Crossway unplayable

[Nihlus]

I have spent some time trying to figure out how to play a game called
Crossway and came to the conclusion that it is unplayable. The reason
is that there are 8 directions in which a chain can be extended
(compared to 6 in Hex) and only one blocking mechanism in the form of
the X pattern. Unfortunately the mechanism is very weak: you need 2
stones to cut off just one diagonal direction, all the other ones
still being available. As a consequence it is almost impossible to
stop an advancing chain - a minimum of 7 empty lines are needed for
that. I have spent way too much time on this ill-designed game. Can I
have it back? I think that game designs should be treated as software
- without proper playtesting and accompanying examples of gameplay,
hints on tactics and strategy they should not be published. Another
rubbish game in Mr. Steer's collection is Rush. It is so pointless
though I am not going to waste any more time on it.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 27-Nov-2011, Nihlus <ho...@valentimex.com> wrote:
>
> I have spent some time trying to figure out how to play a
> game called Crossway and came to the conclusion that
> it is unplayable.

By you.

Crossway rule sheet:
http://www.marksteeregames.com/Crossway_rules.pdf

> it is almost impossible to stop an advancing chain

You've unwittingly illuminated the phenomenal power in Crossway gameplay.
Highly intelligent Crossway players (which excludes me and which apparently
excludes you as well) can move through the walls of lesser players like a
Ninja.

> Can I have it back?

You're entitled to a full refund.

> Another rubbish game in Mr. Steer's collection is Rush. It is
> so pointless though I am not going to waste any more time on
> it.

Rush is not my best game. But Crossway is among my very best. Nay, not my
very best. *The* very best.

-Mark Steere

Mark Steere Games
http://www.marksteeregames.com/index.html

[Nihlus]

On Nov 27, 6:56 pm, markste...@gmail.com wrote:

> On 27-Nov-2011, Nihlus <h...@valentimex.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I have spent some time trying to figure out how to play a
> > game called Crossway and came to the conclusion that
> > it is unplayable.
>
> By you.
>
> Crossway rule sheet:
>  http://www.marksteeregames.com/Crossway_rules.pdf
>
> > it is almost impossible to stop an advancing chain
>
> You've unwittingly illuminated the phenomenal power in Crossway gameplay.
> Highly intelligent Crossway players (which excludes me and which apparently
> excludes you as well)

May I see an example game between two 'highly intelligent Crossway
players'? I would like very much to change my mind about Crossway
(given that I would like to see a good connection game on a standard
19x19 Go board) and a high level example game with commentary would go
a long way towards this end. As I mentioned in my other comments
example games and hints about tactics and strategy are an essential
part of responsible game design. There are none on your website.
Unless you can supply the evidence of of the existence of such players
and such games I take it you are just trolling. The game sites which
support Crossway have no indication of any activity around this game.

> can move through the walls of lesser players like a Ninja.

Indeed, if the beginners cannot figure out how to stop an advancing
chain it will take just 19 Ninja-like moves to finish the game. I hope
you enjoy doing this. I don't. According to my analysis 7 lines of a
buffer space are needed to stop the advance of the first player after
his first move. This means that the initial advance starting from the
middle almost ends on the edge of the board. If anything, this game is
not particularly suitable for 19x19 goban. And why bother if Slither
can be played on 13x13? The problem is with too many degrees of
freedom of chain extension and weak blocking mechanism. Anyway I look
forward to seeing the example games (without much hopes though).

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 27-Nov-2011, Nihlus <ho...@valentimex.com> wrote:

> May I see an example game between two 'highly intelligent
> Crossway players'?

http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/Crossway/Crossway.php?archive-109

Chmeee and fritzd are both highly intelligent Crossway players. Black moved
first and yet White won. If Crossway were a race as you claim, Black would
always win. In fact nothing could be further from the truth. With the
giant board, there are plenty of equitable starting points, which one would
select in observance of the pie rule.

> As I mentioned in my other comments example games and hints
> about tactics and strategy are an essential part of responsible game
> design.

Fuck you.

> And why bother if Slither can be played on 13x13?

So play fucking Slither. I don't give a fuck what you play. Stop wasting
my time, you asswipe.

[Nihlus]

On Nov 27, 10:01 pm, markste...@gmail.com wrote:

> http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/Crossway/Crossway.php?archive-109
Unfortunately this game exactly illustrates what I was saying. Black
abandoned his first move advantage and from move two played as if he
was the second player. He was totally unable to stop White's advance
(not even for a moment) and gave up after just 12 turns. If you call
this game an example of highly skilled play than I say it is
medication time for you.

> Fuck you. fucking Slither. you asswipe.
Perhaps you should try your hand at some Scrabble variations? There
your talents would really shine. As for your abstract games designs I
regret to say that the emperor's clothes are missing and there is
little hope for improvement.

> Stop wasting my time.
I never addressed my post to you personally. I was just hoping to see
some responses from people who have spent some time playing this game.
Only the author of the game replies... how sad.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 27-Nov-2011, Nihlus <ho...@valentimex.com> wrote:

> > http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/Crossway/Crossway.php?archive-109
> Unfortunately this game exactly illustrates what I was saying.
> Black abandoned his first move advantage and from move two
> played as if he was the second player.

Ohhhhh, I see. Crossway is an automatic win for Black unless Black
"abandons his first move advantage". Thanks for clearing that up.

Stop waffling, you self important twit.

> the emperor's clothes are missing and there is
> little hope for improvement.

Your head's up your ass and there's little hope for fresh air.

> I never addressed my post to you personally. I was just
> hoping to see some responses from people who have
> spent some time playing this game.

The throngs of Crossway fans lurking in rga must have overlooked your
question. Piss off.

[marks...@gmail.com]

Do you have any concept of what the pie rule is, Nihlus? Just wondering.

[marks...@gmail.com]

The example game was a little lopsided. There isn't a huge data sample to
draw on.

http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv/Crossway/Crossway.php?archive-109

Fritzd is Paul van Wamelen, the best Crossway player I know of. He
developed the Ninja tactics. Chmeee is Nie Wiescz, world renowned Hex
player. His Crossway play is comparatively weak.

I've got a lovely way to clear all this up, Nihlus. Go to Richard Rognlie's
Gamerz.net, and challenge Fritzd to a game of Crossway, with you moving
first. Claim the center point and ask Fritzd not to invoke the pie rule,
which I suspect he will oblige. Then watch yourself get totally creamed,
Ninja style. That should remove all of your doubts about the validity of
Crossway. Let me know how it turns out.

[Nihlus]

Perhaps it is time to make this discussion more constructive. I do not
claim that this game is broken, i.e. it is trivially autowin for any
side. Please note I said that the first move assault CAN be stopped
before it reaches the edge. It may well turn out that at this point
the side pushing the attack will be in serious trouble so a previous
restraint should be exercised. The problem is elsewhere. Grab a goban
or MultiGo program and look at the following examples:

1) Black: K10, White: K6, M8, O6, M6, M4, L5, K4, L4, L3

The L3 move is the tenth move in the game and only then the X pattern
starts to work. The real problem here is that the Black's tactic's is
entirely trivial: move in steps of two, but the tactics for White have
to be calculated with surgical precision five moves forward - misplace
one stone and the game is over. Calculating such long exact sequences
in over the board play is very difficult. This creates a huge
imbalance between the attacking and defending side (not necessarily
specifically between Black and White). You may proudly claim 'I do not
play the game I make the the game' but not playing the game makes you
blind to the practical difficulties your games create in real play.
Difficulties which can render the game 'unplayable' from the practical
point of view, not 'broken' in the sense of a trivial winning tactics.

Another example:

2) K10, K6, K7, K8, L8, L9, M10, M9, N9, N8

This is another sequence forced by putting the second black stone on
K7. The reply K8! is far from trivial and required a lot of trial and
error on my part to discover. Essentially every move in this game
becomes a complicated puzzle requiring in excess of 10 plies of
analysis just to avoid immediate disaster which in practice excludes
any long term planning and turns the game into a russian rulette for a
vast majority of players (if not for all of them). And for every game
the community of players forms a pyramid - without a wide base there
can be no high summit.

The game is not trivial just too tactical to play. I would compare it
to solving the traveling salesman problem by hand. It theory feasible
in practice not so much.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 28-Nov-2011, Nihlus <getht...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps it is time to make this discussion more constructive.

Well sure. If it's constructive discussion you want, don't come bounding
into the group like a urine soaked wino, hollering about "rubbish" MSG
games.

> The game is not trivial just too tactical to play.

Too tactical FOR YOU to play. Please stop projecting your inadequacies on
my game, Nihlus.

[Mark Steere]

On Nov 28, 9:01 am, Nihlus <gethtroo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Grab a goban or MultiGo program and look at the
> following examples:
>
> 1) Black: K10, White: K6, M8, O6, M6, M4,
> L5, K4, L4, L3

> ...

> Calculating such long exact sequences in over the
> board play is very difficult. This creates a huge

> imbalance between the attacking and defending side...

This is all beyond me.  Maybe the Wamster can enlighten us.

[Mark Steere]

There isn't any sort of "huge imbalance" in Crossway. Not with the
pie rule. Just as in Hex, the center point is an excellent first
move, the corners are terrible first moves, and there's a range of
possibilities in between, including some very equitable ones.

You didn't answer my question about your knowledge of the pie rule,
Nihlis, and you still seem to have no knowledge of the pie rule. If
you want to comport yourself as an authority on connection games, you
might want to learn about the pie rule. Rare is the connection game
(Atoll, Fractal) that doesn't need it.

[Mark Steere]

If you really want to learn Crossway, Nihlus, something I would
consider a noble endeavor, study with the Wamster.  I can't contact
the Wamster because he doesn't like me, inexplicably.  But I think
you'll find him friendly and accommodating.

How much spoon feeding do you need in life, Nihlus?  "I need examples
and explanations!"  "I can't win; therefore this game sucks!"  What a
baby.

It's not enough I provide free games.  I gotta change your diaper and
wipe your butt.

[Mark Steere]

Crossway in particular doesn't require play testing beyond determining
the best board sizes for various skill levels.  Why?  In a word,
architecture.  Crossway is one of my most organic designs.

There are only two possibilities for Crossway gameplay. Totally broken
or totally awesome.  And there's only one problem Crossway could have.
Turn order advantage.  Since there are equitable starting moves
available, and since the pie rule is used, and since it's highly
scalable, Crossway's magnificence can be deduced.

If you look at the stats on Game Site X, Hex has  53% TOA and Crossway
has a 52.5% TOA.  Both of these stats are misleading since both games
are ideal.  The skewed stats reflect a non-understanding of the pie
rule by beginners (e.g. you).

You've discovered a game that's too hard for you.

[Jackspritz]

I'd like to chime in here. First off Nihius I am Corey Clark the
inventor of Slither. I'll say that Slither and Crossway are two very
different gameplay experiences. Slither has movement and almost cold
positions where you can lose tempo while Crossway is truer to its
predecessor, Hex. I doubt that Crossway is as thoroughly unplayable as
you say, especially when you take in to account the complete garbage
being designed today. I'd only played Crossway once as the second
player against a somewhat experienced player, Daniel Schultz and won,
so I think the game is playable at some level at least. This kind of
reminds me of Bill Taylor's recent "expose" on my other game Ki where
he described how you could make these 2x2 blocks that were
invulnerable to capture, what he failed to account for is that
creating this blocks is not an effective strategy because it doesn't
generate global influence over the board. Ki was playtested
extensively because it was almost unbelievable that it could play well
with no coldness and such simple rules but a few Go enthusiasts on
iggc demonstrated that it had quite a bit of depth for what it was. I
think Mark probably would've had the professional rigor to playtest
crossway and I don't think its fair to claim he didn't. The thing
about Crossway and Ki is you can't really blame designers for
releasing games like these even if they turned out to not be
tournament material because of their simplicity.

> Perhaps you should try your hand at some Scrabble variations? There
> your talents would really shine. As for your abstract games designs I

> regret to say that the emperor's clothes are missing and there is
> little hope for improvement.

Mark Steere invented Hex Oust, that alone is enough to commit him to
the abstract game design hall of fame. In all honesty, I'd have to
agree that there are a few unexceptional games in his resume but
that's to be expected in any designer who has a resume featuring so
many games. Mark has also made some very acclaimed abstracts like
Cephalopod. But here's something else, without Mark Steere's designs
and in particular Hex Oust I probably wouldn't have developed an
appreciation for finite and draw free games and the advent of Slither
may have never been! I don't think you can write off his whole resume,
featuring 20 some odd games because one of them didn't meet your
standards. And I highly recommend you play Hex Oust and try to tell me
that it's a bad game.

[Nihlus]

--------------------------------------

> I'd only played Crossway once as the second player against a somewhat experienced player,
> Daniel Schultz and won, so I think the game is playable at some level at least.

As I wrote Crossway has a feeling of Russian rulette because basic
tactics are excessively complicated. It is very easy to attack and
very hard to defend. For me this imbalance of perceived difficulty
indicates that a forcing winning tactics may be present shallow under
the surface of the rules (at least on 19x19 board). Examples which I
presented show that even with perfect defence it takes a lot of space
and many precise movements to stop the advance. A beginner winning
with an experienced player (as happened to you) fits well into this.
Such things just do not happen in games like Chess or Go etc. As Mr.
Steere freely admitted (and more than once) he is unable to play any
games on a level higher than basic so his game productions are
necessarily more or less random untested collections of rules. As the
abstract games have a nice feature that they have a life of their own
it is of course fully possible that a game or two in this flood of
random mediocrity may be playable including Oust. Hey, it may even be
a very good game. This also means that in general people will be
wasting their time looking for things that cannot be found in the
majority of Mr. Steere's productions. This is why I wrote this post.
To share my testing of the game with the others. If you claim that the
games of Mr. Steere inspired you to create Slither then I would say
that this is the best that followed from his activity.

Writing about Scrabble I refered to this famous and and well-tested
game:

Fuckkle (The original F... You game). By Mark. S. Work in progress.
Here are the condensed rules:
1) The game is played between Mark S. and other players of his
choosing on various internet fora.
2) Mark S. starts by saying F... You.
3) Players may pass their turn. Two consecutive passes DO NOT end the
game.
4) Mark S. wins. Always.
5) Draws cannot happen in Fuckkle.
6) Players should not urinate on Mark. S and his greatness.
7) Mark. S is the TZAR of urinating and can urinate left, right and
center.
8) If you do not like rule number 6) you can piss off.
9) Fuckkle is among the very best games of Mark. S. Nay, not his very
best. *The* very best.
10) Goto 4)
11) Highly intelligent players play Mark. S' games.

Puzzle: what is wrong with rule number 11)?
A hint for Mr. Steere: unreachable code.

[Nick Bentley]

While I think that this argument is mostly silly (if entertaining)
I've lately come to agree that designers should supply strategy notes
with their games. It's 1000x easier to understand a game and develop a
notion of why I might be interested in it with strategy notes.

If we all supplied strategy notes then the wheat might separate from
the chaff more quickly. Nobody would have paid any attention to
Slither if I hadn't spent a year haranguing people to take a look at
it. Strategy notes would have made it way easier for people to see
what's so great about it.

I've only posted strategy notes for one of my games but I can say
definitively that it's helped people see the game through my eyes.
I'm gonna do it more from now on.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 29-Nov-2011, Jackspritz <schac...@live.com> wrote:

> I think Mark probably would've had the professional rigor
> to playtest crossway

I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I didn't test Crossway beyond a
couple of quick, make-sure-it-works, tiny board run throughs. Once I get
the concept, it's burning a hole in my head. The fun is about over and it's
time for the work to begin. I have to come up with a name, write a rule
sheet, and post it, while having no desire to ever actually play it.

> Mark Steere invented Hex Oust, that alone is enough to commit
> him to the abstract game design hall of fame.

Thanks :)

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 29-Nov-2011, Nihlus <getht...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> As I wrote Crossway has a feeling of Russian rulette...

> It is very easy to attack and very hard to defend.

In Crossway, there's no distinction between offense and defense.

> Fuckkle

Weren't you the guy calling for "constructive discussion"?

> 2) Mark S. starts by saying F... You.

You left out a couple of steps. You titled this thread "Crossway uplayable"
and called my games rubbish, which I totally let slide. You then followed
up by whining about the goban and pontificating about my responsibilities as
a designer. *Then* I said Fuck you.

Who walks into a forum for the first time and starts brawling with everyone?

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 29-Nov-2011, Nick Bentley <nicko...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I've lately come to agree that designers should supply
> strategy notes with their games.

Nick... [defeated sigh] If I had "strategy notes" for Crossway, I'd supply
them.

Nihlus already understands Crossway better than I ever did. I've directed
him to the expert, the Wamster. But no. He'd rather stay here and cry
about how he was wronged.

Designers have a responsibility to produce a complete, unambiguous rule
sheet. That's it.

A message to my whining fans: Fuck off.

[Nick Bentley]

No doubt you have no obligation. But for the designer's own benefit,
it can be worth it. I know you think good games will eventually spread
on their own, but I don't share your faith. I think most games, great
or terrible, will be lost without some attempt to communicate them.
Which seems like a waste.

[Nihlus]

Who is Wamster?

> I can't contact the Wamster because he doesn't like me, inexplicably.

Probably, he doesn't like the Californian Scrabble.

> "I can't win; therefore this game sucks!"

To the contrary. I win too easily, even against myself; therefore... I
am looking for hints and examples that will make this game last
longer, give it some suspense. Something, anything. But just hiding
behind the pie rule is pathetic.

> It's not enough I provide free games.

Appreciated.

> Nihlus already understands Crossway better than I ever did.

I take it as an excess of courtesy. What I only understand is that
Crossway stands out from the crowd. If it did not I would not as much
as spit on it let alone start a post. Just need to know if it is
playable. Too many games out there. There is a potential in it but it
may not be enough. 5 in a row has a potential but is skewed. Connect6
uses the same idea and is perfect. Things are proved in the gameplay
not just by the rules. This is so called human factor.

> Who walks into a forum for the first time and starts brawling with everyone?

You are not everyone.

[Nick Bentley]

> Connect6 uses the same idea and is perfect.

Connect 6 is good but not perfect. Between the best players it starts
to get drawish, and will probably become moreso as the best players
get better. For this reason, I've come to prefer Pente is the best N-
in-a-row game to date. Though like most N-in-a-row games, the strategy
is obscure.

[Mark Steere]

On Nov 29, 11:36 am, Nihlus <gethtroo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> Who is [the] Wamster?

Paul van Wamelen, who is fritzd at gamerz.net.

[Jackspritz]

On Nov 29, 8:46 am, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody would have paid any attention to
> Slither if I hadn't spent a year haranguing people to take a look at
> it. Strategy notes would have made it way easier for people to see
> what's so great about it.

Nick I feel the horrible name combined with the poorly written rules
page and my generally poor promotion of it in 2010 were the main
reasons it went unnoticed for so long. Looking back I honestly don't
know what I was thinking... But I do appreciate the haranguing efforts
greatly, especially haranguing me to do something about the name. :P

[Harald Korneliussen]

On Nov 29, 8:11 pm, Nick Bentley <nickobe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think most games, great or terrible, will be lost without some attempt to communicate them.

I agree.

> Which seems like a waste.

I don't agree. Producing an idea and leaving others to test it, is not
really a big contribution. Anyone can do it. You do it a lot, but it
isn't a problem because you don't demand that your untested ideas
should be treated as gold.

[Harald Korneliussen]

On Nov 29, 9:54 am, Jackspritz <schackow...@live.com> wrote:

> I think Mark probably would've had the professional rigor to playtest
> crossway

I don't. His schtick is "genius by design". Actually playing it with
other people and getting feedback on gameplay just means potential
enragement if his genius isn't immediately recognized. Also, you need
to play at a decent level to evaluate a game; Steere's ego is way too
big to invest in something as risky as trying to get really good in
his games: what if he should fail?

Even more spluttering, overcompensating rage, that's what would
happen. No, Steere being what he is, it's good that he plays as little
as possible.

Of course, Crossway isn't broken. It's too technically similar to Hex
for that. But neither is it particularly interesting for players (due
to its gameplay similarity to far more popular connection games).

[christian]

On Nov 30, 11:43 am, Harald Korneliussen <vinterm...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course, Crossway isn't broken. It's too technically similar to Hex
> for that. But neither is it particularly interesting for players (due
> to its gameplay similarity to far more popular connection games).

Deductive predictions of behaviour can be made to a degree. It's easy
to see, without ever having played, that Hex and Crossway will 'work'
and that both can be balanced to a degree by using the pie rule. But
considering the level of play displayed (pun intended) by the top
players, a level I couldn't aspire to, yet understand because I'm a
Havannah player, then I'm in awe. Looking at Crossway I see a tactical
haywire that, for me at least, is in severe opposition to Hex' clarity
and it's space for strategical planning.

A point in case: Query (http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/
query-548) has actually never been playtested. It's based on the
"it'll work" approach and published because I had other babies to take
care of. As far as I can see, it also compares unfavorably to Hex, but
I see no reason to dismiss it for that alone. Whether it has a
sufficient degree of clarity to allow strategic planning, and/or
whether it is fun, remains to be seen.

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 30-Nov-2011, Harald Korneliussen <vinte...@gmail.com> wrote:

> His schtick is "genius by design".

> ...

> potential enragement if his genius isn't immediately recognized.

> ...

> Steere's ego is way too big

> ...
> overcompensating rage
> ...

> Steere being what he is,

Did you happen to notice my message to my whining fans a couple of posts
back?

[marks...@gmail.com]

On 30-Nov-2011, christian <chri...@mindsports.nl> wrote:

> Deductive predictions of behaviour can be made to a degree.

Yes, like Kornholeiussen showing up here and playing the buffoon.
Clockwork.

[luigi]

On 30 nov, 15:19, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> A point in case: Query (http://mindsports.nl/index.php/the-pit/
> query-548)

Just for the record, the idea behind Query was already mentioned in
2008 by some guy called Torben Ægidius Mortensen, before you
independently invented it. It was here:

http://www.gamesforum.ca/archive/index.php/t-339451.html

I quote:

> 1. Use a checker board. Only black-to-black corners connect
> (regardless of who plays them). This makes black squares more
> valuable than white squares, but this is symmetrical for both
> players. This topologically equivalent to a square/octagon grid,
> but avoids plays on corners.

Speaking of which, I thought of an improvement on it a while ago. Here
it goes:

Black starts making one step. From then on, every turn is made of two
steps. A step consists of performing one of the following actions:

a) Placing a stone of your color on an empty White square.
b) Moving a stone of your color from a White square to a Black square.

You must make at least one step on every turn. As before, two like-
colored stones are considered to be connected if they occupy
orthogonally adjacent squares or diagonally adjacent _black_ squares.
Winning condition as usual.

I named it Quaxtep, as horrible a name as any.

This game is more flexible than Christian & Torben's (and probably
many others') idea. In fact, it's a generalization of it, with one
exception: in my game, if you occupy all White (c4) squares
surrounding a Black (c8) square, your opponent can't play on that
square.

Needless to say, since all squares are legal placements to at least
one of the players, this game is still drawless. Also, White squares
aren't "discriminated" anymore, as you must necessarily play on them
before moving to black squares.

[Mark Steere]

On Nov 30, 7:54 am, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I named it Quaxtep,

Not directing this specifically at you, Luigi, but I'm really calling
for some group restraint on all the "I-call-its" for minor variations
of other peoples' games.  It's grating.

[christian]

Ah, no wonder I missed that :) It's the basic idea all right, but not
implemented the same way (1 move c8 or 2 moves c4). Not that it
matters all that much, it's all a bit middle of the road anyway.

I'm not entirely sure about Quaxtep, but the name does indeed sound
like dancing on mud. It looks very promising, but I feel a bit
uncomfortable with the exception, the surrounded C8 point. What made
you decide to implement that (since it clearly feels like a means to
an end rule)?

[luigi]

On 30 nov, 18:05, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
> I'm not entirely sure about Quaxtep, but the name does indeed sound
> like dancing on mud. It looks very promising, but I feel a bit
> uncomfortable with the exception, the surrounded C8 point. What made
> you decide to implement that (since it clearly feels like a means to
> an end rule)?

That one exception is _not_ an explicit rule, but just an implication
of the rule that you can only occupy a Black square by moving from an
adjacent White square. If all the White squares around a Black square
are occupied by the enemy, you can't possibly occupy that square. It's
inherent in the organism, as you see.

As for the name, Mark, it isn't written in stone. I just mentioned it
to make references easier. Still, most of the games in the quad-board
connection family are already minor variations of each other:
Crossway, Quickway, Query, Quax, Quadrex... In fact, none of these
five features movement of pieces, so the game I suggested does have a
character of its own. Of course, Slither is everything Quaxtep (or
whatever) always wanted to be, which is why I hadn't mentioned it
earlier, but I do believe that it's an improvement on Query.

[christian]

On Nov 30, 7:31 pm, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 30 nov, 18:05, christian <christ...@mindsports.nl> wrote:
>
> That one exception is _not_ an explicit rule, but just an implication
> of the rule that you can only occupy a Black square by moving from an
> adjacent White square. If all the White squares around a Black square
> are occupied by the enemy, you can't possibly occupy that square. It's
> inherent in the organism, as you see.
>

Stop making me feel stupid! ;-)

[luigi]

On 30 nov, 16:54, luigi <luis.9.8...@gmail.com> wrote:
> b) Moving a stone of your color from a White square to a Black square.

I mean to an _adjacent_ Black square, of course.

> all squares are legal placements to at least
> one of the players,

So, for the sake of completeness, passing is only allowed if you have
no placements available, as in Crossway and Slither.

[Tony]

Op dinsdag 29 november 2011 18:28:09 UTC+1 schreef Mark Steere het volgende:

Just for the record: Crossway is certainly a great game. It is light and quick and very funny to play on a real board against Go-only-players who get nerve wrecked when they're told that it's forbidden to cut! And if anyone would think the game is flawed or superficial: please challenge me, and beat me...

[Mark Steere]

On Thursday, August 2, 2012 1:03:52 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
>
> Just for the record: Crossway is certainly a great game. It is light and quick and very funny to play on a real board against Go-only-players who get nerve wrecked when they're told that it's forbidden to cut! And if anyone would think the game is flawed or superficial: please challenge me, and beat me...

Thank you. Crossway is not for everyone, but the few who like it like it a lot. IMO you just have to be smart enough, which I for one am not. There's more going on in Crossway than in Hex and it's hard to grok. Some world famous Hex players totally fail at Crossway because it's over their head.

Btw, Corey Clark is a lowlife kibitzer. Only a total piece of shit would butt in at the end of a long game and offer advice to one of the players. What a fucking retard.

[Corey L. Clark]

On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:10:04 AM UTC-6, Mark Steere wrote:
> Btw, Corey Clark is a lowlife kibitzer. Only a total piece of shit would butt in at the end of a long game and offer advice to one of the players. What a fucking retard.

Nobody knows what you are talking about, you're making an ass of yourself. Even if they did know you would still be making an ass of yourself because it was a fucking win in 1. I said "you've won greg" when Greg VanPatten had a win in one during a Hex Oust game. Mark unlike you I don't believe in mystical kibitzing, I rather doubt there was some sort of strategy encoded in the words "you've won greg". If anything at best it was just some encouragement. Obviously I was cheering for the right team given what a sore loser and incessant whiner you are.

[Mark Steere]

On Aug 3, 2:07 pm, "Corey L. Clark" <schackow...@live.com> wrote:
> On Friday, August 3, 2012 9:10:04 AM UTC-6, Mark Steere wrote:
> > Btw, Corey Clark is a lowlife kibitzer.  Only a total piece of shit would butt in at the end of a long game and offer advice to one of the players.  What a fucking retard.
>

> I rather doubt there was some sort of strategy encoded in the words "you've won greg".

If Greg didn't realize he had a winning move, which wasn't obvious to
me at least, you would have tipped him off to it. I'm going to offer
you the same advice I offered Christian after he continually sniveled
about Sygo's lukewarm reception for years. SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!!

[Mark Steere]

One more thing. Crossway is the simplest decisive, square grid connection game.