in a game between rational players, evenly matched or
not, no one will ever play a square unless they are forced to and the
decision will always be trivial.
I've been unable to construct a situation that would be likely to happen in
an actual game in which playing on 488 they way you suggest versus using the
FCFC rule changes the winning path -- other than "w" versus "z" as above. To
be fair, I always play with the FCFC rule, so I'll concede that it's
possible -- maybe even un-rare between good players -- that the the rule
differences could effect the game, but I'd bet against it. I think it's more
likely like the situation in Go -- slight differences in scoring methods
that rarely change the outcome of a game, have a vanishingly tiny effect on
tactics, and no effect on strategy.
For example, X, who is trying to connect top to bottom, has just played in
the center octagon in these two board fragments:
--- --- --- --- --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| x | o | o | | x | o | o |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- --- --- x --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| | x | | | | x | |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- --- --- x --- ---
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
| x | o | o | | x | o | o |
\ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ /
--- --- --- --- --- ---
On the right, playing with the FCFC rule, X has completed the connection. On
the left, without the FCFC rule, they play on below ...
--- --- ---
/ \ / \ / \
| x | o | o |
\ / \ / \ /
--- o --- ---
/ \ / \ / \
| o1 | x | |
\ / \ / \ /
--- x --- ---
/ \ / \ / \
| x | o | o |
\ / \ / \ /
--- --- ---
O plays at O1, X takes one square, O the other, succeeding in breaking the
connection and making her own connection.
So it's theoretically possible -- but can this happen in an actual game? X
would have just played in the middle octagon on the left edge and been done
with it on the first move.
Can you find an example that illustrates your position?
> The FCFC represents an aesthetic problem for me. It makes the
> connections dependent upon the order in which the squares are
> claimed. I don't like that.
I don't understand the objection.
--- ---
/ \ / \
| x | o |
\ / \ /
--- x ---
/ \ / \
| o | x |
\ / \ /
--- ---
Though X has the square because he played to both octagons first, players
don't have to remember who played where first. There are no 'dependent'
connections -- playing the second X MADE the connection, blocking future
connections.
But in the end, I think that the rule differences matter so little that we
could play the game EACH USING OUR OWN RULES!
> All these games are going to be a tad kludgy at best. You're
> shoehorning a stymie prone game into a non-stymie prone form.
So far, I've found games on 4+ valent grids much more difficult to fathom
than hex. You need a *lot* more space to block. I'm not great at Hex and Y,
but I can always see what I *should* have done.
Edward -- er, uh -- Ishmael
marks...@gmail.com
> On 12-Dec-2008, "markste...@gmail.com" <markste...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Mr. Anonymous, can you choose a name for yourself?
>
> Call me Ishmael.
:D
>
> I didn't suggest playing on the octagons alone -- obvioiusly that's the same
> as playing on a square grid to begin with.
> I was suggesting that in a game between rational players, evenly matched or
> not, no one will ever play a square unless they are forced to and the
> decision will always be trivial.
Ok, but I still don't believe it. Remembering playing various
connection games against vastly superior players, there were always
odd, seemingly inferior moves that didn't make sense until it was too
late. If you pitted two advanced players against each other and one
could play any cells at any time (on a 4.8.8) and the other could only
make trivial square moves, the former would undoubtedly win.
>
>
> Can you find an example that illustrates your position?
>
No. Anything other than a trivial move is an advanced move for me.
There's not a lot of middle ground there for me. But there's no doubt
in my mind that an advanced player would take the occasional square,
seemingly isolated from the rest of the claimed cells, but which would
magically come in very handy much later when it was needed.
> > The FCFC represents an aesthetic problem for me. It makes the
> > connections dependent upon the order in which the squares are
> > claimed. I don't like that.
>
> I don't understand the objection.
>
> --- ---
> / \ / \
> | x | o |
> \ / \ /
> --- x ---
> / \ / \
> | o | x |
> \ / \ /
> --- ---
>
> Though X has the square because he played to both octagons first, players
> don't have to remember who played where first.
I know, I'm not saying they have to. But on a 4.8.8 the five squares
can be claimed at any time by any player in any order. You don't have
that with FCFC. So for example you can fill up the board with black
and white stones completely at random, with no consideration for which
cells were claimed in which order, and have what I consider to be a
"true" win loss compatible game. That matters from an aesthetic
perspective.
> There are no 'dependent'
> connections -- playing the second X MADE the connection, blocking future
> connections.
>
> But in the end, I think that the rule differences matter so little that we
> could play the game EACH USING OUR OWN RULES!
It doesn't matter to me. I'm always going to lose unless playing
someone more awful than me. Doesn't happen too often.
>
> > All these games are going to be a tad kludgy at best. You're
> > shoehorning a stymie prone game into a non-stymie prone form.
>
> So far, I've found games on 4+ valent grids much more difficult to fathom
> than hex. You need a *lot* more space to block. I'm not great at Hex and Y,
> but I can always see what I *should* have done.
>
> Edward -- er, uh -- Ishmael
Aha! Don't worry, I'm pretty much done berating people . . . except
Bill :D It's unbecoming of a 49 year old.
-Mark
Phil Carmody
> On Dec 12, 3:43 am, Phil Carmody <thefatphil_demun...@yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
>>
>> It seems the problem with Mark is that he doesn't satisfy all
>> the former criteria, the ones which would make an anti-social
>> attitude more forgivable, namely those about being well-
>> researched and giving attribution correctly.
>
> I give credit where credit is due. When I accidentally rediscovered
> Hex, I removed it from my website and gave proper attribution.
The concept of anyone pretending to be well-versed in the art
and science of abstract games _not_ being familiar with Hex I
find completely absurd.
Absurd, but remarkably familiar. I moderate a few mathematical
mailing lists specialising in prime numbers. The number of
times I see posters re-inventing the wheel (quite literally
sometimes) is enormous. And most annoying.
The information is out there. There are well-known classic texts
documenting all the fundamental principles of both fields. There
is no reason why anyone should reinvent or rediscover anything
so simple and common.
> Nobody owns the torus game. It's just too damn obvious.
If you can't have it (credit, that is), no-one can?
marks...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Dec 13, 10:47 am, an...@nowhere.org wrote:
>
> > I don't have a problem with that -- I don't think anyone does.
>
> No, it's just as well no-one has a problem with Mark's claims.
>
*My* claims? What about Free Y, the "most canonical game"? It's
beyond preposterous. It's pathological!
Be advised, Bill: The days of "Egos Gone Wild" are over. Yes Bill,
you are entitled to a certain amount of ego. But not *that* much
ego. It's like 12 pounds of shit stuffed into a 10 pound bag,
inflicting structural damage and overflow on the bag. You can't get
near it without getting shit on yourself.
Let's face it, Bill. You haven't really accomplished very much in the
39 years you've been involved with connection games. Your only truly
interesting contribution was Projex - at least that I know of. Maybe
there's a hidden treasure trove somewhere - very well hidden. Gem and
Free Y were mildly innovative. After that it starts dropping off like
Niagara Falls, with Quappy Quax leading the plunge. I think the
question is, What have you done lately? You're resting on my laurels.
-Mark
marks...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "markste...@gmail.com" <markste...@gmail.com> writes:
> >
> The concept of anyone pretending to be well-versed in the art
> and science of abstract games _not_ being familiar with Hex I
> find completely absurd.
I created a square grid connection game that turned out to be
isomorphic to Hex. Pay attention.
>
> Absurd, but remarkably familiar. I moderate a few mathematical
> mailing lists specialising in prime numbers. The number of
> times I see posters re-inventing the wheel (quite literally
> sometimes) is enormous. And most annoying.
I find self-absorbed little twits with unwarranted egos absurd, and
most annoying. What's your contribution here? Complaining about
being subjected to the gross injustice of having to learn my games
while there's a small chance of them being re-invented or flawed?
>
> > Nobody owns the torus game. It's just too damn obvious.
>
> If you can't have it (credit, that is), no-one can?
>
I never claimed credit for the torus game. Far from it. In fact I
already stated in another post that my little contribution, the game
played on a 4.8.8 tessellation, was itself "obvious". Man get the wax
out of your ears, and your head out of your ass.
-Mark