Free Y. (was: Mobius etc)
Bill Taylor
> the popularity of a game is the least important aspect to me.
> The design as something to behold has always been my focus.
For me, the focus is to have good games with as "simple" and
"canonical" rules as possible. The ideal is to have a game
with very simple rules, but complex and deep strategies.
Go is the classic case, but Hex and Y are more modern ones.
> geometric games. The "golden eggs" ... are these hexagonally
> tessellated, equal goals games in which a filled board produces
> exactly one winner.
I agree. And if the goals for the two players are not merely
isomorphic, but actually *identical*, as in Y, that is a big plus.
Not a necessary one though, OC. But (as Mark says), as I term them,
equi-tasking & win-loss complementarity are vital elements.
> I don't care if these games ever get played. They have a value
> way beyond playability and popularity to me.
Absolutely.
> These games... aren't designed. They're discovered.
Absolutely. Joao Neto and I, who design and play a large number
of these, always use that terminology. Whether or not one takes
a Platonic view of their abstract existence, it is a good measure
to encourage modesty, as well.
> I just swept up a bunch of these golden eggs and put them in
> a basket. There isn't anything major left to be discovered now
Where's that modesty!? ;-) That's a dangerous assumption!
There may well be a lot left to discover.
As an example, you haven't even mentioned "Free Y", which I've
posted on this newsgroup before. IMHO this may turn out to be
the MOST CANONICAL of all the planar connection games.
.........
It is very simple - a hexagonal board, with an odd total number
of boundary cells, sides <6,7,6,7,6,7>, and the like, are best;
i.e. almost-regular hexagons.
The rules are simple - standard connection-game rules,
with the goal for both player being to make a group that:
(a) touches two nearly-opposite border cells; OR
(b) touches three border cells such that the shortest
border-distance between any pair is less than
half the circumference.
(In fact, suitably interpreted, rule "a" is just a special
case (!) of rule "b", but it's better to list them both.)
This highly canonical game is a natural end point of the search
to play Y, not on a triangle, but any other shape of board.
To keep it like Y, one is first tempted to mark out three
side segements of equal length, and play Y on that.
But eventually one realises that it isn't necessary to have
fixed end-points to the three segments - hence "Free Y".
IMHO this is the most natural locally-hex connection game for
planar play. It is also less likely to succumb to over-analysis
of special tactics for near-corner play and so forth.
The ULTIMATE hex-connection game, with THE most canonical goal,
is (IMHO) Projex:- played on a projective plane, with goal merely
to make a global loop. The board has NO corners OR edges!
However, most folk (apart from mathies) don't like playing on
non-planar topology boards. Hence...
> - just a bunch of quirky projective plane games.
...this comment is fairly well justified, sadly.
-- Bill of Board Games.
marks...@gmail.com
wrote:
> Mark Steere makes several important points:
>
> >
>
> Absolutely. Joao Neto and I, who design and play a large number
> of these, always use that terminology.
I saw your game, Gem, which is played on a pentagonal board, in
Cameron Browne's "Connection Games". It's a nice, simple rule set.
One thing that occurred to me though is that the goal of connecting
two adjacent sides and one of their opposite sides is sufficient. The
alternate goal of connecting four sides seems to be redundant since if
you've done that then you've also achieved the first goal.
Your Projex is certainly noteworthy as well, on a number of levels, as
is your Free Y. I'd be interested in any other games you have in this
category.
>
> As an example, you haven't even mentioned "Free Y", which I've
> posted on this newsgroup before.
I'm pretty sure we've discussed Free Y here before - maybe when I
released Begird (http://www.marksteeregames.com/Begird_rules.pdf), a
generalization of Y. One special case of Begird is equivalent to Free
Y, which is referred to as Begird-27 in the rule sheet. I remember
your description of the winning condition. I usually like your
description of a concept better than my own description of the same
concept.
> IMHO this may turn out to be
> the MOST CANONICAL of all the planar connection games.
> .........
Of course I'm biased but I'd make a case for Lariat being the most
canonical. Lariat has a lariat shape and Free Y has a Y shape. Not a
great deal of difference in complexity between the two shapes you have
to form. But in Lariat you don't need an odd number of border cells,
and there's no measurement of distance between pairs of border cells.
There's only one border cell in the winning path.
>
> The ULTIMATE hex-connection game, with THE most canonical goal,
> is (IMHO) Projex:- played on a projective plane, with goal merely
> to make a global loop.
That is a nice, elegant goal, but the board - I personally wouldn't
call it canonical. Yes, as you say, it has no corners or edges, but
its graphical representation does have corners and edges - edges that
can be crossed and recrossed in a bewildering array of convoluted
possibilities. I'm not picking on your game. It's a cool game. But
overall I wouldn't include it among the most canonical.
> The board has NO corners OR edges!
> However, most folk (apart from mathies) don't like playing on
> non-planar topology boards. Hence...
>
> > - just a bunch of quirky projective plane games.
>
> ...this comment is fairly well justified, sadly.
By the way, I'm developing my first themed game. People have
suggested I give it a try a few times over the years so... It's not
really my thing but then again I'm having a lot of fun with it. I'll
make an OT mention of it here if I do end up releasing it.
Nick Wedd
<3324b6d0-068f-4918...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Bill
Taylor <w.ta...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
< snip >
>As an example, you haven't even mentioned "Free Y", which I've
>posted on this newsgroup before. IMHO this may turn out to be
>the MOST CANONICAL of all the planar connection games.
>.........
>
>It is very simple - a hexagonal board, with an odd total number
>of boundary cells, sides <6,7,6,7,6,7>, and the like, are best;
>i.e. almost-regular hexagons.
>
>The rules are simple - standard connection-game rules,
>with the goal for both player being to make a group that:
>
>(a) touches two nearly-opposite border cells; OR
>
>(b) touches three border cells such that the shortest
> border-distance between any pair is less than
> half the circumference.
>
>(In fact, suitably interpreted, rule "a" is just a special
> case (!) of rule "b", but it's better to list them both.)
The way I am reading "b", it does not mean what I believe you intended
it to mean.
How about
touches two or three border cells such that the shortest
border-path including all of them comprises more than half
the border
?
Nick
--
Nick Wedd ni...@maproom.co.uk
marks...@gmail.com
> In message
> <3324b6d0-068f-4918-ba50-9e505aa40...@w1g2000prk.googlegroups.com>, Bill
> Taylor <w.tay...@math.canterbury.ac.nz> writes
>
> < snip >
>
>
>
> >As an example, you haven't even mentioned "Free Y", which I've
> >posted on this newsgroup before. IMHO this may turn out to be
> >the MOST CANONICAL of all the planar connection games.
> >.........
>
> >It is very simple - a hexagonal board, with an odd total number
> >of boundary cells, sides <6,7,6,7,6,7>, and the like, are best;
> >i.e. almost-regular hexagons.
>
> >The rules are simple - standard connection-game rules,
> >with the goal for both player being to make a group that:
>
> >(a) touches two nearly-opposite border cells; OR
>
> >(b) touches three border cells such that the shortest
> > border-distance between any pair is less than
> > half the circumference.
>
> >(In fact, suitably interpreted, rule "a" is just a special
> > case (!) of rule "b", but it's better to list them both.)
>
> The way I am reading "b", it does not mean what I believe you intended
> it to mean.
>
> How about
> touches two or three border cells such that the shortest
> border-path including all of them comprises more than half
> the border
> ?
That's how I would describe it. I think what Bill meant to say was
that the *longest* border distance between any pair is less than half
the circumference - a more concise but perhaps less intuitive
description.
Bill Taylor
>
> > >(b) touches three border cells such that the shortest
> > > border-distance between any pair is less than
> > > half the circumference.
>
> > >(In fact, suitably interpreted, rule "a" is just a special
> > > case (!) of rule "b", but it's better to list them both.)
> > The way I am reading "b", it does not mean what I believe you intended
> > it to mean.
AAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHHH!!!!
Boo-boo.
> > How about
> > touches two or three border cells such that the shortest
> > border-path including all of them comprises more than half
> > the border
Much more concise. Thanks! In fact the "two or three"
could also be dropped, but it's probably best to leave them,
for clarity.
-- Bill of Booboos