Ta Yu vs. The Game of Y
Richard Glanzer
Fun being subjective of course.
But for purposes here, it should mean, do you want to come back and play
either of these games again and again. Will they make your 10+ list or just
die off.
Richard Glanzer
Doonemd
game comes out. It is also a beautiful came with nice tiles.
William Chang
For some time now (a few months) I have been toying with the idea of
trying to model/abstract the flow of water carving out a mountainside.
A related geometric pattern is the fractal on certain seashells. I may
have started thinking about this after reading the following description
of Craige Schensted's Star on Mark Thompson's web site:
[R. Wayne Schmittberger on his adaptation:] "Maxi-Star places perhaps too
much emphasis on the center in the early going, but later on, edge play
gets quite interesting, as each player tries to undermine the other's
biggest star by scooping out territory underneath it."
(For full quote see http://www.flash.net/~markthom/html/star.html)
The image in my mind is a root-pattern forming or tributaries of a river.
The Gigamic game of stacking pencil-like sticks to see who has the longest
chain (name escapes me, and I can no longer find it on www.gigamic.com)
was possibly another inspiration. Then Greg Van Patton's web page on
bridging Hex and Go (http://www.rpi.edu/~vanpag/GoHex.html) struck a real
chord and inspired me to codify some simple mechanics, whereas earlier
I had been merely accumulating great-sounding game names of a watery nature
:-) This is very much a work-in-progress as I believe the theme is rich
enough for a great many games that are surprisingly complex to play,
despite having a simple basic idea at the core. Your help is requested to
refine these games!
o x o x o x (1) Double-move -- x places one stone, then
. . . . . . . players alternate placing up to two stones.
. . . . . . . . (2) Each stone is placed next to and below a
. . . . . . . . . stone of the same color.
. . . . . . . . . . (3) Player who occupies more of the bottom-most
. . . . . . . . . . . row wins.
The game couldn't be simpler or quicker to play, but I haven't "figured
it out" after several games. The next variant would allow a stone to be
placed at the same level as a friendly stone (2A). A more chaotic variant
requires only adjacency to a stone of either color (2B), but a stone cut
off from receiving (downward or sideways) "flow" is immediately removed
(similar idea as Greg's). Finally, stones can be placed anywhere (2C).
I call this series of games Cascades.
After the bottom row is filled, the game can be continued where the
board progressively _narrows_ instead of widens. This variant can also
be arranged in a ring with a predetermined starting position and stones
(dry streambeds?) flowing toward a central "lake" (which may even be
empty, in which case whoever occupies the center wins).
. . . . . . . . . . . x o x o
. . . . . . . . . . o . . . x Too small
. . . . . . . . . x . . . . o of a board!
. . . . . . . . o . . . . x
. . . . . . . x . . . . o
. . . . . . o . . . x
. . . . . x o x o
I have named this game BigBasin, after a local mountain formation in
Northern California. (It could have been called Tahoe or something.)
I think more work needs to be done here than in Cascades.
Regarding a long-standing discussion in rec.games.board on what to call
the recent run of "German" games (Alan Moon suggested "designer games")
-- I'd call them "abstract theme games". While all games try to abstract
a natural or social phenomenon into a simplified, recognizable pattern,
the German games do a better job of presenting both the abstraction and
the theme, than most earlier "American" games (abstract or themed but
seldom both). The best example of an abstract theme game is probably
chess; 1,000 years ago the answer may have been Go/WeiQi but that game's
theme has gone with the wind...
The family of games I call Cascades and BigBasin are attempts at creating
an abstract theme game based on a ubiquitous pattern, the flow of water.
Any suggestions or comments will be greatly appreciated,
William Chang Los Gatos, California 16 April 2001
email: willia...@hotmail.com, wch...@acm.org
(C) 2001 William I. Chang
Ralf Gering
Hello,
> o x o x o x (1) Double-move -- x places one stone, then
> . . . . . . . players alternate placing up to two stones.
> . . . . . . . . (2) Each stone is placed next to and below a
> . . . . . . . . . stone of the same color.
> . . . . . . . . . . (3) Player who occupies more of the bottom-most
> . . . . . . . . . . . row wins.
> The game couldn't be simpler or quicker to play, but I haven't "figured
> it out" after several games.
The game appears to be interesting. However, I would like to see a
much bigger board or do you intend to create another children's game?
> The next variant would allow a stone to be
> placed at the same level as a friendly stone (2A).
I think i just solved this variant for any board size.
Both players try to reach the central square(s) of the bottom-most row as
fast as possible. This results in a straight race of one flow by each
player. As soon the bottom is reached the players spread their stones to
one side of the board.
If the bottom-most row numbers an even number of squares the game is a
draw, otherwise it is a win for the second player because he is ahead in
the race.
> A more chaotic variant
> requires only adjacency to a stone of either color (2B), but a stone cut
> off from receiving (downward or sideways) "flow" is immediately removed
> (similar idea as Greg's).
The pieces cannot move, right? This means that a stone cannot be cut off
from the "flow" except it is placed on a square where it is not connected
to the flow right from the beginning. However, it doesn't make sense in
this game to place a stone on the board which is removed immediately.
> Finally, stones can be placed anywhere (2C).
This makes no sense to me either. Could you please explain your idea?
What would be the goal of this game, etc. ???
> I call this series of games Cascades.
Except the first one, these are not games. These are just ideas of games.
Panther
William Chang
news:Pine.LNX.4.30.010417...@linux40.zdv.uni-tuebingen.de..
.
> > o x o x o x (1) Double-move -- x places one stone, then
> > . . . . . . . players alternate placing up to two
stones.
> > . . . . . . . . (2) Each stone is placed next to and below a
> > . . . . . . . . . stone of the same color.
> > . . . . . . . . . . (3) Player who occupies more of the
bottom-most
> > . . . . . . . . . . . row wins.
> > The game couldn't be simpler or quicker to play, but I haven't "figured
> > it out" after several games.
>
> The game appears to be interesting. However, I would like to see a
> much bigger board or do you intend to create another children's game?
High praise from you! Especially for a game with such obvious rules.
The game generalizes to any MxN board. Without more experience
playing and "figuring it out" I don't know how M and N affect playability.
My intuition suggests 8x8 (really 8x15 if you measured it at the bottom)
is already nontrivial and 10x10 might be "tournament". Of course, this
assumes the game isn't "solved" in short order...
(By the way, in my experience a motivated "child" can beat almost all
adults who after all have to worry about living.)
> > The next variant would allow a stone to be
> > placed at the same level as a friendly stone (2A).
>
> I think i just solved this variant for any board size.
> Both players try to reach the central square(s) of the bottom-most row as
> fast as possible. This results in a straight race of one flow by each
> player. As soon the bottom is reached the players spread their stones to
> one side of the board.
> If the bottom-most row numbers an even number of squares the game is a
> draw, otherwise it is a win for the second player because he is ahead in
> the race.
Very good, thank you. I will work on a fix.
> > A more chaotic variant
> > requires only adjacency to a stone of either color (2B), but a stone cut
> > off from receiving (downward or sideways) "flow" is immediately removed
> > (similar idea as Greg's).
>
> The pieces cannot move, right? This means that a stone cannot be cut off
> from the "flow" except it is placed on a square where it is not connected
> to the flow right from the beginning. However, it doesn't make sense in
> this game to place a stone on the board which is removed immediately.
I meant and should have written "potential" flow. Hope this clarifies.
A black stone can be placed below white stones so that in theory it can
receive flow later -- but if white fenced it in (by playing above and to
both
sides of it for example) it may become a "dead" stone. One can legitimately
ask whether it becomes dead as soon as it's fenced in, or only when there
is no possible further play (namely the elimination of stones above and to
the side of it) that can give it "life". Let's take the simpler rule for
now --
capture is defined without consideration of future capture. (There are
two different games here; let's call the other 2D.) Example:
x x x _ x say black can capture three white stones by filling in _
x o o o x
o x o <- does this white stone capture the black stone next to it?
> > Finally, stones can be placed anywhere (2C).
>
> This makes no sense to me either. Could you please explain your idea?
> What would be the goal of this game, etc. ???
Let's say black placed stones in the bottom row while white filled in the
topmost playable row. The black stones are eliminated and white wins
a shutout. The game is actually Hex-like but with life and death defined
by possible connection to the row of origin. It is quite possible that one
could prove mathematically that playing "higher" is always better -- then
the game is flawed and the rules should be rewritten. (A simple rule
change would be to score all territory instead of just the bottom row.)
> > I call this series of games Cascades.
>
> Except the first one, these are not games. These are just ideas of games.
>
> Panther
These are prototypes that need playtesting, as was requested.
At least the first one is clear :-) At the conclusion of each of these
games, the following is true: Each stone in the bottom row is connected
to the row of origin by a possibly meandering flow of friendly stones.
How many essentially different final configurations are possible?
Looking forward to further comments,
-- William